Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 1

message: There's discussion on the usefulness of the above template on the talk page there. Hiding  talk 11:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Browsebar]] 

message: I suggest we trawl through Portal space and list all portals and their related sub-pages here.  Sub pages which have no incoming links should be so noted.  Pages should be categorised in the appropriate portal category, for example pages related to Portal:Comics should be placed in :Category:Comics portal.  Where a category doesn't exist, I'd say create it and we can always list it for deletion later if so decided. Hiding  talk 11:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that, and I have been doing so.  But if we list what we've found it saves repeating work and allows us to share resources. Not only that, you get subpages which aren't related to portals, for example I discovered Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured article, Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured picture, Portal:Ancient Rome/Categories, Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured article, Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured picture, Portal:Ancient Rome/Intro but no Portal:Ancient Rome.    Hiding  talk 08:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that any portal with, say, a "Selected anniversaries" section is likely to have hundreds of subpages.  Are all of them going to need category tags? Kirill Lokshin 14:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing portals and their subpages 

message: In my experience, the stub sorting project maintains fairly rigid guidelines for stub templates/categories/creation/etc., and tends to remove anything they don't like in short order.  Is it the intent of this project to enforce a particular structure on portals themselves?  Or merely to keep them organized, with the traditional wide latitude given to individual portal maintainers? Kirill Lokshin 13:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind mainly to make sure we don't get half created portals hanging about the portal space, for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Family Guy and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Park.  I would rather see it used as a talking shop for portal maintainers, for sharing what does and doesn't work, and for generating consensus on contentious issues regarding portals such as the recent discussion over using the term "Featured" in portals.  Your question just seems so broad that it is impossible to answer, to be honest.  Do you have any specific examples in mind?  I mean, to my eye there seems to be a standard look for a portal, namely the boxes.  I'd also, from my point of view, like to see better linking between related portals, for example I maintain Portal:Comics and had been relatively unaware of Portal:Anime and manga; it makes sense we both link to each other.  So I'm not looking to impose top down rigid guidelines over every single aspect of a portal, but areas such as linking up related portals, shared templates such as , discussing unmaintained portals and keeping the portal space maintained are things it would make sense discussing in one area. Does that help?  I'm not typically one for advocating the removal of something in no short order, I'd rather this were a discussion forum. Hiding  talk 09:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of the project? 

message: There are quite a few portals in :Category:Portals and some of the subcategories that are not ready for general viewing.  It's hard to sort them out other than by using Portal:Browse.  I suggest adding a :Category:Portals under construction subcategory to Category:Portals and recategorizing the incomplete portals there.  Also, Template:box portal skeleton should categorize templates to Category:Portals under construction instead of Category:Portals and instructions should be added at Wikipedia:Portal#How to create a new portal for recategorizing a portal once it is ready.  Also, these instructions should be expanded to discuss adding completed and polished portals to Portal:Browse.
I'm willing to do this, but would like some consensus first. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Hiding  talk 12:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Any estimate of how many existing portals would get moved there, incidentally? Kirill Lokshin 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a rough guess after having just gone through almost all the portals fixing a formatting problem caused by a bug in , I would say at least 20%, perhaps more.  That's out of roughly 200 portals, so at least 40 are incomplete. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: After recategorizing all except the :Category:Portal:Geography, there are 43 portals in the Portals under construction category out of 168 total, so more like 25%. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Portals under construction]] 

message: I finished the above recommendations and recategorized all of the portals except those in the :Category:Portal:Geography subcategory (I'll do that tomorrow).
My criteria for recatergorizing a portal was:
* Any redlinks for content sections (but not simply for a red link within the content)
* A portal in user space
Some portals had empty section content, but since they didn't meet the above criteria, I left them in :Category:Portals.  These portals should perhaps also be moved to :Category:Portals under construction:
* Portal:Arts
* Portal:Confucianism
* Portal:Esperanto
* Portal:History of science
* Portal:Sexuality
* Portal:United Nations
* Portal:New Zealand (fixed)
Other portals simply had very minimal content, but were well-formed:
* Portal:Cetaceans
* Portal:International relations
And finally, Portal:Classical Civilisation seemed to have all the content, but the formatting was so corrupted that it was unusable, so I moved it to Portals under construction.  (If I have time, which isn't looking good the next few days, I will try to fix it.)
—Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostly done, some portals were borderline 

message: I've refactored  to direct users here rather than Wikipedia talk:Portal.--cj | talk 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project notice 

message: Just discovered :Category:Portals needing attention.  What do people think, make this a sub-cat of :Category:Portals under construction or merge it into that and delete. Hiding  talk 21:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be a separate category?  A portal can be fully constructed and still need cleanup or other work. Kirill Lokshin 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I see it as separate.  Portals under construction is intended to be instead of :Category:Portals.  I think Portals needing attention could be used in addition to Portals.  In fact, it would be a great place to put those portals I listed above that are missing content, or just lacking enough content. I would make it a subcategory to Portals instead of a subcategory to Portals under construction. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I just went through the portal space and categorised all the main portal pages in either portals or portals under constructions.  There were quite a few uncategorised. My next thought is, should each portal have its own category into which its subpages are categorised?  On top of that, there's a lot of redirects in portal space, I might make a list of them somewhere to keep an eye on them. Hiding  talk 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: should each portal have its own category into which its subpages are categorised?A couple (like three or four) portals have done this.  I don't know if it's really necessary because the "what links here" will reveal them all, but I don't have a strong opinion.  However, I do have a strong opinion that if a portal has such a category, that the category is not a subcategory in the :Category:Portals hierarchy.  You can locate the subpage category easily enough at the bottom of the associated portal page. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We disagree somewhat there then.  Hiding  talk 18:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate?  Do you disagree about having the categories, or about including them in the :Category:Portals hierarchy?  As far as the Portals hierarchy, I don't see the point in "polluting" it with a huge number of categories that basically contain the pieces used to make the main portal page.  These pieces are better located from the main page than through the category hierarchy, which, at least to me, has the purpose of finding the portals.  But maybe that wasn't where you disagree... —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Portals needing attention 

message: I'm working up a list of pages in the portal namespace which I think might warrant a listing at MfD. So far I have:
*Portal:Climate
*Portal:Climate/box-header
*Portal:Democracy/Did you know
*Portal:Democracy/News
*Portal:Democracy/Featured article
*Portal:Democracy/Intro
*Portal:Democracy/Featured picture
*Portal:Democracy/box-footer
*Portal:GMA Network
*Portal:Kolkata/Featured article
*Portal:Kolkata/Intro
Thoughts? Hiding  talk 13:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Portal:GMA Network would actually need to be listed on RfD. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to even bother with that. I've deleted it. Taking the common sense approach, I see no reason why every else in that list can't be deleted right now. Agreed?--cj | talk 10:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a case for WP:IAR, yes. Hiding  talk 12:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just delete them all, then ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Actually, we could plausibly establish a Wikipedia:Portals for deletion process - although it's probably not necessary.--cj | talk 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing for deletion? 

message: I've listed the above for deletion, just dropping a note here.  See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Malaysian expressway system for my reasoning. Hiding  talk 09:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Malaysian expressway system]] 

message: This is an extremely bad precedent. Should this go direct to MFD?--cj | talk 05:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably too small of a subject matter. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be fairly well constructed, actually.  While I'm surprised that there are enough UT-related articles to make this possible, we shouldn't judge portals solely on their scope. Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But doesn't Wikipedia:Portal#How to propose a portal says create portals only on broad topics. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been accepted as a guideline yet, though; and even if it is, it wouldn't really qualify as a sufficient reason to delete things. Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't see a reason why a subject matter and can be completed fully in one article needs its own portal. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's obviously more than one article on this topic (otherwise, it wouldn't really be possible to create even a rudimentary portal).  If your complaint is that there are too many articles on the University of Texas, that's a rather different issue, and one quite beyond the scope of this discussion ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The only exception to judging a portal by its scope would be importance of the topic it covers. This portal, to me at least, clearly fails on both counts - it is seriously limited in scope and it isn't important. I mean, this isn't even a university portal - its a portal for a branch of a university! In my opinion Portal:University is where the buck should stop. That schools are allowed articles is already a point of resentment; this portal sets a precedent to allow portals for schools! What happened to broad subject areas?--cj | talk 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have personal reasons for wanting this portal deleted, but if I wasn't an OU alumnus, I wouldn't see much of a problem with it.  It looks fairly useful and well-stocked, even if it's color scheme is hideous; it looks like a single university can be a broad enough topic to fill out a portal.--ragesoss 05:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I still don't see why we should be judging scope at all, except insofar as portals with a narrow scope usually have trouble in other areas as well.  Let's not drag portal-space into the eternal "notability" debate if we can help it. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid they've alway been a part of it - like it or not. The reason we consider scope is because portals are unique: just because an article or series of articles might be justified for a topic, it doesn't mean a portal is. Why? Because portals are like the Main Page, encompassing wide areas and serving as entry-points to them - that is, redirecting users to a multitude of articles. Portals are drawpoints in themselves - they are a fronts for Wikipedia. Just like Portal:Architecture which was recently reviewed by a prominent web network as one of the top 10 best planning, design, and development websites.--cj | talk 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what does "justified" mean here?  I could see your point if all portals were listed on the main page and there was competition for screen real estate; but most portals will only be found by people actively searching for them.  They may not be useful to very many readers, but some will find them useful; and I really can't see what the harm is in the existence of well-maintained portals—even if they are narrower in scope than one might expect. Kirill Lokshin 15:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:University of Texas at Austin]] 

message: ===Placement and style of portal link===
I started discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, but someone suggested it had wider implications, so I've moved the discussion over here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never realised how many methods there are to link to the portal! Like Stephen, I think the dab link is a bit distracting. Yet it won't serve as much purpose when it is very low down in the article, like in the See also section. I prefer the box in the top right corner where it catches the eye but doesn't make the reader offguard. GizzaChat © 11:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The box in the top-right hand corner still feels spammy to me, I'm afraid. It's as if portals are somehow being regarded as superior to other methods of browsing Wikipedia, so deserve special treatment. I'd be happier to have more links to the portal if it was less prominent. And also that space is often in use with a photo, or in the case of cricket articles with a biographical infobox15, so what do you do then? Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, anything in the top of pages is spammy. Isn't meta information supposed to be only on the talk page? But portals are only semi-meta? I believe the "see also"-section is the best place to put it. --Boivie 12:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That doesn't work too well when the article doesn't have a "See also" section, though ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well somewhere near the end of the article (where =See also= would otherwise be) but above ext links and refs (assuming they're there), cause it really is a see also type of thing we're talking about. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In the case of almost all (and presumably eventually all) cricketer articles, putting / near the top of the article will interfere with the infobox which is also in the top right hand corner. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I confess to being a top right linker, although I've only linked one article to Portal:Comics. Hiding  talk 08:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've refactored this discussion slightly as two separate issues have developed.  I hope that's OK -- Ian ≡ talk 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, where to stop is another issue. We have something over 3000 cricket biographies, before you've even thought about other articles. Should they all link to the portal? If not, which ones should? At the moment, it's all rather haphazard. Many of the most prominent articles do, but many non-prominent articles do too, depending presumably what the original author copied. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Showcased article linking is a good suggestion.  Outside that, I figure the main article, for example, Cricket for Portal:Cricket and so on, should link to the portal, and maybe top level categories in the related category should link to it, so all the cats in :Category:Cricket.  That seems like a fairly good list of places which should link.  To sum up:
*Foo should link to Portal:Foo.
*:Category:Foo and top level categories in :Category:Foo.
*Showcased articles on Portal:Foo.
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo should link to Portal:Foo.
Thoughts, additions or subtractions? Hiding  talk 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that Foo, :Category:Foo and Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo should link to Portal:Foo. But for other articles I prefer if the link is from the talk page. For example like in the Portal:Cars-selected-article-template at Talk:Lincoln Town Car. --Boivie 09:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to portals from articles 

message: I started discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, but someone suggested it had wider implications, so I've moved the discussion over here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never realised how many methods there are to link to the portal! Like Stephen, I think the dab link is a bit distracting. Yet it won't serve as much purpose when it is very low down in the article, like in the See also section. I prefer the box in the top right corner where it catches the eye but doesn't make the reader offguard. GizzaChat © 11:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The box in the top-right hand corner still feels spammy to me, I'm afraid. It's as if portals are somehow being regarded as superior to other methods of browsing Wikipedia, so deserve special treatment. I'd be happier to have more links to the portal if it was less prominent. And also that space is often in use with a photo, or in the case of cricket articles with a biographical infobox15, so what do you do then? Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, anything in the top of pages is spammy. Isn't meta information supposed to be only on the talk page? But portals are only semi-meta? I believe the "see also"-section is the best place to put it. --Boivie 12:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That doesn't work too well when the article doesn't have a "See also" section, though ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well somewhere near the end of the article (where =See also= would otherwise be) but above ext links and refs (assuming they're there), cause it really is a see also type of thing we're talking about. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In the case of almost all (and presumably eventually all) cricketer articles, putting / near the top of the article will interfere with the infobox which is also in the top right hand corner. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I confess to being a top right linker, although I've only linked one article to Portal:Comics. Hiding  talk 08:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement and style of portal link

message: :I've refactored this discussion slightly as two separate issues have developed.  I hope that's OK -- Ian ≡ talk 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, where to stop is another issue. We have something over 3000 cricket biographies, before you've even thought about other articles. Should they all link to the portal? If not, which ones should? At the moment, it's all rather haphazard. Many of the most prominent articles do, but many non-prominent articles do too, depending presumably what the original author copied. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Showcased article linking is a good suggestion.  Outside that, I figure the main article, for example, Cricket for Portal:Cricket and so on, should link to the portal, and maybe top level categories in the related category should link to it, so all the cats in :Category:Cricket.  That seems like a fairly good list of places which should link.  To sum up:
*Foo should link to Portal:Foo.
*:Category:Foo and top level categories in :Category:Foo.
*Showcased articles on Portal:Foo.
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo should link to Portal:Foo.
Thoughts, additions or subtractions? Hiding  talk 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that Foo, :Category:Foo and Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo should link to Portal:Foo. But for other articles I prefer if the link is from the talk page. For example like in the Portal:Cars-selected-article-template at Talk:Lincoln Town Car. --Boivie 09:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Choosing which articles to have a portal link

message: There are some image formatting issues that I just discovered on Portal:History of science as well a number the main portals.  In  Internet Explorer, many images don't show up, while other appear at the bottom of the page or misplaced in some other way.  Any help sorting this out would be appreciated.--ragesoss 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting Help 

message: It would be good if we can use Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines to articulate best-practice for portals. Please add your thoughts.--cj | talk 07:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but do we even have any portal-specific best-practices other than the featured portal criteria? Kirill Lokshin 11:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it could serve as an opportunity to make clear general standards for portals. This would allow as to determine what is "sub-standard".--cj | talk 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines 

message: In working through some updates to the anniversaries section of Portal:Trains, the thought struck me that there really isn't any reason that I can think of to hide the references on the portal page.  Using the <ref> structure and including such tags within the transcluded pages, it's trivial to create a section at the bottom of the page with  where they are displayed.  What are other editors' thoughts on including a References section at the bottom of a portal to list all the refs for facts currently on the portal?  Slambo (Speak) 13:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just tried it with the current portal setup and it didn't quite work as easily as I had hoped.  I think the problem is that the <ref> tags are all on transcluded pages.  It seems that the parser goes through searching for references at a different point than I thought it would.  Slambo (Speak) 15:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it's a good idea from a design standpoint, in any case.  We don't have footnotes directly on the main page, for example; all of the references are supposed to be in the linked articles.  Is there any reason for portals to be fundamentally different in this regard? Kirill Lokshin 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References on portals? 

message: The talk page for Portal:Music does not allow for editing specific sections. Is there a way to fix this issue, so that there is an alternative method of responding to a given section without using the 'edit this page' feature? --Folajimi 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it.  The example box of anniversaries transcluded the box-header template, which has no-edit and no-table-of-contents markup embedded in it.  Though for some reason, substituting in the content broke the anniversaries box boarder.--ragesoss 00:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page segments. 

message: I'm the maintainer of that portal which is a featured candidate now. I've changed to currentyear-currentweek system in featured articles, pictures. But the edit button of the box (obviously) points to the original template (portal:medicine/selected article for example). How should I solve it to point to portal:medicine/selected article/22/ 2006? Thanks. NCurse work 10:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit link in the template needed to use the same currentweek-currentyear syntax as the content transclusion itself.  I've fixed it for you.  Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. :) Great! NCurse work 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medicine portal 

message: Hi. I am trying to make the Latin America portal better, and so wanted the related portals to be a band all the way across the bottom of the page. Instead, the box seems to be stuck on the right side, causing a serious problem in formatting. Does anyone have any suggestions of how to make my idea work? Estrellador* 21:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the earlier subpages (Portal:Latin America/Things you can do) was missing a </div> tag. I've added it.-gadfium 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much. I was trying to fix that for quite a while. :) Estrellador* 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin America Portal 

message: Input on the future of Portal:Books would be appreciated at Portal talk:Books.--cj | talk 07:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Books 

message: Related to the discussion of the proposal process, I think an effort is needed to go through what's currently in the portal namespace, evaluate the portals (similar to Wikipedia:Version 0.5), identify what portals are in need of major attention, and develop a course of action.  In some cases, portals are in such bad shape ("D-Class") with the topics too narrow, that they should be put up for WP:MFD.  In other cases, the topic is sufficiently broad that a call could be made to relevant WikiProjects and editors to help.  I see other portals that fit "A-Class" (almost featured status), "B-Class" (regularly/periodically maintained), and "C-Class" (needs significant work).  To that end, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Status to begin doing this.  I originally planned to visit each portal, personally, but find it's daunting and think this would work better with many people helping.  The decision of assigning a particular class is quite subjective, but generally fits the characteristics I have listed at the top of the page.  I also think portals should be revisited periodically and by different users.  If anyone has suggestions, ideas, or thoughts about this, please weigh in. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One outcome of this effort could be an outreach campaign to Wikipedians, to attract more people to help with the various portals.  This could include writing something for Signpost. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals status and evaluation 

message: Hi again. Sorry to be a pain, but could someone tell me where I went wrong with that section's syntax? The box doesn't line up with the others properly. Portal:Latin America -Estrellador* 08:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries of Latin America 

message: If anyone has a bit of free time, the featured portal candidates (particularly the Biography one) could really use some more reviewers.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured portal candidates 

message: A Portal created recently by  - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:
*Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney
Thanks. --Mais oui! 08:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do attend to the discussion. It has been sidetracked from the fact Portal:Orkney ought not to exist by a dispute between users. Please assess the portal on its merits (which I venture to suggest are non-existant) and contribute your position. Thanks, --cj | talk 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney]] 

message: The American Civil War Portal is fixing to take shape whether anyone approves of it or not. E Pluribus Unum. Deal with it. • CQ 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Civil War Portal 

message: Randomized portal component
I've seen a few "pseudo" randomized portal component at Portal:Military of the United States, Portal:Numismatics, Portal:War, and Portal:Texas. (By "component, I meant things like "Selected article" or "Selected biography"). The randomness is actually based on the current time, which IMHO is good enough for this application. The code looks like



I am thinking about turning that into a template. Something like
 
But before being bold, I'd like to ask you if you have seen anything like this or any talk about that. I just want to avoid duplication of effort or having two or more competing templates that do the same thing. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not noticed any relevant discussion elsewhere. I think it would be a worthwhile contribution.--cj | talk 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the type of randomization CBDunkerson has at Wikipedia:Featured content/Portals to Cats, Dogs, Psychology, and the List. The one "drawback" I've noticed is that when two or more sections are "randomized," they stay in sync, so I used combination sets for the low frequency sections to mix things up a bit more. A template with a "seed" parameter would be nice for situations like that. Rfrisbietalk 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created . Converted with Portal:Military of the United States, Portal:Numismatics, Portal:War, and Portal:Texas! It can be easily exported to Cats portal or any others. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It works great, thanks! To give it more flexibility for different portal designs, I made the footer text optional. I also added an option to change the seed value to allow different results on the same page. Rfrisbietalk 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've implemented the template using the new options at Cats, Dogs, and Psychology. Rfrisbietalk 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Randomized portal component 

message: An amendment has been suggested to the Fair Use criteria to allow fair use images in Portals. Please visit Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals and voice your opinion. Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 19:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since enabling the use of fair use images in portalspace is one of the goals of this project, I also encourage members to consider the amendment.--cj | talk 00:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, the amendment is still open to any opinions. Ddcc 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendment for Fair use images in Portal 

message: hi, there's been some discussion lately about what how the content in Portal:Space exploration and Portal:Spaceflight should be divided and organized (see their talk pages). It's been suggested that Portal:Space technology be created, but it is far from clear how do divide content between the three, and whether or not all three should exist. If anyone has ideas, your comments would be welcome (here). Mlm42 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion that portals with broader scope are more useful than specialised portals. Thusly, I would suggest that the discussion should be ultimately geared towards converging the three existing portals.--cj | talk 03:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they should definintely be merged.  One really great portal with a lot of content is much better than three average (or in the case of Space, below average) portals.  "Space" sort of implies spaceflight and exploration, as opposed to astronomy, so I think Space would be a good choice for the final destination of the content from the other two.--ragesoss 13:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm.. i think one of the reasons they were created separately may have been so that they nicely fit as subportals to Portal:Transport and Portal:Technology.. a portal titled Space hardly seems appropriate as a subportal of either of those.. Mlm42 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody else has anything to add, it seems that a merge into a single Portal:Space is what people are suggesting. Any other input? Awolf002 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space portals 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: There is a straw poll and discussion under way at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals to consider whether fair use images should be allowed in Portals.  Please come by if you would like to discuss, the poll is scheduled to close soon. Johntex\talk 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, the amendment is still open to any opinions. Ddcc 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll and Discussion 

message: Hello, I'm Dfrg.msc, and I want to make some constructive edits to Wikipedia. It's not that I am unable to, I would just like some guidance. So, if you have any specific tasks related to this topic, please inform me on my talk page, be specific and include links and I'll help out as soon as I can. Thanks, Dfrg.msc  1 . 2 . 3 07:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Work 

message: If anyone can offer some tips on the respective portal talk pages about how to improve Cats 'n Dogs up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cats 'n Dogs living together! 

message: Has any portal tried using Tabs at the top of the portal for easy navigation, as in de:Portal:Raumfahrt (German Spaceflight portal), or de:Portal:Bahn (German Trains portal)? it seems like a useful idea.. but would it break too much from the seemly standardized style of most portals here? Mlm42 15:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the tabs on Portal:Bahn as I look into translating items from it for Portal:Trains.  I haven't tried implementing them on P:T yet mostly because I haven't seen as much of a need for information that isn't already covered on the current portal. Slambo (Speak) 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The United States Military Portal and Science Portal now use tabs. Rfrisbietalk 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  portal tabs 

message: I've recently made some major changes to the above portal, and I don't think it would take much work to get it to featured status. If anyone could offer us some pointers and check if we're going in the right direction, that'd be great. I'm watching Portal talk:Chemistry. Cheers, riana_dzasta 05:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The portal is now OK. --Meno25 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Chemistry]] 

message: Here's a question.  Are hide/show boxes in portal sections "okay"? In particular, would they be okay for a "featured" portal? Rfrisbietalk 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend on which sections are being hidden (ie, content should always be visible), but in general I would say it's a Bad Idea. I think there's a potential with nifty features like this to confuse visitors, some of whom may not be tech-savvy.--cj | talk 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hide/Show boxes in portal sections? 

message: I have a question - is it OK to provide links to news on external sites, or should links be limited to Wikipedia and/or sister projects? Feel free to tell me if this is a really daft question :) Thanks, riana_dzasta 07:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Portal:Trains, I've only used external links as cited references.  Links within the news items are only to internal pages.  Slambo (Speak) 17:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks for letting me know! riana_dzasta 11:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'In the News' sections 

message: Given that there are a lot of portals which deal with the same basic subject areas (Science, Religion, some countries, some sports, what have you), what would the people here think of trying to maybe get a collaborative effort together to have a group of people collectively maintain the portals for a given subject area? It would probably be more work for those individuals, but it would probably also increase the quality of a lot of the portals involved. Badbilltucker 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborations on Portals? 

message: I just checked in .  This template can be used to create the "Recently selected" links at the bottom of a portal's "Selected foo" sections.  For example, the code:
 
produces:
 
The template expects the link code to be located at Portal:portalname/Selected type/Week week, year/link.
I initially started developing it to simplify the links on the Selected article and Selected picture sections of Portal:Trains, but thought other portals might find it useful too so I generalized the portal name parameter too.  I'm currently using this template in the new 2007 image archive pages for P:Trains, and I plan to go back through the portal archives to simplify the code on those pages too. Slambo (Speak) 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 19:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Check out this WikiCharts: Portal tool. As the data matures, this could be an interesting way to help focus any improvement efforts, e.g., featured portal collaborations, on high traffic/impact portals. Rfrisbietalk 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiCharts: Portal 

message: Someone has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images, in effort to remove .  This is with good intention, but think wider discussion of this and possible alternatives available is needed.   This user is now going through all the portal pages and doing mass removal of .  It's not being discussed on Portal talk pages, nor is any alternative being implemented in place of .   One alternative is the new ImageMap extension, which can be used on portal pages for "Related portals".  (see Portal:Criminal justice)  It doesn't yet work in templates, so can't be built into  itself at this point. Such mass removal of the template without discussion and putting in place an alternative is not okay with me.  This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images. --Aude (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|click}} on portals and alternatives 

message: I forget how/where to report/delete unfinished portals. These 2 were added to WP:CBB recently. Portal:Tenacious D and Portal:Windows Skins. The topics don't seem broad enough to warrant portals, and they're just shells currently. Can they be speedied? --Quiddity 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid any complaints, it's probably better to just take it them to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If nothing is done with Window Skins by tomorrow, I'll probably ignore process and just delete it.--cj | talk 20:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor portals 

message: Portal:New Zealand currently needs to be updated.  And it is a featured portal!  What happened to it?  I've set up (but cannot create as I refuse to sign up) Wikipedia:Featured portal removal candidates/Portal:New Zealand as the selected picture is non-existent, the ITN section has not been updated and has a red-link image on it.  This is not the first week in which this has happened this year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.132.249 (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted this. I won't accept reviews lodged on a whim; if there were legitimate issues, raise them at the portal first before nominating it for demotion.--cj | talk 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:New Zealand]] 

message: Note that a proposal has been made to bulk-delete some 140 redirects to portals. Seems mad to me, but please add your comments at Portal–related redirects to the Portal: namespace. Gralo 12:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete portal redirects 

message: I think all portals should be semi-protected.  Because of the nature of the actual portal--all markup, no content--newbies have no reason to be editing them.  The actual content, which they might want to edit, is on subpages.  I have never seen a constructive edit by an IP to a portal page, and what constructive edits there have been (if any) are more than likely the work of Wikipedians who are not logged in.  Anyone see a downside to this?--ragesoss 22:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only downside would be for those adding interwiki links. However, I'm not so keen to protect all portals just yet. I'd support it for the 8 main portals (those linked from the Main Page) only at this point. I've already permanently semi-protected some of those portals' subpages.--cj | talk 09:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case, please stay clear of full protection. I presume that I'm not the only portal maintainer that's not an admin. Valentinian T / C 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to semi-protect all portals? 

message: What do people think about this new portal created by someone the other day. I have major reservations and would like to hear other editors opinions (preferably on the talk page of the portal).-- Zleitzen(talk) 01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Genocide]] 

message: I am trying to start Portal:Ghana and would appreciate all the help and advice I can get. Thanks--Natsubee 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Ghana]] 

message: As above...I am doing an initial startup of Portal:Saskatchewan and also would appreciate any guidance available.  Thank you.  SriMesh | talk 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Saskatchewan]] 

message: How do you put images in a portal link? I'd like to substitute the puzzle piece in the Portal:Evangelion link for Wikipe-tan's head, but I have no idea as to what to do. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the documentation at Template:Portal.--cj | talk 16:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Now, if I could just find the code for the link, I'd be set... *sigh* Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like . Remember to place it in the see also section only.--cj | talk 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in portal links 

message: Hi I am interested in a portal that links together many articles that eventually form an alternative Encyclopedia of Careers and Vocational Guidance.  Its way to big of a project for me to be the sole portal editor and I'm not even sure portals are the way to kick such a thing off.  Please help me brain storm how such a thing can be started since it is exactly the sort of quickly changing, massive undertaking that is better left to Wikipedia then traditional print.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DodgeTheBullet (talk • contribs) 14:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on possible new careers guidance portal 

message: I expanded the scope of Portal:U.S. Roads yesterday by moving it to Portal:North American Roads. I realize that this may not have been a good move, but what's done is done, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#November 1, 2007 needs opinions on what should be done now. Thank you. --NE2 23:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, please discuss at Portal talk:U.S. Roads#U.S. Roads or North American Roads. --NE2 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please provide opinions on U.S. roads vs. North American roads 

message: A group of English-language students have made a proposal to revive or improve the Latin America Portal at Portal talk:Latin America#FROM THE SOUTH WANTS TO HELP. I'm not sure if many editors watch that page, so I'm drawing attention to the proposal here. Please go there to see the proposal and discuss it.-gadfium 01:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Latin America]] 

message: On the 5th and 6th a whole slew of Portal MfDs were posted at WP:MFD.  I don't see any of them listed on this page or discussed here.  Are most portal nominations coming from here in the first place or is someone (or a bot) actively posting them here?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So as not to be guilty of trying to pawn it off on others, I posted them.  But if there is a bot or a process, or if someone regularly handles this, please let me know, especially because these things seem to be coming in like zucchini lately on MfD.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is someone responsible for ensuring deletion discussions are posted here? 

message: Can someone take a look at the bottom of Portal:Sony PlayStation. To parts intersect at the bottom.--Playstationdude 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. The topics pane had incorrectly formatted columns.-gadfium 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PlayStation 

message: Could someone help set this portal for automatic rotation on the selected article, selected image and did you know sections please? Unisouth 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:London Transport]] 

message: There appears to be some confusion about the purpose of a Portal on Wikipedia. I recently proposed creating a Portal about the 2008 Summer Olympics, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Olympics on the Main Page and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Portal proposal. Several editors have stated that "that's not the point of portals." I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject to shed their light on this. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with my proposal itself, is it consistent with what is outlined in WP:PORTAL? AecisBrievenbus 15:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your original proposal of having a box on the main page, but as for portals, one specifically for 2008 would be way to narrow. From what I can tell, there are about 100 or so articles for the 2008 games, most of which are lists, and schedules. Perhaps you could work something out at Portal:Olympics for more coverage of what you want running up to and during the games.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchme (talk • contribs) 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about Portals 

message: Please see Template talk:Browsebar# for a suggested update to this navbar template, which appears at the top of most portals. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template talk:Browsebar 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists, a complex issue which I've tried to summarize. It concerns unsourced pages in mainspace like List of timelines, List of basic mathematics topics, and List of film topics. Moving some of them to Portal: space is one of the options to consider. Its scope is currently a few hundred pages, and potentially a few thousand pages. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Index lists - RfC 

message: I want to make a portal of NFL football teams of their history links and important people in their team. --Woaddude (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal: NFL football teams 

message: A group of editors is working on coordinating Portal:Contents and all of its subpages. This activity has two basic parts.  The simplest part is to coordinate their presentation, such as page layouts. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Portal talk:Contents. The more involved part is to coordinate their substance, such as what gets linked from the pages and their classifications. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents and related projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries,  Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Please feel free to join in on these activities. RichardF (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of getting into a confrontation such as that had with Aditya above, why is there a philosophy and thought portal as well as a philosophy portal and a thought portal? The current proliferation of the things seems intuitively to be a waste of time and resources. Has anyone checked whether people find such portals useful? Anarchia (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Have I just misunderstood what is going on with these article? Anarchia (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Anarchia, Portal:Contents/Philosophy and thinking is part of a proposal at Portal talk:Contents to expand Portal:Contents and its current subpages to have a series of topical contents pages too. The one mentioned here is just part of that proposed contents pages series.  Whatever discussions you all are having about the "regular" Portal:Philosophy and Portal:Thinking should continue. Regards, RichardF (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank ye for the clarification. Still completely confused about what is going on, but never mind. Anarchia (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're really just trying out different ideas to see if any of them actually help make it easier to find stuff here. By the way, you did give me another idea! I'll try to summarize it at Portal talk:Contents some time. :-) RichardF (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinating Portal:Contents pages 

message: This is a proposal to start The portal namespace improvement drive: Contents and megaportals. It is the outgrowth of many discussions at Portal talk:Contents and elsewhere, including one about megaportals – comprehensive portals that cover the landscape on high-level topics like those listed on the Main Page. It is motivated by the widely held view that the portals currently listed on the Main Page do not live up to established standards of quality for such portals. In addition, the portal namespace contents pages are only one of many partially overlapping ways editors have organized Wikipedia's articles. Moreover, the navigation schemes for each set of pages, between each set, and among the rest of the encyclopedia pages, present a number of issues as well. 
The following chart represents the four key namespaces related to this improvement drive. Portals are the doorways to the encyclopedia's articles. The categories form the network of how pages are tied together; and the Wikipedia namespace provides the project's workspace. The scope of the improvement drive will consider anything that is or consensually should be in portal namespace as fair game.
=== Tasks ===
Likely tasks for the improvement drive may include but likely won't be limited to the following.
* Contents: Confirm and update as needed
** What pages should and should not be included, based on key namespaces relationships;
** What main contents topics should be used for megaportals, based on main topics classification systems.
The following chart organizes the above main topics TOC systems by the group of Fundamental categories. It demonstrates the twelve current topical sections for Contents subpage TOCs can be used to organize all main TOC topics.  It also highlights the value of futher discussions about what names to use for some of the TOC section headers.  RichardF (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The portal namespace improvement drive: Contents and megaportals 

message: Likely tasks for the improvement drive may include but likely won't be limited to the following.
* Contents: Confirm and update as needed
** What pages should and should not be included, based on key namespaces relationships;
** What main contents topics should be used for megaportals, based on main topics classification systems.
The following chart organizes the above main topics TOC systems by the group of Fundamental categories. It demonstrates the twelve current topical sections for Contents subpage TOCs can be used to organize all main TOC topics.  It also highlights the value of futher discussions about what names to use for some of the TOC section headers.  RichardF (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasks 

message: Many of the described tasks already are underway or are about to begin. This improvement drive is just another way to help communicate what can be accomplished and enlist broad-based participation. Feel free to post your comments here, or anywhere else you like. Happy editing! :-) RichardF (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next steps 

message: The Contents and megaportals portal peer review is underway. RichardF (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal peer review