Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 4

message: From Portal talk:Browse#Aesthetics:
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)
thread_title:  Aesthetics 

message: There is discussion going on now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft#Health portal and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft#Portals about linking the portals (more prominently) from the main page to allow users to more easily browse Wikipedia.
Some of the concerns include:
* The inconsistent quality of the major portals that are currently (or proposed) linked in the browse bar on the main page.  In particular, the Portal:Health is quite primative and only recently been edited by User:Go for it! and myself. On the other portals, we should make sure the categories are all presented in a uniform style and position on the page. And, ensure each portal is regularly maintained and updated (e.g. switching the featured articles). I'll do what I can, particularly with Portal:Geography. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page redesign 

message: For a while, portals have been used as hubs for certain key categories, but my question is: Who are they meant for? If for the end users of our encyclopedia, I cannot understand why we have boxes such as "What you can do" in them. This seems more like something for a WikiProject. If, on the other hand, these portals are meant for our editors, they should not be touted as somethign for our end users. - ElAmericano | talk 18:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're for both editors and readers... just like Wikipedia in general. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your question is very good and timely, as in the ongoing Main page redesign discussion, links to the portals from the main page are being considered as a way of browsing and navigating through topics.  In my opinion, I think portals are more for the end-user browsing for information on a particular topic, while WikiProjects and the Community Portal are meant more for editors.  Portals (as they are now) may not be ideal for browsing, though.  But, I don't think there is anything else on Wikipedia that can serve that purpose (the category pages aren't user-friendly).  If portals are to be used to help people browse, I think we need some more standardization across portals (e.g. where on the page, the categories/subcategories are placed).  Or suggestions on other ways to make it easier to browse and find topics? --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals: Who are they for 

message: I have some questions about the possibility of users configuring the main page to fit their own tastes, and was wondering what options were available to users right now for accomplishing this.  
This pertains to portals in that different Main Page designs present differing access to portals.  See the various main page replacement draft designs that are being voted on at the Main Page Redesign Project for instance (which the heading above leads to.) Please click on the heading above to see my questions on this subject.  I look forward to reading your replies.  --Go for it! 23:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft#Forging ahead - What about main page configurability?|What about main page configurability?]] 

message: An increasing number of people running/working on other wikis appear to be coming upon Wikipedia's portals, thinking they look nice, and coming here to see how it's done. Unfortunately, the answer is basically "they just work", since the instructions (naturally) don't say what's been set up already to make it so easy. More unfortunately still, the templates in question use an absolutely hideous amount of nesting, so copying all the necessary parts to another wiki is all but impossible. They also make use of the fact that the Portal: namespace (which is a custom namespace on Wikipedia, not one that's set up "out of the box") has subpages set up, making things like  behave differently from they would in a "normal" page, and, well, who knows what other jiggery-pokery.
As a first move to ward off the questions hitting support forums about this, I've put an ugly disclaimer above the instructions on this page. What would be really nice is if someone who actually understands how it all works (someone must have set those templates up, right?) could put some instructions at meta: for people trying to reconstruct the achievements. Off the top of my head, such instructions would have to cover at least:
# relevant software settings ("Portal:" into $wgExtraNamespaces, and that namespace into $wgNamespacesWithSubpages; anything else?)
# a full list of the templates that would need to be copied (which could then be given to Special:Export)
# any custom CSS rules in MediaWiki:Common.css et al referenced from those templates
I know this is a big ask, but the info could of course be corrected over time if anyone had the confidence to write a "first draft". If no-one does, we'll just have to stick with the disclaimer, I think. - IMSoP 17:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals on other wikis 

message: IMSoP, whereas you simply state, it is too complex "don't ask" and discourage others to not ask, another user has spent their time explaning how these portal's actually work:
Three cheers to toykilla:
http://www.350z-tech.com/zwiki/Help:Portals
Forum: http://www.mwusers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6017
Signed: Travb 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone decided to take the time to answer newbie's Qs

message: Should Health be included alongside to the top ten portals of Art, Culture, Geography, History, Mathematics, People, Philosophy, Science, Society and Technology? My view is that is should not be because it simply is not what one could consider "top level". I have reservations about whether it should exist at all: what is its point? should it be merged to, or made a sub-portal of Medicine? or is it intended to cover the personal life? Whatever its point, it shouldn't be on , , or . And whilst we are considering Health, are the top ten correct as they are, or are they contradictory (ie, is each justifiably top level, or could one or another be sub-portals the others)?--cj | talk 07:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After experimenting with a two line format, I don't like it. I'll give in, Health is okay. But Economics is, though an important topic, a horrible portal. Fix it up and I'll consider it. --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Enact the latter. --cj | talk 08:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Religion shouldn't be a top level portal. Just not broad enough. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top level categories/portals 

message: Despite some people maintaining that religion is merely a sub-branch of philosophy (which is technically correct), there are people out there who do not associate these concepts. It is for this reason that Religion should be offered as a separate option for those looking for info on religions such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. Wikipedia is all about sharing knowledge with the masses, and the current state of affairs would doubtlessly be confusing to many.
If there is ultra-strong opposition to this proposal, then the Philosophy portal should at least have prominent links to its "sub-portals". In any case, something must change! Brisvegas 07:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Enact the latter. --cj | talk 08:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Religion shouldn't be a top level portal. Just not broad enough. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Religion|Religion]] should be a top level category 

message: The three portal box header templates Portal:Box-header-square, Portal:Box-header-groovy and Portal:Box-header-round are listed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion today. Slambo (Speak) 12:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  three portal box header templates on MFD 

message: It seems very odd to me that there are no direct links from many top-level portals to portals within that field. Consequently, I've been creating an in-page addition to the browsebar template so that portals can link to each other more obviously and accessibly. The first one was created at Portal:Classical Civilisation, and I've also added one to Portal:Religion, since it seems absurd that the religion portal did not link to portals on specific religions. Could I request that editors on other portals - particularly higher-level portals (I'm not too bothered about the Warcraft portal) - add similar sets of links to ease navigation? I'll try to add more myself, of course, but it'd be better for someone with strong interests in the subject of a portal, who would know what other disciplines are relevant, could make the additions. The code is as follows:

Archaeology | Architecture | Egyptology | Greece | Italy | Language | Literature | Mythology | Rhetoric

--Nema Fakei 12:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably better to follow the Subportal and Related portals layout being implemented on portals. For example, Portal:Geography has regional subportals (Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, North America and Oceania). These subportals in turn have country subportals. Portal:Europe, for example, had Portal:United Kingdom as a subportal which has subportals for its constituent nations as well as Portal:Ireland and Portal:Europe as related portals.--cj | talk 06:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that layout (as it appears to me, at least) is that many portals simply don't have sections like that, and where they do, there's no standard location on the page. Plus, in any given portal, you then have the top-level portals in one place, the subportals in another, and the related portals in yet another: is it not more intuitive for sub- and related portals to occupy the same space as the top-level portals?--Nema Fakei 11:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inter-Portal Links 

message: Just discovered this hiding in the portal space.  Have nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Park, since there is no meaningful content, and it's not a broad topic.  Is it worth getting a speedy criterion for portals so as to quickly deal with portals which have no meaningful content and haven't been edited for ate least a month, say? Hiding  talk 13:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:South Park 

message: Are they allowed? It is an interesting question since the policy is kinda of vague on that point. Portals are like the main wikipedia page and it uses fair use images. But some portals have fair use images while others don't. So what does everyone think? Jedi6-(need help?) 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also does it matter where the image is used. Is it ok to be added along with a part of a selected article? Jedi6-(need help?) 15:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say probably not, although an argument could be made for their use. For example, selected article sections are really just snippets of articles where fair use might be justifiable. Are they in turn able to invoke fair use?--cj | talk 06:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I always thought portals go under the same rules as the main Wikipedia page. The problem is some portals are devoid of any fair use images while others are filled with them. Since no one has ever made a big deal of it I assumed it to be ok, but I have no clue. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can make a fair use claim, use it.  Selected articles can be accompanied by images if the image's use is supported by the accomanying text.  Regarding running copyrighted pictures as selected pictures, they would need a very well written caption detailing usage of the picture and how the subject is important to the portal topic.  For example, an image of Roger Federer would be fair use at Portal:Tennis because he is currently the men's world number one, as long as the caption quantified that: The above image is of Rogere Federer, taken at Wimbledon where he won hos third championship.  Federer is currently the number one player in the world on the men's tour, and his play has led John McEnroe, amongst others, to declare him "the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life."  Hiding  talk 09:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use images in Portals? 

message: Help me!
The design of Portal:Norway has suddenly gone wild and I cannot fix it. I would really appreciate if someone fixed it, as I get little or no help from the other members of WikiProject Norway. I guess I am just really stupid, but if you would mind telling me how I could fix it...Won't bother you much.
Ehjort 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fixed. You had unclosed div mark-up (which was un-necessary in the circumstance) in your selected picture box.--cj | talk 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tanks a lot Ehjort 06:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help portal:norway 

message: I've just started the page overhaul, which has long been requested. I hope to split off the instructions to separate pages once the proposals mechanism is confirmed.--cj | talk 04:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page overhaul 

message: I wasn't sure whether to put this discussion here or in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals, but in the end I put it there. Readers here might be interested to hop over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Linking to portals from articles and contribute. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to portals from articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, I've taken your advice.-gadfium 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Papua New Guinea]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Origin of portals accurate? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Box skeleton - new markup 

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add random article within portal functionality 

message: 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)
replies: text: Someone used the  template in Portal:Singapore, which is only for use with templates. I've changed it to  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Errors on Singapore portal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Portals under development 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Portals and WikiProjects 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Box Skeleton the only portal type? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Okay to have "external resources"? 

message: I want to broaden the discussion because I think that the problems attached to the genocide portal also exists to a lesser extent in other portals. There seems to be a belief among some editors that the policies WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR (and guidelines such as WP:RS), do not apply to portals because portals are not Wikipedia article pages, and as it is not explicitly mentioned in this page or in Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines this is an understandable position.  So I think that it should be explicitly mentioned that these portal pages are covered by the same policies and guidelines as Wikipedia articles. If others agree with me then how best to construct such a paragraph and where should it be placed? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section. I don't think we need state the obvious just to cater to the lowest common denominator. If there are users with the belief that rules don't apply or that portals are exempted, then this results from their own obtuseness, not from the guideline pages, and they ought to be batted over the head with WP:5P.--cj | talk 11:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The core content policies cover all content. Portals are content whichever way you look at it. There will always be users who will pettifog no matter how delineated policy pages are. Nevertheless, as a compromise, I've integrated the message of the section into an existing one, so as to keep the page focus on explaining portals.--cj | talk 02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policies 

message: The business and economics portal news section is still showing news from February. It looks inactive. --65.78.213.85 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News at Business and Economics portal 

message: As of the time I write, at least two top-level portals - Portal:History and Portal:Mathematics - have no featured pictures for July.  Portal:Art had nothing for the featured article or picture, so I just transcluded June's content into art so they wouldn't show up empty.  Portal:Christianity, a featured portal, had nothing for July and no sign of activity on talk pages in months.  I fixed five portals today and there are still a few others that don't have anything.
I have made a template -  - that you can put on talk pages, user pages, etc, to warn you if a page is missing from a portal.  (You can see several alerts on my user page.)
But if nobody is maintaining these things, do we really need so many portals?  Several of the ones under Portal:Sports and games just have redlinks and that portal itself had nothing for June or July.  (I backfilled June to make the archives look nice).
I think we seriously ought to consider delisting/deleting ones that nobody is going to maintain.  Having broken content linked from the main page is an all around bad idea.  This isn't a "you can expand it" - it's just flat broken. --BigΔT 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since portals require some sort of maintenance, either manual or automatic, I agree they should be properly maintained to be listed.  Maybe an early step could be to delist offenders, revert them to "under construction" and post a warning that sets a time frame to list them for deletion. When time's up, give them the boot. RichardF 12:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another long-term solution for the high-profile Portal:History, Portal:Mathematics and Portal:Arts sections that aren't being properly maintained would be to shift them over to automatic updates. Either use randomized displays or periodic displays with no year with the existing content.  Additions/replacements can then come whenever they happen. RichardF 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like periodic displays with no year, particularly for the top-level portals.  We should be using these to showcase new and high quality articles ... they are prominently enough linked that they should be high traffic.  I don't like recycling content.  One thing we could do just for the sake of never having a broken portal is use the #ifexist parser function.  If the current month doesn't exist, it could display an hardcoded standby. --BigΔT 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great standby plan! Now, how do you propose to get these things updated on schedule? :-) RichardF 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, I declare it to be Virginia Tech month for abandoned portals. --BigΔT 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many portals 

message: Where can I request a portal? (my signature is screwed - ignore it) ----- Cuddly Panda Blab (Non-wiki) | Contribs | 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting portals? 

message: How many portals are there in total on Wikipedia?  There should be a count of this somewhere, but I could not find one, so perhaps there is not.  Cirt (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At present, there are a total of 548 portals on Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many portals are there in total on Wikipedia? 

message: Thanks to Misza13, the Wikinews Importer Bot now is available to automatically import certain dynamically-generated Wikinews pages into Wikipedia portals. See the pages that link to User:Wikinews Importer Bot for a growing list of examples. Check it out! RichardF (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews Importer Bot 

message: Would be interested to hear your input, at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Template:UpdatedDYKportal. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:UpdatedDYKportal]] 

message: Why is this page laid out like a portal? It's a project page; the coloured boxes should go and standard style should be used. Sorry if this has already been proposed. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page style 

message: Hi all, at ---- I'm trying to add a background watermark to the portal page layout, but as you can see it's overlapping certain sections that it shouldn't. Does anyone know of a way to fix this? Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've managed to put it in the intro box instead but it won't stay in there, instead it overlaps onto the parent page. It's at -removed-, and the intro section is at -removed-. Any ideas on how I can make it the background image of the intro section, but not make it overlap or enlarge the section? Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, done it --Joowwww (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layered image 

message: I was thinking about Template:Pp-template (and other such templates), and wondering if it might be appropriate to suggest having a "small icon" for portals. (Usage would be a single template for all portals, with one or more variables to input the portal name or names.) - jc37 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small icon 

message: Wikipedia:Layout#See also conflicts with guidelines presented here: ""See also" is the most appropriate place to link a Portal with  template." --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  01:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the discussion Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Wikipedia:Portal conflict --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Layout conflict 

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_portal_candidates#Additional_Featured_portal_director.  Cirt (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional featured portal director 

message: I hate to break bad news, but the current format of most portal icons (half a postage stamp with a pathetic violet jigsaw piece) rarely reminds me what it is, let alone invites me to look inside. I can't claim to be a veteran, but I've been working on Wikipedia for over six months and have done a couple of thousand edits (trivial to major) and even a small article. If that's true for me who have (sometimes grudgingly) a nodding acquaintance with a few parts of the whole Wikipedia hierarchy and paraphernalia, that kind of portal must mean next to nothing to the average unregistered reader. 
Wikipedia:Layout#"See also" section says that portals come at the end so as not to distract the reader from the article at hand, but to invite further exploration. Two problems that can arise are that (1) the end of most articles is already full of further internal and external references (Sources, See Also, References, Further Reading and/or External Links, plus categories and footers with further internal links), and (2) the portal might do more good at the top of a very long article (e.g. Manhattan, The Bronx) than at the bottom (should the reader ever get there).
It seems such a waste for all the time and care that other editors must put into constructing those portals. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the duplication of some topics above: I didn't gather from the talk-contents box that they were discussed in earlier sections. As for putting things on the Discussion Page, I'm very firmly opposed to that, because the average reader never goes there, and may not even notice its existence. And I don't have time to look at the discussion page for every article I read: who does? (On the other hand, some of the advisory, warning and nagging templates that now disfigure a main page might well be migrated to the Talk Page.) So putting a portal icon on the Discussion Page means that the portal will be seen even less than it is now. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the most important? That a user is made aware that an article may be badly sourced or disputed, or that we also have a portal with some more or less related content? Articles are often related to many portals (one portal per project is not unusual), so an article on e.g. the biography of a German aviation pioneer would link to at least three portals (avaiation, Germany, and biography), where probably none of the portals will have any info on the pioneer. What then is the advantage for the reader of the article to have the portals at the most prominent place? Fram (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fully agree with you that some warnings to readers (e.g. about reliability or neutrality) should stay on the main article page; I was thinking of others that are directed mainly to editors (who are more likely to read a discussion page). And my preference for top or bottom depends largely upon the length of the article (if it's more than say 6-8 screens long, material on the bottom is often unseen). Some of the people who are looking at an article on Henry Ford or Thomas Edison may in fact want more general information about American history, industry, invention or the early 20th century, and just be using these names as a beginning. I doubt, by the way, that they'd ever open a Talk page. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the problem might be partly that nobody is too sure what the portals are for. They appear to me to be an extension of projects (sort of an insider thing) more than anything else. If we could establish what the portals are for, it might be easier to establish how to link to them.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This struck me again, as I was editing the article on Staten Island. Near the bottom, there are little dingbats with the jigsaw puzzle piece for both New York and New York City portals, but I as usual barely noticed them, and I doubt that one person in a hundred or a thousand has any idea what they're there for. They just seem to be more mysterious random clutter. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  After 6 months, an editor like me rarely recognizes a portal for what it is 

message: I scrabbled some guidelines and tips I've stumbled across over the course of making, editing and maintaining portals to create the semi-essay User:Nanonic/On Portals. Feel free to edit it mercilessly or call me names. Nanonic (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant essay advertisement