Portal talk:Cricket/Archive 1

message: Right, I have moved everything around.  I have basically followed people's request that the articles be moved to their original locations.  As I noted above, I have placed a line on the top of Cricket about the portal, which is now located at Cricket (portal) – I implore people: don't move it without discussion.  I must say now, I think the disambiguation that temporarily existed at this page was appalling, far worse than the portal.  It's one thing to do a bold move as Jguk did, one thing to move things back to as they were, but quite another to make a hashed-up disambiguation that doesn't even conform with the GFDL.  BTW, the only real reasons that I have seen for the removel of the portal are a) that all the other's are in Wikipedia (that's not a good reason, see beg the question), and b) avoid self-references (I say Template:comics-stub).  Nevertheless, let's see how we can go with getting some decent consensus.  Incidentally, I dislike the idea that all the wikiportals must conform to one particular format – if it improves the look, we should not be constricted by rules that seem to exist entirely for their own sake. Different subjects have different needs, and different communities (cricket and biology, for example) will want different pages.  That, to me, is fine.  Let's not get into some kind of template:sisterproject scenario just because we want guidelines to conform to. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with putting the portal in the main namespace, especially if it gets around the "no self-references" crowd. --SPUI (talk) 20:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look carefully anyway, you'll see  for the only instance of an self-referential link.  An exception is made for stubs, why can't one be made for portals?  (That's a rhetorical question, BTW). Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My actions

message: It looks like a really good idea, but some thoughts: 1. Ditch the black lines. 2. Slim down the showcase articles. Less is more 3. Consistent spacing on the "Browse cricket-related categories" categories. Cheers. Burgundavia 20:00, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
*All sorted. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique of the portal

message: Okay, this may be completely radical (and thus unacceptable to those who worship the status quo), but hear me out.  This article quite possibly does not belong in the main article space.  Wikipedia: space is totally useless for a page like this.  It is not a guide for editors, but a guide for readers.  How would a reader, who doesn't know about the editing part of wikipedia and would never find this page otherwise, make use of it?  There are two options.  The first is to create a new namespace.  This would not be difficult, but may require some time.  The other option is to create a new project, outside wikipedia.  This would allow pages to be created to link to all parts of the wikimedia empire.  Would it be possible to do this?  Would we then allow ourselves to put a slightly self-referential link into cricket?  Or are we so stuck up ourselves that we can only do things if they absolutely toe the line with every single Wikipedia convention?  One of my biggest criticisms of Britannica is their not changing with the times; I hate to think that Wikipedia would refuse to change as well. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of suggestions 

message: This is a new experimental approach. On searching for "cricket" users will find a reader-friendly portal to cricket pages. Please leave the page like this for at least a fortnight, though do feel free to comment on the new approach (and to improve the presentation of the portal). Thanks, jguk 21:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New approach to the "cricket" page

message: This page survived VfD. The issues on the VfD were not really surrounding whether this page should exist, but rather whether it should exist in the normal articlespace or not. The flavour of the comments suggested that the page might benefit from being in a new Portalspace, with the page remaining here (ie at Portal:Cricket) until such a Portalspace was formally created. If you wish to contribute to the discussion on whether there should be a separate Portalspace, please go to Wikipedia:Portalspace. Kind regards, jguk 17:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portalspace