Template talk:Portals browsebar/Archive 1

message: What happened to this? It looks cramped and odd. And Site news isn't relevant with other links.--cj | talk 09:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: I must vehemently protest to the use of abbreviations/slang in the browse bar. I don't care if people know what the terms mean; it looks very unprofessional. If you insist on stuffing in more portals, decrease the font size or find some other formatting trick. -- Fropuff 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also strongly object to the placement of tacky abbreviations: this is an encyclopædia, not some personal/amateur website. Moreover, object to the addition of other portals: they are not top-level categories, and ten is by far enough.--cj | talk 04:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbreviations

message: Since the above section seems to be more general discussion, I thought I'd discuss here what I use the browsebar for. Firstly, I thought the "Reference" link went to the Reference Desk. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it went somewhere else, but this kind of shows how I don't really use the browse bar. What I do have in the back of my mind is that some of these older, more obscure, sometimes not-so-well-maintained-anymore links are in these variations of the browsebar. I don't really visit the Glossaries, Lists and Browse by overview (that one looks awfully similar to the categories page anyway) pages, but if I ever wanted to get to them, I would look around for a browsebar. Silly, I know, but it is like I go to the Community Portal using the link at left in the Monobook skin, and stuff like that. I get the impression that users can be very individual, and they use the route they learnt first, rather than learning a new, better route to get somewhere. Or even going to the effort of making a book mark somewhere (far too much effort obviously). Anyway, all the other links I would now access through the Main Page, and have done so for a long time. Carcharoth 07:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. In case it wasn't clear, I feel I navigate Wikipedia in a very idiosyncratic way, but I also feel that this is rather inevitable with such a large, and at times anarchic and organic structure as Wikipedia. There may be no clear answer to these questions, unless someone has the vision and will to impose their navigation structure on Wikipedia. Ideally, there will be several different navigation structures and methods. See the examples of Portals and Categories. Carcharoth 07:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In regards to "route they learnt first", i'd point out most of those catbar links were added in the last 3 months, so if they are rapidly removed there should be little damage done i'd hope.-Quiddity 08:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The browsebar in all of its variations has existed for several years. It used to be hard-coded before the templates were used. That is the reason that there are so many different versions. The text was developed and each template came afterward, for the different articles on which they arose. Then it mushroomed after the templates made it easy to add to other articles. --Ancheta Wis 10:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What we use the browsebar for... 

message: This comment about having a browsebar that is enabled by a software feature may have been misunderstood. I took it to mean that the browsebar would become something that the reader carries around with them. ie. Something that appears in the boilerplate surrounding a page. This would avoid having to navigate back to a certain place each time. Though having said that, I do like using the Category Tree and Category Scan tools to navigate around categories. But to navigate around Portals, I still need some set of portal links to dive into. but I cannot emphasize enough that I only use these when browsing. When I need to look something up, I turn to a variety of search engines (Google and Wikipedia among others) to find things. So comments such as "those bars are incredibly useful for looking things up" make absolutely no sense at all. Carcharoth 21:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can browse using the "Navigation" bar on the left, under the Globe in the upper-left corner.  That one is accessible from every page.You can go to the Main Page and to the Community Portal, and from there, anywhere else.  I hope. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have a portable browsebar 

message: I raised the issue of whether is browsebar is useful in portals, at Wikipedia talk:Portal#Browsebar on the top of portals. Comments in that place are welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browsebar on the top of portals 

message: Template:Selected portals seems to be a good replacement for Portal footers. -- Beland 18:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  would be a better replacement for the browsebar rather than for the portal footers. Now each portal has a bunch of links at the top from the browsebar, and adding in  will add another bunch of them at the bottom, which I think is kind of cluttering. I would suggest that a link to Portal:Browse should be enough, as that page is well-written and easy to browse. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Selected portals 

message: browse
*Categories
*Overview
*Portals
*A-Z Index
*Glossaries
*Topic lists
*Other index schemes
To replace the browsebar (and it's unsolvably inconsistent placement (barring putting it on every page)), a new sidebar nav-box, to go below the search box. Because, If these links from the browsebar are so useful, they could be made available everywhere. --Quiddity 22:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea as far as I'm concerned. -- Gareth Aus 08:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Great idea, but it doesn't help deleting the browsebar, since that gives an antry to the main portals. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new Browse nav-box 

message: Anything above 84% will result in two lines being created at 800x600. 
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Portal. -- BhaiSaab  talk 05:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browsebar Size 

message: I added a new line with more browse starters. It helps readers to find information. This new line can be deleted if Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A new Browse sidebar nav-box is accepted. -Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 07:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More browse starters 

message: is a significant part of human history and should be included in the browsebar. PianoKeys 10:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I believe it should be re-reduced to just include the 8 portals currently linked from the mainpage. (However, I also still believe it should actually be deleted entirely, as only half the portals are featured, and Portal:List of portals makes a much better 'browsing' experience.) --Quiddity 18:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually inclined to agree that the browsebar is no longer useful. However, it should be kept as non-obtrusive as possible in the meantime, and I certainly oppose broadening its listing any further.--cj | talk 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So seems to be the emerging consensus. I haven't time to initiate anything, but I'd likely support any proposals to remove it (or possibly replace it). The fact is, the hierarchy of portals many of us sought to delineate has become obsolescent.--cj | talk 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War

message: i have done made some changes in the bar. now it appears more graphical. hope so you guys might like it. thanks, Sushant gupta 11:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a template as widely used as this one, please respect WP:DISCUSS and do not make drastic formatting changes without raising them on the talk page first. I've reverted your changes. The use of graphics has been discussed and rejected already. This template is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.--cj | talk 12:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. The icons are aesthetically subjective and are widely disliked. --Quiddity 17:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new look