Wikipedia talk:Contents/Portals/Archive 1

message: Pokémon is not just a computer and video game franchise, its on toys, trading cards, the TV, movies, it's got its own world. I'm moving it now. --Celestianpower hab 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. :-)  — RDF talk 16:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Pokémon to Fictional Worlds 

message: I really like the idea of portals, they can act as a nice summerizer of issues / topics. List articles do that too to an excent but are very limited in their summerizing ability.
Could this portal concept be extended to Wikinews? The specific portals could be thought of 'newspapers' for different organizations and locations. How would we go about making portals for Wikinews? --ShaunMacPherson 19:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I love portals, WikiNews?

message: I happened by this page, thought it a good idea, then noticed what seemed to me to be the somewhat arbitrary division of topics between Culture and Entertainment. I suggest, therefore, these categories are merged along the lines that I've attempted.
I then thought the page might work better if there was more distinction between the major portal/article links and any then following in brackets, so I switched the latter to the small font-size and put each major portal/article on its own line. Does that help?
Hope the above makes sense!</br>
David Kernow 15:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the way some portals are in small text, but I don't think each portal needs a seperate line. In addition to making the page very long, it doesn't follow the same form as other browse pages. I think a divider (dash, dot, vertical line etc) is enough of a separation. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Entertainment is a subtopic of Culture.  That section was added because of the number of portals under that topic.  It should be placed under culture if the heading is eliminated.  I also have a problem with the small text.  It's difficult to read and likely violates accessability standards. One entry per line also wastes a lot of space.  Basically, I don't like any of the changes.  — RDF talk 05:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm more of an inclusionist when it comes to Wikipedia content, particularly when lists are involved.  That's what browse bars are for. ;-)  — RDF talk 14:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Have you looked at the comparable "Browse Articles" and "Browse Categories" at the top of the page.  I still don't like the small print. It gains little space unnecessarily and causes readability problems.  — RDF talk 14:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There certainly are a lot more articles and categories than portals (for now ;-).  I think of the headings as the "main" portals, but they really aren't set up to organize the subportals on those pages.  Considering how few portals there really are out there today,  I still don't see a "space" problem with providing an exhaustive, high-level list of them.  A "browse" page should be for browsing, not playing hide and seek. ;-)  — RDF talk 04:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The italics for articles was used to distinguish them from portals. Most are "organizers" at some level or an attempt to balance an area of representation. (I'm going to take of "Autos" - I thing it might have been a German portal).  I still think you're worrying about a problem that doesn't exist (yet :-). Just think of how long some list articles are that still are very viewable and useful.  I don't think that many are under construction (the list is a little outdated), and who knows how many on the requested list will be made. Wikipedia:Wikiportal#Wikiportals under construction (alphabetical order)  — RDF talk 21:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest a little reorganisation and reformatting