Template talk:Portal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Notes

There is now also {{portalpar}} which has one parameter. When do we get standard arguments? -MarSch 15:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This is now deprecated. Use this template instead. ed g2s • talk 22:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

<noinclude>instructions</noinclude>

Why does Template:Portal talk about the template instead of be the template? Talk belongs here on Template talk:Portal not on Template:Portal, right? How does the template even work? Confused--Roger Chrisman 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see: the <noinclude>talk talk talk</noinclude> tag is keeping the talk out of the template instances while allowing it to show on the template's page. --Roger Chrisman 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

vertical alignment

I think the text should be vertically centered. Is there a way to do this independent of text size? -MarSch 13:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This should not be linked to articles

See wikipedia:avoid self-references. articles should not link pages in the wikipedia namespace. These become broken links when people want to clone the article. --Jiang 09:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have seen and it is only a guideline. Specifically it is about avoidable self-refs in articles. It also excludes templates to some extend. -MarSch 12:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we have similar boxes for sister projects and spoken Wikipedia, why not portals? Ausir 23:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links to sister projects are external. Note that those boxes no longer say 'sister projects' since that was a self ref as well. --mav 03:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do we do about dead links in clones? The Wikiportals are inherently self-referential. The links to sister projects are much link beautified external links. They are not links to utility pages. This could work if we used a different namespace for portals... --Jiang 01:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do WE do? Nothing, it's their clone. If they're smart they'll either disable this template or copy the portal. --SPUI (talk) 01:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maximum portability is one key reason why we have the license we do have. A primary goal the project is to make what we do here as easy to use by everybody as possible. This aspect is non-negotiable. Having too many self-references tends to defeat that goal. --mav

No shit, that's what {{sr}} is for, to get them all using one template. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT? --SPUI (talk) 07:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jiang is right. We cannot link to the Wikipedia namespace from within articles. All such links will be removed. --mav 02:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They'll only be removed if you insist on being stubborn. It doesn't have to be this way. --SPUI (talk) 07:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think what is needed is to make the WikiPortals more visible from the Main Page. I'd also like to replace the community portal link with a WikiPortal link (the community portal is really just one WikiPortal). --mav 03:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TfD'd

This template was listed for deletion on Templates for Deletion. The decision was to keep this template. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/May 2005 for more information. -Frazzydee|✍ 16:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

put on talk

Considering the discussion here and on the tfd, how would people object to moving this template from article pages to talk pages? --W(t) 04:58, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

this is an article (template) link. Portals are for readers also.--MarSch 18:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The text on the template

It would be a good idea add the word "Visit" to the template to become "Visit {PAGENAME} Portal". Any comments? Svest 02:43, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'd say if nobody objects, just implement it and see what happens. --MarSch 11:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• As long as its size doesn't increase. --Commander Keane 10:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Where to put it?

I noticed that some articles use this template right at the top of the article, while others have it at the bottom under See also... Are there any "official" guidelines as to where to put it? --Fritz S. 20:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Under current guidelines it should really go under see also, as that is what it is. I don't know of any discussions about letting them go at the top of the page. ed g2s • talk 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Put it in the see also section. There seems to be an exception, that you should put is at the top for artciles that carry the same name as the portal (e.g. the Mathematics portal should be at the top of the Mathematics article but in the see also section of the manifold article, if placed there at all). I personally don't like this very much and would hope to see soem extra MediaWiki support for Portal. For example, you should be able to place [[portal:Mathematics]] somewhere at the bottom of the article, and the link should then show up in the navigation box, instead of in the article itself. —Ruud 12:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What about cases in which there is no see also section? I attempted to create a see also section containing only this template, and it does not appear to display properly. Squideshi (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As it appears not to allow test to flow around it I've just moved the one in Forest Row to it's own See Also section - [1]. If placing at the top, hide the table of contents on Preview to check for any adverse formatting problems. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Click test

I just tested {{click}} on the template in an effort to have Image:Portal.gif link to Portal:Browse. Unfortunately, it didn't work, and I'm not sure why. Anyone know how to get it to work?--cj | talk 03:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it was the "thumb" class on the div that broke it for you. I've just tried it without (by trial and error) and it seems to work now. nick 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually use Firefox and it looked fine on my screen, but I use ultra high resolution and teeny tiny fonts so it was probably a problem with the overlay at different resolutions. Sorry. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, i posted on your talk page exactly the same time you replied here. Yeah, I'm not sure, but it looked like an empty box with a double border on the right. nick 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Standard, named arguments

At User:Jdorje/Portal is a variant that takes named arguments, based on {{portalpar}}. Portalpar claims to take optional parameters but because they are unnamed you don't have the option of leaving out any but the last one (nonetheless, simply including {{portalpar}} with no arguments appears to be the equivalent of {{portal}} and isn't a bad way to do it). With named arguments, each argument may be optional. Examples:

{{User:Jdorje/Portal|portal=Tropical cyclones}}	Tropical cyclones Portal
{{User:Jdorje/Portal|portal=Tropical cyclones|image=Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG}}	Tropical cyclones Portal
{{User:Jdorje/Portal}}	Portal/Archive 1 Portal
{{User:Jdorje/Portal|image=Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG|size=48x48px}}	Portal/Archive 1 Portal

In my opinion either this (or the portalpar unnamed-parameter version, which is less verbose but slightly less useful) should simply replace {{portal}}. Both are backwards-compatible.

— jdorje (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The extra parameters were added to portalpar 'unnamed' because there were already numerous calls to the template in existence with the form {{portalpar|<name>}}. In most cases I think it works out fine because you usually don't need to set a non-default image size unless you are using a non-default image.

That said, there really aren't any 'un-named' parameters. If no name is specified then they default to '1', '2', et cetera... and those names can be used to do exactly what you are looking for. For instance:

{{portalpar|2=Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG}}

Since the 'portal' template originally didn't have any parameters the optional 'image' and 'size' could be added with names without messing up any of the existing calls. I think what you are looking for is to combine the 'portalpar' and 'portal' templates into one... I made a change to 'portal' to use a 'name' parameter, which defaults to the current pagename. I think that adds the same capability without changing the existing calls. --CBDunkerson 12:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If we go with the unnamed parameters then {{portal}} is just a subset of {{portalpar}} and the two should be merged (as it is, portalpar with no parameters is equivalent to portal). If, however, we add named parameters (as I suggested and you started adding) then the two cannot be merged. So while I prefer named parameters I think the unnamed parameters are better and these two templates should be merged. — jdorje (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why the messy code?

The template looks so simple, yet theres messy code in there that seems entirely removable. Is it there for some reason? Fresheneesz 22:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Which part do you think is messy/not needed? I'd guess the section you are referring to is the part which makes the image clickable. --CBDunkerson 15:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Portal

Template:Portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rory096 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed early, as a quasi-unanimous keep. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Converting to title template

To remove the obtrusiveness of the current template, and to allow for more prominent linking of portals, I think this template should be reformated to a title template alongside {{featured article}} and {{Spoken Wikipedia}}. I've tested such a format here. Any objections or suggested tweaks?--cj | talk 08:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know someone with a bot that can replace all instances of {{portalpar}} with {{portal}}?--cj | talk 08:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A few issues to consider: some people already object to {{featured portal}} and {{Spoken Wikipedia}} and have successfully TFD'd all other icons of similar sort that have been created, alot of articles which would have 'portal' links might also be 'featured' or 'spoken' and thus have problems with overlapping icons, the optional image/image size parameters of {{portal}} would not work well with the tiny size of this icon in many cases, and finally without the text or an optional image it will not be possible to determine by glance which portal a particular link connects to. I don't think these are insurmountable obstacles, but they should be considered. --CBDunkerson 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a title template should be used, per exactly the reasons cited by CBDunkerson. I noticed the tfd's for the other such icon templates. The current {{portal}}, while not perfect, will do. Perhaps, it can be improved in some other way. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fazed by previous tfd's: I believe that function of this template is of an importance that would except it. The problems of overlap are avoided through indentation. In my test, the icon is situated 50px from the right page edge, placing it to the left of {{Spoken Wikipedia}} and {{featured article}}. Customised images would be abandoned under this format, with the portal icon being deployed universally. It is true that one would not be able to determine which portal is being linked, but I don't see this as a significant problem and it can be, to some extent, mitigated. It is is possible to provide a mouse-over caption in which the portal could be named. But I expect that this format would promote familiarity with portals in general, and in turn, people would be more enthusiastic about visiting them.--cj | talk 06:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Multiple icons in the top right would create clutter and be distracting from the article. Also, which articles would use the template? For example, Portal:Science? Would just Science get the template icon, or would many science-topic articles use it? -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a question about the template itself, not the proposed format. This template is already used on a multitude of articles with only a slight relationship to the linked portal. Personally, I favour a minimalist approach, and have only deployed this template for Portal:Australia at the Australia article – although that's in part because I've always disliked the present format. I suppose that's something we need to work out though, regardless of what the template looks like.--cj | talk 07:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at What links here for {{Portal}}, and found over 7000 articles and categories using the template. Putting icons in the top right should only be done sparingly. For just the Featured portals, a portal icon in the top right might be acceptable, alongside {{featured portal}} and {{Spoken Wikipedia}}. This would be in addition to the current {{Portal}}. In all the other instances, I suggest keeping the current implementation. (in the "See also" or "External links" sections) -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please somebody move it little to the left

If you use Opera 603 browser, this template will be placed too far to the right. In fact I see only half of the template in the upper right corner, and the other half is in left corner down. Can somebody correct that? PANONIAN (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This one look good for example: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantilla:Portal PANONIAN (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Corrected error

I reverted template parameters to last version by Nicklott from 15:59, 10 January 2006. That was the last version where template did not had error. I think that error was caused by this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3APortal&diff=34626711&oldid=34623768 After this edit, the template was broken (on Opera browser) - one half of the template was placed in right corner of the page and another was placed in left corner. PANONIAN (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it taking the portal name from the name of the article, not the first parameter? Someone fix this. Imroy 00:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted PANONIAN's edit because it appears to be causing problems in at least Firefox and IE. If someone can fix the problem for Opera without messing it up on other browsers, that would obviously be welcome. —Cuiviénen 01:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What problems it cause on Firefox and IE? It looked fine on my IE. PANONIAN (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What about this one that I took from French Wikipedia? It look fine on both, Opera and IE. PANONIAN (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well this one from French Wikipedia appear to be the same as the one I used before. I will see to find another one. PANONIAN (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The error still exist

The error is still not corrected. There is still problem with this template on Opera browser. I do not know how to correct it, I can only revert to an old version that look fine on Opera, but since User:Cuivienen said that this old version cause problems on another browsers, can somebody finally correct this template that it looks OK on all browsers? Is it possible that nobody care for this problem? PANONIAN (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am unable to replicate this problem in either Opera Version 8.54 Build 7730 nor Opera Version 9.00 Beta Build 8414. Also, the current template validates as Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional with no errors and CSS validation shows 1 error and some minor warnings. The current version also appears to have no problems with Firefox Version 1.5.0.4, Internet Explorer Version 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-159 and K-Meleon Version 0.9 (built on Mozilla 1.7.12). My guess would be it's a bug in that version of the browser, either with handling of XHTML, or CSS. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My Opera is 6.03. So, if there is a bug in that version of the browser I use, can we do something with this? I can live with this bug, but what about other users of Wikipedia that use Opera 6.03? Should we not to make that articles look good on all browsers (or its versions) that might be used by people who read Wikipedia? PANONIAN (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody fixed this problem yet, here is the screenshoot how this template looks in my Opera 6.03 browser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Template44.png I hope somebody will do something with this eventually. PANONIAN (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Was it fixed by the change by User:Chris huh? If not, it could possibly be a bug in that version of Opera; it works fine in Opera 9 on Linux. —Centrx→talk • 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

tables, ewww

Any particular reason we can't just use something like this?: <div style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9f9f9; padding: 1ex 1.45ex; font-size: 90%; float: right;"> [[Image:{{{image|{{{2|Portal.gif}}}}}}|{{{size|{{{3|36}}}}}}x32px|Portal:{{{name|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]] '''''[[Portal:{{{name|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|{{{name|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}} Portal]]''''' </div> ¦ Reisio 21:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting it to work

Why can't I get this template to work for me? I tried using {{Portal|Weather|Dszpics1.jpg|100px}}, but it ended up ugly like this with no image. Then I thought maybe it was because I didnt include the size parameter, but that made it even worse: Part of the picture showed up, and the box became rediculously long: [2]. What am I doing wrong here? ... Someone help, please! -Runningonbrains 22:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is that 100px is not wide enough to fit the image in, apparently. Try {{Portal|Weather|Dszpics1.jpg}} next time, as I did. Circeus 18:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Option to put on left?

As the standard practice is to put the portal link into the "See also" section, this leads to a visual formatting that seems odd when the "See also" is empty. It would be nice to have an option to float it to the left if there are no other entries in See also. — ERcheck (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC) I Agree it would be much easier. On top of ERcheck's reason if your article has a long userbox you can white drop down half the article by adding a portal.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Please replace class="tright" with class="{{#ifeq:{{{left|no}}}|yes|tleft|tright}}" to implement the above. Thanks. Anomie 21:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nihiltres just beat me to it... --- RockMFR 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(shiny green tickmark out of habit)

Aha, and I thought I was having internet problems, too. Nihiltres^(t.l) 02:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A "See also" section containing only a portal link still looks wierd and ugly. It would be better to simply place it at the bottom of the last "real" (content) section of the article. That would make it share a line with the next section title. Shinobu 13:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Size shrank

What has happened to the template, now the box is really tight on the text and it looks all cramped. Chris_huh^talk 14:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link for Interlingua

Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki link:

[[ia:Patrono:Portal]]

Thank you in advance, Julian 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Y Done – Luna Santin (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Extra closing div

Please could the extra closing div tag (</div>) be removed. This will cause a problem if the template is used inside a div tag. I believe it is the second one before the noinclude. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 22:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't figure out any legitimate reason for the fourth closing div to be there, so yeah, removed. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasted white space

{{editprotected}} The way the template is arranged now, there is quite a bit of wasted space above and below the text within the template—in fact, there's enough room for a another whole line of text. To make the template more compact, could there be an option to use a line break to put the first word above the word "Portal"? This would allow for a box that is a bit narrower. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the width a problem somewhere?There's not an easy way to put a line break in the middle of a link using wiki syntax, as far as I have ever seen. CMummert · talk 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I added a break parameter that must equal "yes" to activate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what I was thinking earlier. Thanks for taking care of that. CMummert · talk 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alt text

{{editprotected}} Please remove |Portal:{{{name|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}} from this template. This will improve the user experience for screen readers and text-only browsers by removing useless alt text. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How to link to multiple portals?

I note Template:WikiProject Jainism has a link to the religion portal, but not to the Jainism portal; I have no idea why. Is there any way to change the portal parameter so that it links to two portals instead of just one, and, if so, how would I do that? John Carter 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vertical whitespace above template

{{editprotected}} There is currently a small of whitespace above the template which means it appears slightly further below the header when positioned at the top of a section. Could this possibly removed? MinuteElectron 18:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The space is just a .5em margin; there's no extra newlines in the template code. Is there danger of this hitting other boxes if the margin is removed? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled this editprotected request. The box has been set like this for too long to suddenly undergo a change that would undoubtedly screw up certain pages. Further research and study is needed before this change can be made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Centering

{{editprotected}} There should probably be a parameter to center the template. For example, I'm trying to use it in our WikiProject Sidebar -- Template:WPMT Sidebar -- and am having all sorts of issues. Any help would be appreciated. —  MusicMaker5376 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This template is designed for use at the bottom of articles floating to the left or right and is not designed to be put in sidebars. You might want to consider having a direct link to the portal, rather than use this template. Tra (Talk) 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why it can't also be centered? I understand that it's mainly for those uses, but I don't think we're forbidden from using things a little differently from how they were designed. This template is practically the "logo" for portals. Why can't it be centered? —  MusicMaker5376 05:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the templates for the wrong purposes, but the problem is that they may later on be changed and break the uses that are incorrect. I've changed the sidebar you mentioned to have the divs and tables hardcoded in to try to solve this. If you would still like a centered option, please make sure you know exactly what code to use and make sure you have tested it in a sandbox before using {{editprotected}}. Tra (Talk) 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Size" field

Given that there is a hard-coded height value of 28px for the image size, I question whether there is any point to having a "size" field except to make it smaller (which, given how small it already is, again makes little sense). Suggest either removing this field entirely so that default size is 32x28px max, or adding an additional height parameter so things can be more easily tailored. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Automatically look for a picture

Use the "name" parameter, to automatically look for the image as "Portal name.svg". Example, [[Image:Portal $1.svg]]. So if you specified {{Portal|History}} it would automatically look if a file called "Portal History.svg" existed and use that. -- Frap (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The image for each portal can also be listed in the template code like this:

[[Image:{{{image|{{{2| {{#switch: {{{name|{{{1|}}}}}}
|Free Software=Free Software Portal Logo.svg
|Video games=Gamepad.svg
|Portal.svg 
}}}}}}}}]]

This could be put in a subpage such as Template:Portal/Logos and transcluded in the main template.--DStoykov (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

instructions?

It's a lovely little template but.. what do all those variables do? What inputs do they accept? What is a break? Nanonic (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Because the template is protected, it's not even possible to open the template in edit mode to see what the code does. Instructions are defenitely needed. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The "view source" link that replaces "edit" on protected pages like this one seems to work fine here. You can't edit the edit box on that page if you're not an admin, but you can still look at the code and even copy-paste it elsewhere. Or does the button not show up on some different skin? Anomie⚔ 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's strange. It doesn't show up when I look using my server (Win2k3 with MSIE) and it didn't show up on this PC (WinXP with MSIE) before (I pulled the cached page from my firewall to confirm) but it is showing on this PC now so I guess there are times it doesn't show up. Still, that doesn't help people who can't understand the code, which I guess would be most editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone beats me to it, I'll dissect the code and work up some documentation when I have some extra time...something I've been meaning to do for a while. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - just had to work out what break did by trial and error. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Width

I think this template would look alot nicer and more stackable if it had a fixed width, because on some pages where there a multipul portal templates some a longer and some are shorter. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 02:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient space between last letter of "Portal" and border

{{editprotected}} The letter "l" of the italicised word "Portal" touches and in some cases breaches the right-hand border using some fonts. Can someone please pad the template a little better?

 Done The number of nbsp is obviously flexible, but I expect one should fix the problem. Happy‑melon 17:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. Skomorokh 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Restructured

{{editprotected}} I modified the existing template and made little improvements. The source code can be found at User:Edene/Sandboxes/05. There are not much differences other than:

• shorter code? useless div wrappers around the image are gone
• when size is specified and the icon is not increased due to the height limitation, no gap appears
• better padding for text (the space between Spaceflight and the border)
• reduced space between lines
• when align=left, margin-left will be 0 and margin-right will be 0.5em.

Also, I often find italicized texts hard to read. It would be nice to simply bold, but I'm not sure if I can be bold on this matter. Thank you! eDenE 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

All bold links are hard to read. I don't see anything wrong with the italicized ones, other than that they are bold links. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done You just recached a million pages :D. Nice work... excellent code! Happy‑melon 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :D eDenE 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't "portal" be lower case?

Per WP:MOS, shouldn't the word "portal" be lower case, so that the template will read, say, "Visual arts portal" - it looks a bit odd to have "Visual arts Portal". 144.92.234.38 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I rather agree with this idea, though given the vast number of articles it is used on, I'd prefer additional comments before making such a change. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd agree. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Overlap?

SMPTE color bars is an example of an article with this template. I THINK that this template is the cause of the issue in which the text runs behind/under the first image on the right. This should not occur. Any thoughts or fixes available? TheHYPO (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The template is probably pulling a float command from somewhere, causing this. I've been trying to locate exactly what "class=tright portal" does, but cannot locate this in any of the site CSS files...odd. In any case, I've relocated the template on the article mentioned to the "See also" section, where it is intended to be in articles. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request (make margins optional)

{{editprotected}} Hi. For the sake of this template's use in e.g. {{template category}}, could the "0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 0"/"0.5em 0 0.5em 0.5em" margin settings be made optional, please? For instance, something like:

...margin:{{#if:{{{margins|}}} |{{{margins}}} |{{#ifeq:{{{left|}}}|yes |0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 0 |0.5em 0 0.5em 0.5em}} }}...

The new parameter margins could then be set to "none" (or a custom string of settings other than the "0.5em...0.5em" options). Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done Happy‑melon 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I see it works when margin is set to 0 (zero). Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Add a category

{{editprotected}} Could the following category made a replacement for Wikipedia Portal templates of which it is a subCategory OR at least be added to this template:

<noinclude>
 [[Category:Wikipedia Portal navflags|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

--Carlaude (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. For the record, cats are added to the documentation page, so you could've done it yourself. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Location

The template page curently lists at the location section: "Within articles, this template is meant to be placed at the bottom of the article in the "See also" section.". Wikipedia:Portal however has been been changed to state that portal links should not go in article pages, but at the top of talk pages (preferable in Wikiproject boxes, like many Wikiprojects already do). A (for the moment) short discussion about this can be found at Wikipedia talk:Portal#Portal links in articles. If there is no opposition or consensus is that this is a good change, I'll also change this template to bring it inline with the portal guideline. I would prefer to have discussion of this change at the Wikipedia:Portal page, since that one is the guideline, and this template is only the application of it. Fram (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Printable

Since this template is a self-reference to Wikipedia, should it be removed from printable versions, including PDFs and books? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Portal tags: should they be nonprintable for a wider view. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now sandboxed with testcases. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Italian "Template:Portale"

In my opinion italian version on "Template:Portal" (it:Template:Portale) works better of this, in the sense that a lot of italian portals are more visited that english ones (e.g. [3] and [4]), in despite that english wikipedia have more visitors. So I propose to make english version similar to italian one. Moreover, in italian wikipedia we use bots ("automated users") to insert "Template:Portale" in each page of wikipedia with the script [5]: it improve the portals visibility. --Aushulz (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Change Template:Portal to float not block text

The Template:Portal should be changed to use "float:right" so that it will float alongside a long infobox or right-side image, and allow text to word-wrap beside the portal-box. Formerly, unless a user knew the left-side option, a portal-box below an infobox (or right-side image) would block text-wrapping to stay below the infobox (or image), causing a large text-gap on a page.

Infobox Line 1 Line 2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10

Line 11 Line 12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20

Test

A wikitable here, as a typical left-side table. The overlap on left-side tables had been a frequent problem with allowing other boxes to "float:right" on a page. So this is a test of how well a floating portal-box would avoid overlapping onto a left-side table.

The sandbox version (box at right) demonstrates the "float:right" setting, so that using {Portal/sandbox} can float the box alongside an infobox, even if template {Portal} (below) gets stuck below the infobox (or below a right-side image). This has been a common problem in many such bottom-boxes in Wikipedia articles, such as with {{Commons_category}}, which can also block text from auto-filling beside the box.

Implementation can be done by using a quick outer table, which uses the CSS style="float:right". Tables have 3 types of horizontal alignment: align=right, "float:right" or "clear:right" (which clears all wrapping back to the far-right margin of a page). However, the use of "float:right" has been avoided (with large boxes or tables) because of the danger of overlapping large left/right tables and images on narrow windows.

Use of "float:right" depends on the floated box being small enough to fit without overlapping and eclipsing other boxes, such as the wikitable example, above.

When a portal-box gets stuck down below an infobox, the separation creates a large, glaring text-gap which could give the impression that Wikipedia cannot properly typeset and format a page in a professional style. It is important to avoid glaring problems on a page, so as to make editing of articles as easy as possible. We don't want our users, who add infoboxes to numerous short articles, to freak and worry with frustration because a portal-box is stuck at the bottom of a page, and forcing a large text-gap above the box. Instead, a portal-box should, automatically, float where it would be expected to be formally typeset.

In the rare event, when an automatically floated portal-box might overlap a left-side table, then users can append Portal option "left=yes" unless that causes other formatting problems (which almost always happens with left-side placement of such small boxes) at the end of an article. Risk: I think there is almost zero risk, as floating a small box would be unlikely to cause more problems.

IMPACT: Problems with a righthand portal-box are fairly common, due to 2 major types of articles: (1) stubs with a tall infobox or right-side images (stacked higher than the left-side text), or (2) numerous large illustrated articles where bottom stacked images push, too much, into the See-also or External-links section (causing a text-gap in those sections). Expect numerous articles to improve when auto-floating the portal-boxes. It will become an instant improvement, as would be expected from the basic concept of a box floating-right.

Analyzing a major article: A major example was article "Aircraft" (as a large article), with photos stacked at the bottom, where {Portal|Aviation} blocked the fill/wrap of text to cause a text-gap under the "See-also" header. When the portal-box was moved "left=yes" (just as bad) then the lefthand box caused awkward wrapping of see-also bullet lines (left-side images or boxes will look crowded in a see-also section). The following shows the left-side result:

• see-also line 1
• see-also line 2
• see-also line 3

Hence, neither option "right" nor "left" looked professional, and an automatic "float:right" would have been ideal (and automatic). However, lacking the float feature, the {Portal|Aviation} was moved to several different lines, in the see-also list, until it no longer interfered with other text. NOTE: Typesetting of the portal-box was much harder than shifting the photo images left/right in the uppper text of the article "Aircraft". Not only was the portal-box an alignment problem, but also, it was a difficult box to typeset cleanly on the page. Hence, the portal-box had been abandoned (in default position) to cause the text-gap. Well, after years of studying article formats, the best option remains to use "float:right" for a portal-box, to automatically overcome right (or left) alignment issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:00, 23 Nov., revised 01:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• PROBLEM: I see, now, that auto-floating boxes will float to each other, causing a loss of margin control. They will all float across the page, to push the text even lower:

Hence, the option to float, for each link-box, must be chosen within each article, where multiple link-boxes might be displayed; otherwise, the floating link-boxes would fill the width of the page. Instead, a stack of linkboxes could be floated, as a stack, by using a special float-template in some articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Below, in topic #Floatbox can float portal boxes, there is an example for when a stack of linkboxes should be floated. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Floatbox can float portal boxes

Because auto-floating of portal boxes could cause a loss of margin control, the new Template:Floatbox can be used, as needed in some articles, when floating a portal box would look better alongside an infobox (or right-side image).

Infobox Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9

Test

A wikitable here, as a typical left-side table. The overlap on left-side tables had been a frequent problem with allowing other boxes to "float:right" on a page. So this is a test of how well a floating portal-box would avoid overlapping onto a left-side table.

The example here uses {Floatbox} to float 2 portal boxes (for Animals & Cats), as follows:

• {{Floatbox |{{Portal|Animals}}{{Portal|Cats}}}}

The 2 portal-boxes are stacked together, and floated together as a stack, by both being listed in parameter 1 to {Floatbox}. Although the 2 portal-boxes were specified below the Mona Lisa image, because the infobox+image were also stacked together, then the {Floatbox} moved the 2 portal-boxes, even higher, alongside the infobox.
Normally, a portal-box would be stuck below the Mona Lisa image, causing this entire text section to format further below, and causing a large text-gap of empty whitespace to appear near the infobox. There is no limit to the number of portalboxes (or Commonscat boxes) which can be listed within a {Floatbox} call, such as in a stub or an article with many stacked images near the bottom. Using {Floatbox} is extremely efficient, due to being a short template which uses builtin tag <table> to float the boxes. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal box disfigures the References section

Our Autism article, and I'm sure several others, has a See also section containing only a {{Portal}} box. I initially started a topic about this here on Talk:Autism.[6]

Now, here is the problem:

• In FF and GC, {{Portal}} disfigures the Ref section when placed in it or directly above it.[7][8] In IE, this does not happen.[9]
• A possible solution for this is to place a {{clear}} underneath the Portal box.[10] This makes the See also even more empty though.
• Another solution is to align the box to the left.[11] Looks nice, but a bit strange.
• I suggested the use of a portal-inline template a la {{wiktionary-inline}}. A sketch: [12][13]. But this feels a bit peculiar, as (unordered) lists in See alsos are usually only used for links to articles.
• One editor claimed that when a See also contains no links to articles, the portal box should go into the next section.[14] Neither WP:LAYOUT nor any other MOS seem to state this, but I could be mistaken. In any case, this does not solve the problem.
• Then, I noticed another user pointing out that Portal boxes are left out in printable versions (see here). If a section would contain only a portal box, this would look kinda odd on paper. To me, this is the definitive argument to justify a change in the Portal box code. (I should note that being printed is one of the possible applications of WP's content)

My conclusion: we should make {{Portal}} look good in all browsers, not just IE. Again, see these situations: [15][16][17].

Next problem: how do we do this? Cheers, theFace 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: As you have said what i do to solve the overlap problems. I have been adding {{-}} if the portal intrudes into the references (since those of us that use advanced browsers still see the 3 lines for refs - i.e not EI). I have also used :{{Portal|History of Canada}} option when its the only thing in the section.

Text and/or references after {{-}} and/or {{clear}} will prevent the overlap. Moxy (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Template Portal image (locked)

Was wondering y so many Portal image templates are locked? Are we expecting our readers to ask them to be fix (if an old image was deleted or is a better image is now available) here on this talk page? I would guess that not many people actually have the template image on there watchlist. I raise this concerns after asking for an image update on a template talk page (no one ever got back to me) and the fact i had to ask an admin to fix one were an image was deleted leaving the template page useless. Moxy (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to change a protected page, use the {{editprotected}} template (after you gain consensus, if that's necessary, but that doesn't seem to be the case here). That way, admins can easily notice it. The image pages are protected, because they are transcluded to a lot of pages and a vandal could cause quite a lot of damage. Svick (talk) 20:39, 8

OK thats easy - i see this at Template:Edit protected#General considerations. Question though how or who determines which temple images get locked. Because it seem random. Or is it because people are not aware of all of them (as in they all should be locked just not all done yet)? Should i make a list of ones that need to be locked still?Moxy (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The images I've looked at are protected using Template:Portal/Image lockboxes/Names (see WP:CASCADING if want to know more about how it works), which lists the images that were used the most at one point in time. If you want to protect or unprotect some images, you could contact User:Rich Farmbrough who created the list or post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Svick (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal bar vs. floating box

Although the current template has its uses, I generally prefer the French version of this template: Modèle:Portail

I particularly like the first example, which puts all the portals in a box that spans the width of the article. It is used at the end of the article, right before the categories are listed. For example, see the bottom of Parc national de Marojejy. Would it be possible to replicate this template on enWiki? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. It does fix some of the bunching issues. The French Wikipedia solves the edit-link bunching problem (i.e., {{FixBunching}} and {{stack}}), by pushing the "[modifier]" link closer to the section heading, which solves quite a few problems. I don't really have a strong opinion on the portal presentation, but changing the format of this template would be a very large undertaking. It would require moving this box to the end of all articles. Many articles put the portal links up next to the infobox, for example. To make such a change would basically require forking this template and creating a "portal bar" template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the bunching problem has already been solved. Svick (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't necessarily have to "fix" this template. I'd suggest just creating a new one so that people can gradually move over. Also, I'd love to see a similar template for listing books. I feel all categories, portals, and books should all be listed the same way in approximately the same place. I'd make these two templates if I understood how they work, but as simple as they sound, I keep getting lost in the code. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hell... while I'm mentioning it, it might be wise to even consider making yet another template to display all interWikis, such as {{Commons}}, {{Wikispecies}}, etc. into one organized box at the bottom. Hmmm... I'm guessing this should be posted at village pump (proposals). Anyone agree? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Something like {{Sister project links}}? But that's quite off-topic here. Svick (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and tossed up a proposal at the village pump. You can read it here. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to take this on? I'd do it, but I'm not sure if I understand the code. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have created sample templates for this, as well as a more general "subject bar". I have posted this at the village pump. I would appreciate any feedback there. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?

I setup Template:Portal/Images/Washington Roads but when I put in my portal box the image does not work. --AdmrBoltz 15:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed ---cant have the second word with a cap. Template:Portal/Images/Washington roads .Moxy (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, cool. Thanks :) --AdmrBoltz 16:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Could some....

{{editrequest}} Could someone pls protect Template:Portal/Images/Justin bieber .Moxy (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Added to Template:Portal/Image lockboxes/Names. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?

For Singapore strategy I wanted a ref to five portals (right) but no matter which way I order them, the fourth is always missing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done - used {{portal box}}.....Moxy (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 79.180.199.137, 29 August 2011

The translation in Hebrew is incorrect, Gerda is female, not male as translated. someone needs to edit the translation.

79.180.199.137 (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what page you are referring to, but I'm pretty sure it's not this template. Gerda is indeed a female name in Dutch and I suppose German, though. Ucucha (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Subject bar template

The new combined template is now completely coded. It is a solid bar intended for the end of the article, just after "External Links." It supports portals, books, and interWikis. I have put in the main space at {{Subject bar}} for testing and comments. I also made a post about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout). There is a sandbox version for more major edits. Everyone is encouraged to stop by there to learn more and make comments. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty job !

--Nnemo (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fix request — Show the fourth portal

Hello,

The Template:Portal is broken.

I have written four portals :

{{Portal|Geography|Spaceflight|Russia|Soviet Union}}

But I see only three portals. See here.

Please fix this template.

Thanks,

--Nnemo (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done It's now fixed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

PNG → SVG Template:Portal/Images/Greater_manchester to File:England Greater Manchester numbered.svg -- -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 16:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging a couple Portal related templates

There is currently a discussion here about merging the templates for {{Portal}}, {{Portal box}} and potentially a couple others into {{Portal}} so we can just use one standard Portal template for all or most portal related actions. --Kumioko (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Update Conversation have moved to the next level ... pls see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Portal box.Moxy (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Post merger notes

I have completed the merger of {{portal box}} with {{portal}}. The old code for {{portal}} would call {{portal box}} when there was more than one portal in the box. This code also worked for a single portal, so I merged the code by using the code from {{portal box}} but the name {{portal}}. The reason for sticking with the name {{portal}} was that this template had more transclusions, and is more concise. One outcome of the change is that the old {{portal}} code would set the image size to 'x28px' if there was only one portal in the box, and '32x28px' if there was more than one portal in the box. However, the 'portal box' code would always use '32x28px'. Hence, after the merger, we now have a single image size in all cases, namely '32x28px'. This won't be noticed for most portals, but if the portal image is very wide, like the one for {{portal|BBC}}, then the box will appear to be much smaller now. I, or someone else, can restore the old functionality by passing a parameter to the first call to {{portal/core}} which would tell it if there is only one portal in the box. As far as I know, this would only effect portals with wide images, which I don't think is as common as more square aspect ratios. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also because of the "font-size:85%;" that was in the style of "Portal box" but wasn't in the style of "Portal". I thought the size difference in font alone is negligible -- it doesn't really make a difference. How about just setting the image size to x28px? This would seem to fix the BBC Project portal problem and other images would similarly just sort themselves out. Adding extra parameters to check for the presence of more than one portal wouldn't make a difference for articles like BBC Radio 1 (whose portal box only links to the BBC Project), and it would add extra overhead to the server when the portal template is called. Banaticus (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Obsolete parameters

The template currently sticks {{portal box}}es which use things like height, margin and so on into Category:portal box templates using obsolete parameters. Is this really necessary? There are >10k affected transclusions, so it's unlikely these are going to get "fixed" by removing them by casual readers, especially when there's zero impact. Can we just silently drop these? If it comes down to it they can be AWBed away in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a change to {{Maths rating}} and the list is a lot shorter now. Doesn't seem worth "fixing" the break & left params though. So if those two were not tracked, there would only be about 30 items left to look at. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to get a bot to tidy up all templates in content and project namespace and then delete the category. It was always intended to be a temporary category anyway. Tidying up unneeded parameters that have no visible effect may be a bit anal but it may make avoid head-scratching during future edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Have cleaned up the pages that needed it. Will put the category up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Add code so that templates without a parameter are added to a maintenance category

Sometimes the template is added without a parameter. It will then show as a very small empty square. Can we have code added so that it sticks them in a Category:Portal templates without a parameter? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless this is commonplace, I'd rather just {{error}} on not having a {{{1}}}, which would give immediate feedback. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am no expert on template coding but that seems like a good idea. Before it is enabled all of the current problematic ones should be fixed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added the tracking cat. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Great! There are no entries in the cat yet. Will it take a while to populate? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There are only about 100 pages that have popped up in the tracking category. It seems that the lack of a parameter is not commonplace so can we do the {{error}} thing on it? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done: the tracking category is still there, as these need fixed, but hopefully once it's emptied it can be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, but I wasn't expecting the change to be made so quickly!! I am in the process of fixing the contents of the tracking category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)