Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 3

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 9 December 2005 and 6 January 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.

Archived discussions:

• Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

---

More namespace confusion

On my watchlist today, I noticed an editor changing the category on Portal:Trains from Category:Wikiportals to Category:Portals. That's all well and good, but in looking around this afternoon, I see a note on WP:P that says "As of December 3rd, 2005, portals are being converted to Wikiportals to conform with Wikipedia standards." Also, on Category talk:Portals, there's a note that Portals should be moved from Portal:Foo to Wikiportal:Foo, but I don't see any discussion on the topic. Are we really changing namespace again? Slambo (Speak) 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently not. The notice on WP:P was put there by an anonymous user, as part of a very confusing series of edits that reverted themselves leaving only that message. Another user has since removed that message.--Srleffler 03:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous user appears to have been User:CelebritySecurity, editing without being logged in. This looks like it could have been a misunderstanding rather than vandalism, although this user does seem to have a habit of moving things without discussing it first. He had moved WP:P to Wikipedia:Wikiportal. Another editor moved it back, but missed the note.--Srleffler 04:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Integrating portals

I've been trying to understand Portals for quite a while now, and I don't feel that the concept has quite matured. I've been a Wikipedian for almost two years. I have over 3000 edits, I've brought an article to FA status. If Portals are not transparent to me, I doubt that new visitors are getting it. Here's the problems as I see it:

1. The name PORTAL does not resonate with any real-world term that I associate with an encyclopedia. I understand what the pages themselves are designed to do, but when I first saw something like New York City Portal, I didn't have a clue what it was until I clicked on it an looked around.
2. The use of portals is not well integrated into the rest of wikipedia. The main page is an example of a portal that IS well integrated. There are articles, categories, talk pages, wikipedia pages, and now portals. It is not clear how this new space fits with everything else, and the discussions on this page seem to point out this problem.
3. On a more fundamental level, I don't understand the need for the seperate article space for portals. There is discussion about how they are for both editors and users. I don't see this distinction. Everything at Wikipedia is for editors and users. The model is that users ARE editors and editors ARE users. I think the important distinction is subject matter versus editorial discussion and the talk page system accomodates this well.

So here's my proposal: Move ALL portals into the article space. Using New York City as an example, the portal for NYC would be moved to New York City. The article about New York currently residing at New York City would be moved to New York City (summary article), New York City (article), or New York City (overview). Everything else stays the same, but with this proposal the portals would be fully integrated into Wikipedia. If you follow a link to NYC, you'd start at the portal article, just like when you go to Wikipedia you go to the portal called the Main Page. -- Samuel Wantman 01:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you also suggesting that the Portal for large topics would replace the disambiguation page as the entry point for someone searching for that term? Then, disambiguation would become a part of the Portal page, but it would do much more than disambiguate the word -- users would find a guide for navigating an overwhelmingly complex subject. GUllman 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the format and templates developed for portals would become the introduction to the subject. It would replace the article and be the first thing users see when they follow a link. Using New York as an example, the subject is so big, that Portal:New York City is probably a better entry point for a user than the article New York City. The article very well may be where some users want to start, but the portal is a better overview and would probably be a better starting point for more users. It begins with a sumarry of the article so that is very easy to find if a user is looking for an article, but it also lays out everything that is available in Wikipedia about NYC that isn't as easy to find from the article.

Portals might be very useful to replace some disambiguation pages. One that comes to mind is Evolution (disambiguation).

BTW, my proposal could be implemented several different ways:

1. The article could be moved to New York City (summary article) or whatever it gets called, and the portal gets moved to New York City.
2. The article could be moved to New York City (summary article), and New York City becomes a redirect to the portal.
3. All links to New York City get changed to point to the portal like this: New York City.

Unless there is some technical aspect that I'm not understanding, I think that #1 makes the most sense, and the name "portal" gets retired. -- Samuel Wantman 08:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In no uncertain terms, this is quite possibly the best solution for portals that I have ever heard. I completely agree with everything you said - portals not integrating with wiki etc. And your solution is beautifully simple.

When I first started using Wikipedia I began redirecting links to Portal pages, but I soon realised that this was not the "received" way of doing things, and so stopped. But in hindsight, I realise that I acted in a simplistic manner, which is presumably what we should expect. Therefore, your proposals are absolutely perfect and I support them 100%. I do think we should have a vote though... Deano 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Radical Reforms VOTE

DO you support the reforms to portals as suggested above? Change if you agree with the proposals; Keep if you prefer the status quo.

• Change - the portal system needs to be better integrated, and this is an excellent means of doing it. It also provides a clear definition for the purpose of a "portal", thus (hopefully) eliminating useless portals. Deano 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Change - for the reasons outlined above. -- Samuel Wantman 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - the portal is something different to what we currently do in the article namespace, especially with regards the transcluding which is actually agianst policy in the article namespace. Portals are also rather new and I don't think they have had sufficient time to bed in yet, let alone be deprecated and folded back. Hiding talk 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep When I follow an article link, I expect to find an article, not a portal. Slambo (Speak) 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but mainly because this poll is very premature. There's been little or no time to discuss and a distinct lack of visability to the proposal before this poll. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 21:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hell no. This is an atrocious idea. The article namespace is for articles. Ambi 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep radical says it indeed. Certainly, portals need to be better integegrated into Wikipedia as a whole, but this is not the way to go. The German Wikipedia has been somewhat more successful at this, so methinks we should look there rather than even consider this option. I can just imagine the mob with their pitchforks if this ever got going...--cj | talk 03:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I somewhat like the way the idea was presented. I think portals should be brought to the forefront somehow, but I don't think the above idea is the way to do it. If there was possibly some way to intigrate portals into the articles more. Also, some portals are better constructed than others. I've noticed that portals in other language wikipedias—especially German and French (see fr:Portail:Espéranto for a good example)—tend to do a better job at being a true guide for readers, especially a section including links to articles, neatly categorized. I think English portals could benefit from something like this. But, as I said, I think a better plan needs to be implemented...possibly a WIkiportal Wikiproject? Jon 03:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and concentrate on improving the portals as they are now. the wub "?!" 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think the portal system is ready for this, and it is too radical a change in the way editors interact with Wikipedia. Topics where the main article is replaced by a portal will have editing difficulties. We could revisit this when Wikipedia and the portals mature more.--Srleffler 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though integration will still be an option later. Though I suspect that articles will eventually evolve to become more portal-like as users/editors learn page markup. Go for it! 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Custom category bars?

Take a look at the browsebar at the top of Portal:Australia and Portal:New Zealand. Note that the listed categories are linked to the country-specific category pages, such as "Australian Politics". Should this browsebar become a standard for country portals? Go for it! 14:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I do think that if there are to be category bars in portals, they may as well be customised. This is what I did for the abovementioned portals. Because the category bar was incorporated into the portal skeleton, I tried to make the best of it (although my initial reason for customising the bar was to change "indexes" to "indices" - it really bugged me :). However, portals by no means should be standard - diversity of design, at least at this point in time, should be encouraged. I'm personally not resigned to the bar at all; I'd like to see a greater separation of portals and categories. --cj | talk 11:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be compulsory, but I would recommend it. It seems more appropriate... "Philosophy" is not very relevant for geographic portals!

It has been implemented for P:UK as well. Deano 13:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Tangetial to this conversation, {{Browsebarcountry}} and {{Browsebarcity}} have been created (not by me). The two could probably be merged into a single {{Browsebarlocation}}.--cj | talk 08:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah {{Browsebarcountry}} is the format used in Portal:Australia, P:NZ and P:UK. I made {{Browsebarcity}} for P:London because the naming system is different for cities. If anyone can figure out how to merge it without messing up the links, please do so - I don't know enough HTML to do it myself. Deano 09:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal maintenance

It has come to my attention that some seriously high-profile portals are not maintained at all. Top of the list being Portal:USA. The last significant updates were in June. This really isn't acceptable... what should be done? Deano 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Contact previous maintainers and see if we can coax them to continue regular updates? Might be worth leaving a note on the relevant US community boards and projects, particularly USWNB (although I've found Americans to be considerably less organised than other communities). Further down the track, we may have to "de-list" un-maintained portals.--cj | talk 01:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous maintainers are have all bitten the proverbial bullet by the look of things. I've posted on USWNB... but to be honest this is a fairly major issue. Portal:USA is one of the most high-profile portals on wikipedia. This is exactly what we need to ensure does not happen. Deano 09:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal reform proposal

I have an idea on how to make portals more useful. Most agree that portals should be about broad subject matter, but many aren't. What I propose, is designating broad portals as main portals, and all others as subportals (some subportals would be under multiple portals [such as a hypothetical Portal:Science fiction under TV, Film and Literature] which would be fine). This would create a hierarchy that would be much more useful. Portal:Browse could list the main portals, and a brief explaination, and then the broad portals would link to its subportals, if any. Here is an example I made in my namespace: User:JonMoore/Newportal. This is only a mock-up, and of course, may be implemented in any number of ways, but at least it gives a visual. Subportals should probably be shorter, the further down the chain they are, and could also list what upper portals they belong to, and probably geared more towards listing what articles fit into those subjects. Things like featured articles and the like could be left to the broader portals. Comments? Jon 02:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it! This is something I've wondered about also; I've wanted to replace the eight or so main categories with portals as entry-points to Wikipedia content. Categories are deficient in that function, which is why portals were created in the first place - to better facilitate access to content. The flow-on from that would be what you've just suggested: if there are a set of main portals, all other portals must be divided between them. I've noticed this is done to an extent on the French and Italian Wikipedias. Creating such a hierarchy would go a long way to making portals clearer. However, I'd like to see Portal:Browse formatted in a similar style to what it is at present, with the whatever many main portals replacing the current headings, and their sub-portals coming beneath them. Also, {{portals}} (which has become more like {{main portals}}) could be re-designed in line with the new hierarchy. Once we figure out if there should be a hierarchy and if so, what it should be, then we should discuss main portal designs.--cj | talk 05:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

WOW! I just noticed that categories in the Main Page bar have been replaced with portals!! That's stage one down.--cj | talk 08:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank User:Fplay for that one. Go for it! 18:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea - I like it. It works well in parallel to the featured portal system because it means good quality portals (like, IMHO, Portal:London) are, rightfully, subservient to Portal:England and P:UK and Portal:Europe and Portal:Geography, but can still bypass the lot in terms of prominence if it becomes a featured portal. Good proposal - its got my support. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 11:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this will also mean that the namespace can follow a similar structure to category bars (such as this one), where sub-portals a grouped under a greater heading... if at all. I'm particularly thinking about Religion here... there are far too many of them on the namespace at the moment. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 11:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What would you think of implementing something like what I proposed on the "main" portals that are now on the browsebar? Jon 18:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Edit:I guess what I should ask first is what should the hierarchy look like? Jon 20:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Main Portals Improvement Drive

Since we now have eight/ten portals (see {{browsebar}}) prominently featured throughout Wikipedia, we best ensure they are in good shape. I've been going through them (and a few others) and reformatting them somewhat. I'd appreciate any help others are willing to give. Fortunately, there is plenty of featured content in their topic areas to display. The primary aspects of the portals that need addressing are their lists (categories, things you can do, articles). Of the portals, so far I've worked on Culture, Geography, People, and Science.--cj | talk 01:44, 23 December 2005 (ACST)

Reply: Portals in general need help. One problem is buggy formatting. Columning goes haywire, and sometimes boxes and text overlap. Some portals are particularly unstable in Internet Explorer. Portal:Philosophy and Portal:Middle-earth were having formatting problems, but converting to a non-div-based table format has cleared these up. Go for it! 05:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in general they do. However, as these are now very prominent, they should be at the very least good. I've finished History now, and am making a start on Art. Portal:History will automatically update itself up until June, 2006. The Did you know section will still need to be updated manually, though I've left a note at {{DYK}}.--cj | talk 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Art is done. What next? I'm looking at you, Technology...;-)--cj | talk 09:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

At first I didn't much like the changes, but after looking around at the others, that's a good dose of consistency, and I'm very quickly getting used to them. One thing, tho... I'm trying to introduce a monthly rotation on the Trains portal lead image. Can we point the Related Portals image at the current month's trains portal image? I know that we're using a different size image on the lead than we are in the related portals (I'm sure we could find a way to keep the sizes correct in both places), but is there any real reason not to? Slambo (Speak) 15:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hierarchy

I've begun a listing of portals by hierarchy, based on the "main" portals in the browse bar here. I would like to move it from my User namespace to, either the portal space, or as a subpage of this page. It is far from complete, so please fee free to contribute to it or rearrange, etc. I have added some as-of-yet non-existant portals to fill in some gaps. Thanks Jon 02:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I organised Portal:Browse by main portal hierarchy, but Go for it! keeps changing it. This version is organised by hierarchy, whilst Go for it!'s version is supposedly organised similarly to Wikipedia:Browse - which he changed in early Decemeber. Which version should we use? It doesn't make sense to create a hierarchy that is not replicated on the Portals "Main Page".--cj | talk 03:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Navigation subjects and their icons have been standardized across all the navigation pages. It makes it easier for the user to browse, because they quickly come to know what to expect, because the subjects are arranged the same in the almanac, the overviews page, the category browse page, the list of lists, etc. But Cyberjunkie has this fixation on balanced block layout. Cyberjunkie has also changed the icon for history, so now it appears different in Portal:Browse than everywhere else. Engendering user familiarity is the key issue here. Go for it! 04:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  Those other navigation pages (which were only recently changed) will make no sense if the hierarchy we are creating becomes further established. They will have to change again. On the other hand, there is no reason for conformity: Portal:Browse is supposed to be for navigation of portals, and should be organised as they are. I changed the history icon because a notepad with a number on it is a poor representation of history. And I haven't a "fixation" for anything. I formatted it in an aesthetically pleasing manner; the empty geography and people sections are not useful. (And a note of caution: you've made your third revert to Portal:Browse).--cj | talk 05:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  Reply: The icon you've chosen indents "History" way too far, so that it looks like a subheading of the subject before it. Also, there's a smudge or something right below the museum, that's part of that icon. I'm not particularly attached to the calendar icon, but if you are going to replace it, the icon chosen should be of better quality, and the proper size. Go for it! 05:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie: We have a Triumvirate of browsers now. You wanna change icon? Be my guest, but make sure that you change it EVERYWHERE. You will probably have to use "What links here" just to figure that out. If somebody decides to start copying the existing icons to, say, the Top 10 categories or a fourth browser, it if your job to find out about that. The triumvirate is: Portal:Browse, Wikipedia:Browse, and Wikipedia:Browse by overview

Of course, if the icon could all have the same basic drawing style, that would be lovely also. The casual user needs consistency. Differnt icons on different browsers sucks. We would all like Wikipedia to not suck. -- Fplay 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not attached to the museum icon, either. In fact, I'm scouring Commons looking for alternatives. Since you both interested in conformist categorising of content, why not engage constructively here to work out a better hierarchy. The existing is deficient. Go For It!, could you elaborate on how the arrangement in my version is "more awkward", so that I may make improvements to it.

For record's sake, remember that there is no policy prescribing conformity in this supposed "navigation system". There is no obligation to carry through changes to other (and often disimilar) pages, the formats of which were only recently established.--cj | talk 06:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem children: Society and People

Somehow, I just knew it! The "People" and the "Nature" groups were always the problem children. On the cat browser W:Browse, the "People" section is a pathetic list of lists. Maybe that is the nature of our cats, but it looks shitty. The Nature part only exists because it was part of "Category:Fundamental". The touchy-feely approach to taxonomy only gets you so far. And the Dewey decimal system (DDS) sort-of sucks for our puroses also.

OK, it is HARD to come up with a strict hierarchy and the population density by cats is slightly different than that by portals. Same for the "overviews" (which, if anything, are based on the cats once again). I mean, I just spent too much time today cleaning up the "Art" category after shoving the Art/Arts merger down everything throats. Now it finally makes some SENSE, but it was not simple to get there and it was very Iterative. Not by design (I lack the expertise), just LOTS of incremental steps.

Nevertheless, the portals are the fancy stuff and we must let them lead the way. They are the true Front Door to Wikipedia.

Just to review: This whole thing was first driven by Cateogry:Top_8.

• Then Art and Philosophy crept into the navigation bar.
• Then Religion went along for the ride with Philosophy
• Then Science was split into Physical and Social

Did you know that I had to write that crap on the "People" article to try to avoid the fact that it is really, uuuuhhhh, Biography, but "People" sounded so much nicer at the time whenever they had their bull session and picked the magic 8.

As usual, it is the People/Society/Social_Sciences which is really Biography/Humanities and I-do-not-know-what. It that damn "Society" Category, which is (groan!) a touch-feely sacred cow of a Top_8. Just visit Category:Society and you will see exactly what I mean. Do you thinkt that DDS has groups called "Nature" or "Society" (or "Space" for that matter?). Of course not! So what to do? Let me think about this and I will post again.

If I had my druthers, we would disect Society into the Social Sciences, especially Sociology and the rest could be thrown into Entertainment for all I care. But we are stuck with it and will have to make do somehow. Cyberjunkie makes some valid points. We need to agree on something and re-impose it on the UI. Probably a compromise. I will think some more and then post again. -- Fplay 07:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am coming to see that what CJ has done is an improvement and that the Cat and Overview browsers should simply follow suit. GFI: Do you have specific objections? AFAIAC, we can change the History icon also (the icon is not badly shifted and the user will figure it out). CJ's approach of the side-by-side comparision was the right thing to do. In GFI's "standard" approach, it merely emphasizes the badness of the "People" section. The big, honking Geography thing has to be kept in the Portal section, but there is no sense trying to so that back in the cat and overview browsers: a simple list of regious would suffices. -- Fplay 08:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hierarchy VOTE

Please review CJ's and "Go for it"'s layouts. Feel free to comment or pick-and-choose specifics. Once the general direct is set, we can hammer out the details. GFI is the status quo, but CF has better balance. If we change the status quo, we re-layout Wikipedia:Browse and Wikipedia:Browse_by_overview (quite tractable tasks) for consistency.

• GFI: [1]
• CJ: [2]

I support Cyberjunkie's. Ambi 11:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as whatever is chosen is implemented across the entire UI (all the browsebar pages), it doesn't bother me which one is chosen. But I get the impression that Cyberjunkie isn't concerned with the rest of the UI, and that he won't lift a finger to implement his changes on any other page but the Portal:Browse. It's a standard UI which I support. Cyberjunkie, what is your intent in regards to changing the rest of the UI? Go for it! 17:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that we can pick up the slack. And some variation is OK, like the dancing guy in the Overviews, if we feel it is justified. Just not the top-level groupings. -- Fplay 18:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It makes me wonder if all the concerned parties afe off on Christmas break. -- Fplay 18:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Portals Directory

I've created a Directory of Portals to replace the list on Wikipedia:Portal. I've done most of the Art & Culture and Geography portals, but the rest still need to added or merged from the old list. Please ensure that your and any other portals are listed.--cj | talk 15:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

We might want to say "most active" Maintainer to avoid suggestions of exclusivity on authority issues. -- Fplay 18:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It says "Maintainers", indicating shared responsibility.--cj | talk 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done. You have way too much time on your hands. (Like me!) Go for it! 07:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Math section

If we ever get enough other math portals together, we should give it back its own section. I have already done so on the cat and overview browsers. -- Fplay 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal stuff

I created a new browse bar for portals {{Browsebar graphic}}, and a template for subportals: {{Subportals}}. I'm trying to make the number of boxes optional using if/then statements (using {{qif}} at User:JonMoore/Portal_template), but I think I may have to go the route of {{babel}} and create multiple templates. I made an example of what it wold look like for a lower-level portal here and added it to Portal:Geography to show what it would look like for a upper-level ("Main") portal. This would pretty much relieve the need for {{portals}} on the page, I think. {{Browsebar graphic}} may be used on main portals, and we can customized the bar for mid-level and lower-level portals. Lower-level portals would probably not need the subportal boxes, only Main and mid-level ones. Jon 20:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

{{browsebar graphic}}

I created a graphic version of the browsebar:

I have placed it on Portal:Art and Portal:Geography to get a feel for the look. What do you guys think? JonMoore 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It does look pretty but I think people more used to other sites on the internet will try to click on the picture rather than the words to get to the category. On Wikipedia, that will put them on the image page. There is a work-around for this but it might be simpler just to leave it as text.-gadfium 21:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, this is, unfortunately, a big problem. How do you make the image link to a page? I'm interested. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 03:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

See Template talk:Click.-gadfium 04:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree: the icons need to be link-activated. I tried the click trick, but I can't get the icons to line up while using the click template on them. I think it has something to do with the 100px font that's hidden in the background (the "trick" for creating the links to the pictures). So that we can mess around with the template for the purposes of the graphic browsebar, I've copied it to template:Click4. I left my experiment using click4 in the history of template:graphic browsebar so you could take a look. Go for it! 14:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Another caveat: the browsebar disappears off the right side of the screen at slightly lower resolutions. We can't assume everyone has high-resolution monitors. Go for it! 14:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sad but true. Well, at least I tried :-) JonMoore 00:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I threw together a quick version that lines up clickable images and text. Also made it a single template rather than meta calls to Click4 given the current jihad against meta-templates. Didn't try to make the placement perfect and I think the resolution problem is still going to be an issue... I'd suggest collapsing it down to cover a smaller centered area. See User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox and adjust at will. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Overloading "featured" terminology

I've noticed a number of portals have started created a section for a "featured article", but are not using any of the actual wikipedia:featured articles there. (The same applies to "featured pictures") In other words, they are using "featured" as a generic term, which I strongly object to. I have previously registerd this objection on Template talk:PortalPage, but apparently that did not fix the problem as a whole (since only a few portals use that template). I'm going to be mass-changing portals to use the "selected article" terminology today or tomorrow. Raul654 21:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed the one at Portal:Pokemon to "Last completed Focus" because of this exact reason. Is there not however a better word than "selected"? I can't think of one right now but selected implies voting - most are not voted for. --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave it up to the editors on the individual portals to pick something better. If they don't like "Selected", they can pick something else, as long as they aren't falsely described articles/pictures as featured when they are not. On the other hand, I have no problem with portal:Geography because Geography of India is a featured article and the waterfall is a featured picture. Raul654 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - I suppose. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Selected" sounds good to me. :) Ambi 22:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Figuring out exactly how to make an article be "featured is pretty arcane. I've spent hours looking around at various places on WP, but still don't really understand the process. Is there someone who's written an explanation that's actually easy to understand? --nihon 01:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Make a nomination on wikipedia:featured article candidates. People will support, or will object and are required to tell you what they think should be improved. Fix the problesm, get them to support. After a while, I decided if there is consensus, and if there is, I promote. Raul654 01:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the New Zealand portal to use "Selected" instead of "Featured".-gadfium 02:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

How about "Highlighted article" or "Spotlight article"? bd2412 T 02:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm OK with the editors on the various portals deciding their own terminology, and I'm even ok with them using "featured" as long as they are describing articles that actually are featured articles (ditto for pictures). I just don't think we should be using "featured" as a generic term when it is clearly not. Raul654 02:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

See {{box portal skeleton}}. Jdorje 03:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, the article and pictures are "Featured" on those portals. "Featuring" an article or photograph on a portal does in no way imply that the article or picture has gone through an entire process. Furthermore, "selected" seems to indicate the picture or article has been randomly chosen--and if this is the case, by all means, use the term, however, don't go changing a Portal on which you've done absolutely no work whatsoever to use your terminology!!! ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 04:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying "Featured article" on Wikipedia means something very specific; it refers to Wikipedia:Featured articles, articles that have gone through the "featured article process". Featured is not a generic term. Raul654 04:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Featuring an article on the Portal is hardly usurping the Main Page use of the term featured. My objection however, is entirely your modification without consideration to the creator/maintainer of that particular portal. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 04:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, no, it's policy. Featured articles are wikipedia:Featured articles, and that's the extent of it. There will be no watering down of the term to suit your preferences. Raul654 04:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There will be no watering down of the term? Who are you? ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 04:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The featured article director. Raul654 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Selected article or picture is not, in my opinion, valuable enough of a title for something that has taken someone some work to come across. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 04:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said (twice) above, if you don't like "selected", then pick any word you like besides featured; alternatively, you could use "featured" as long as the articles you show there are actually featured articles. But, you may not use featured as a generic term to describe any article you put there. Raul654 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And I'm still looking for your authority to tell me whether I may or may not use the term "featured". ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 04:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Raul is the bloke who decides what we can call "featured" and what we cannot. He has the support of the Wikipedia community. We want there to be a distinction between a "featured article" and everything else; by declaring your own, lower-quality "featured" articles you are devaluing the FA system. There's nothing to stop you from saying "article in the spotlight this week is ..." or whatever. I don't see what's so difficult about this. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Fuddlemark took the words out of my mouth, and (implicit in his comment) is the idea that "featured article" is not a generic term. Raul654 04:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well

1. Notify people that you are making the change, and give them an opportunity to put somthing up less stupid than selected... and/or...
2. Help to find a term that's as appropriate as featured, because this does make individuals feel less valued and their contributions less important.

When you don't change these things on a regular basis, then you can't have something like "of the week". Running around acting like the freaking Queen of the Universe and changing things on people builds a great amount of resentment and pretty much eliminates potential future cooperation. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 04:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

(1) I did notify people of the change, first on Template talk:PortalPage, and then on this page, and then I made sure to link to it in all 100+ of my edit summaries. So short of sending out personalized singing telegrams to all the 700,000 Wikipedia contributors notifying them of the change, I don't really think there's much more I could have done. (2) About the resentment - "Some contributors feel very possessive about articles they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders... You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" prose, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." - Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. In order words, yes, you should expect people to edit your golden prose. Raul654 05:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't expect people to change the wording on our headers to mean entirely different things. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 05:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I should try to complete my thoughts before I hit "SAVE". I meant "we don't expect people who are administrators and educated to change the wording of our headers to mean entirely different things than what we intend. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑

Somehow I don't think changing "Featured article" to "Selected article" has the earthshattering implications you seem to think it does. Nor do I think it is an enormous effort to find a suitable replacement if you don't like "selected". Raul654 05:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with avoiding the use of the "Featured article" for articles that are not Featured articles. "Featured article" is a very specific term in Wikipedia, it's almost like an unspoken trademark here. --seav 14:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Raul. Let's get some specific policy on this. And some legitimate and non-arbitary decision making, because the current policy language is entirely ambiguous regarding the use of "FEATURED" on Portals. Because in spite of your title, your usurpation of the term "featured" over the entirety of wikipedia has no specific justification. Do things the right way. Don't arbitrarily change things. Get a proper debate going. Notify people and let them decide what to change it to. :Again, my objection is to your abitrary and inconsiderate modification of the term to "selected" without thought or regard to the portal's creator. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 04:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I think Raul has a point about the possibility of confusion (as we want our "featured" articles under the FA system to mean something), I've actually always been a little uncomfortable with them being called featured articles, because to me that implies a status of temporary importance; they should really be called something like "Completed articles" or "Fully reviewed articles" to capture the reality of their status. bd2412 T 05:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. How about "Wikifeatured"? "Featured" is in fact NOT SPECIAL ENOUGH for the Main Page any longer. Or maybe Featured™? That way, the rest of the contributors can have one more entirely appropriate word in our language back for our use. And Raul won't have to run all over the place policing everyone. Because it's going to happen again. And again. And again. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 05:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously we have to have some designation for articles that have been vetted and found to be of the highest quality, and for now it is "featured", and I agree that portals ought not have "featured" articles that are not "featured" articles... but the system could be examined more holistically before some new terminology is settled on. bd2412 T 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed... "featured" is simply not unique enough to warrant any sort of a heavy hand. It also gives me a warm feeling inside to see the Wikipedia caste system firmly rooted in the decision making process. 72.131.44.247 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I was none too impressed with the way this issue was approached, but it has ended now so let bygones be bygones. However, the observation raised during this discussion that "featured" is an inadequate term for Wikipedia's best content does seem valid. "Featured", while being perfectly appropriate for articles temporarily displayed on the Main Page, does not accurately describe their status in relation to other non-"featured" articles. Perhaps we might propose that such content be renamed to a more suitable term. "Showcase" is a term that I think could have some application; moreover, there could then be a "Wikipedia Showcase".--cj | talk 08:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Need some style help at Portal:Biology

I've just signed on to maintain the biology portal, as no one else was doing it. I've started off by revamping the main page. I've added links to "Previous articles" and "Previous pictures" and I've tagged these sections with the date they were last changed. My question is about how best to show these dates. It's kind of ... clumsy and tacked-on right now. If someone could take a look at the page and figure out a better way to do it, please do so. Also, if you could take a look at the archive pages, Portal:Biology/Previous articles and Portal:Biology/Previous pictures and figure out a better format for them, that'd be great too. Right now there's only one previous on each but I think you can get the drift about how it's supposed to go. Thanks in advance for all of your help! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

On other portals, they're called "archives". Go for it! 14:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it make sense to convert Portal:Biology into a "box portal skeleton"? This seems to make it easier to edit to colors and styles because they're all stored in one place (the header), correct? If this is so and someone knows how to go about doing this, please go for it! Just try to make the portal look not too much different than it does currently. Thanks. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 22:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Archives

Anyone want to setup archives for previous selected articles and pictures on Portal:Science? I already did it on Portal:Biology, so you can use that as an example. I just don't feel like doing it again so soon. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ditto on Portal:Technology please. Also, Portal:Biology still needs to be converted over to the new box-header and box-footer format. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of portal links on articles

There has been a discussion of whether to put a link to the philosophy portal on Ayn Rand. Some users claim it violates WP:ASR#Community and website feature references.

I would like clarification on whether and where links to portals should be used. --Slashme 11:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We haven't a standard on this. Generally, {{Portal}} is used on the primary topic article, and {{portalpar}} is used on other pages where relevant. While some portal collaborators have been proactive in placing {{portalpar}} on topic-related articles, others have retained its use for non-article space areas.

What is generally accepted, I believe, is that both {{Portal}} and {{portalpar}} should be placed at the bottom of articles, in the "see also" or "external links" sections, much the same as sibling links.

These links are no more self-referential than categories; portals are not WikiProjects, but content entry-points. Thus WP:ASR is irrelevant.

As an aside, I personally disagree with customised portal link boxes. Please only use the abovementioned templates.--cj | talk 12:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm. Generally accepted that portal links should be placed at the bottom of articles? The vast majority seem to be placed right at the top. Based on the 'self references' document I can see the reasoning you are following, but only if you classify portals as 'Wikipedia project' rather than 'content'... which I don't agree is the case. ASR says that information on the Wikipedia project shouldn't be integrated in to article space, but that's not what portals are... indeed, the entire purpose of portals is to integrate with articles. The 'Philosophy portal' can be viewed as an 'Encyclopedia of Philosophy'... it is wrapping Wikipedia content within a sub-category together. Note that ASR doesn't list portals amongst the examples of references to Wikipedia community/project... I would assume that is deliberate. They aren't community/project. They are content. As to customized portal links... why do you disagree with them? If we're going to have portals at all shouldn't they be distinctive? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the portal namespace was created with the intention of avoiding self references, by moving the portals from the project namespace to a customised one. [[Sam Korn]] 12:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another point... we have 'Featured portals' (just one so far, but the concept exists). The whole point of our 'Featured' items is to promote the most valued and professional content on Wikipedia. We don't have 'Featured templates', 'Featured guidelines', 'Featured User pages', 'Featured categories', et cetera because they aren't content. Portals are. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we have four "featured portals". CBD, was the second sentence of your first posting addressing me? If so, I should clarify that I don't think portals are projects (as I'm sure I stated); rather, my view is much the same as yours. I disagree with customised portal link boxes because they could potentially become more obtrusive if not following a consistent format (which could possibly change at some point). Moreover, using one of the two above templates allows us to keep track of which articles they're located in. I also realise that many of these templates remain at the top of articles, although it was my (perhaps mistaken) impression that after several objections, these were being progressively moved to article ends.--cj | talk 13:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Four? Huh, so we do. Sorry, last I checked it was just the cricket portal. I can see the 'consistent standards' issue for portal links, but I think something along those lines could be worked out... and identifying all the pages with such links can be done by 'what links here' and/or putting custom portal links in a category. Valid concerns, but I think there are ways around them. The 'portal links at bottom' makes sense, though as I said... I had gotten the opposite impression because they almost always are at the top. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

From User talk:R.Koot#Philosophy portal:

In what way do you think these links self-referential? Banno 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

They refer to a page which is not in article space. It would be better to put {{philosophy}} on the talk page. —Ruud 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I too, don't understand why you are doing this. Please explain how having the philosophy portal link on the article page is any different than the portals on uncounted other Wiki articles. And how is the portal self-referential? It calls attention to other articles, not to Wikipedia itself, which is what WP:ASR is talking about. --Blainster 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the portal links form, in my opinion, a form of internal spam (they don't add encyclopedic value but only help readers find additional "services") and should therefore be used carefully, e.g. only on category pages and talk pages. Take for example the René Descartes article. He was apart from a philosohper, also a mathematician and scientist and would therefore have three portal templates in the article. This was the first times I saw these portal links used so widely. You won't find them in articles on mathematics, physics or computer science, for example. Finally the templates were placed without great care and often disrupted the layout of text and images. Cheers, —Ruud 23:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about layout problems or some such but WP:ASR does not prevent or proscribe wikilinking - i.e. the "service" we provide to readers who would like to find out more about the topics around the article in question. Now, portals (such as the philosophy portal) are very useful tools to find more germane information about a topic being researched (and is little more than one big wikilink). Consequently, linking a portal does not violate WP:ASR. Please don’t remove portal templates Mikkerpikker 00:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am incline to agree with Ruud; there is a tendency to over-do the linking of Wiki pages, to add more and more navigation tools. I would be happy to have the portal link only on, say, the top ten philosophy pages. But in any case, perhaps we should move this discussion off Ruud's talk page? Banno 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, IF there is a case to be made here it cannot be made ito WP:ASR. What's wrong with wikilinking anyway? The reader can simply ignore it when not interested but it provides links to article that one would otherwise not know existed & saves a lot of time when researching. Mikkerpikker 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion portals fall under Wikipedia:Avoid self references#Community and website feature references as they are not article content, but meta-data. (Although I must admit that as a computer scientist I'm quite strict in not mixing these things). The real problem is that this template looses it's function when, for example, one prints the page. I also do not agree that removing the link makes doing reseach much harder. Wikilinks and the see also section should already provide links to articles which are relevant. I you want to look at philosophy in a broader perspective one could always use the category links at the bottom, where one would find the link to the portal. Cheers, —Ruud 09:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation of the policy, and to clear up the issue, I've started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Use_of_portal_links_on_websites. Many portal-savvy folks hang out there, and I think it's the right place to discuss the topic. --Slashme 11:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ruud, your justification for removing the template on the basis of ASR doesn't hold. However, whether or not the box should be included in the article on its own merit is a matter for editors there to determine on its talk page.--cj | talk 13:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I still believe portals are not content as they are highly dynamic featuring such items as news and featured articles, but if people insist on including a link to the portal on every article related to philosophy, might I suggest that the standard template {{portalpar}} is used and the it is inserted in the see also section? Cheers, —Ruud 14:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd advocate that also.--cj | talk 14:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I modified {{portalpar}} to allow an image to be specified. If no image is specified it uses the default. If an image is specified the template forces it to the same width and presentation style. Does this address the standardization and ease in referencing links issues? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of having a separate Portal namespace was that it was meant to be reader-facing and articles (and templates) can and should link to relevant portals, jguk 18:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)