Template talk:Portals browsebar/Archive 1

Template name
This is a Portal thing now. If we want to get picky about naming, we can rename it and touch the 100 portals that use this name. -- Fplay 12:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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

We're trying to get the bar adopted for use on the main page. And since site news is on the main page... Plus, it is relevant to general navigation, and rounds out the coverage (FAQs for help, Site news for editors/admins, the rest for users of the encyclopedic content). Personally, I don't think Site News even needs to be on the bar on the main page, or here, since it is covered on the help page. But it has been there so long it is probably regarded as tradition. Go for it! 14:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: I was experimenting with the interline spacing. Thanks for readjusting it. It looks better your way. Go for it! 06:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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

It was just a test. It does take a bit of getting used to, doesn't it. Though I think that saving space is more important than aesthetics in this situation. Utility, convenience, and efficiency are higher concerns. But I understand your objections, and am willing to compromise, and will add just one word instead of 3. --Go for it! 07:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this bar useful?
First, I would like to say that I am fully aware of what this bar it is for. It is used for browsing, for people being able to hop from place to place and see what Wikipedia is about. So, from a "bird's view" it appears useful.

However, if you are at any individual article, say a portal, this browebar appears as a huge link farm on the very top, containing irrelevant links.

This bar shows up on a huge amount of portals, categories, help pages, lists, etc. I do not suggest this bar be nominated for deletion, however, I would really like to ask that this bar be trimmed down, and it should show up only in a very few places. For example, we could make a smaller bar only for portals, etc. Wonder if there are any comments on that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. Even stronger though. I find it distracting everywhere, and think it should be removed from 90% of it's current locations.
 * also see Categorybrowsebar / Catbar / Browsebar / Browsebar noblank / Browsebar space at the head (and sometimes foot!) of so very many pages.
 * --Quiddity 20:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a ridiculous number of templates doing roughly the same thing. As well as the browsebar itself needing to be tidied up, the number of templates needs trimming and consolidating. Unless there are reasons for having all those templates? Carcharoth 21:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder how many people will even find this discussion. I for instance, was invited here. But since I'm here, I will provide for consideration the most logical course of action I can think of.  Unless we can get usage statistics on the bar, and perhaps interview a large enough random sampling of Wikipedia users, any course of action we take on the browsebars will be merely following a guess or the personal aesthetic preference of an inside group. Now for my personal views of the browsebars:  in the beginning I used them a lot, they were extremely useful to me as a beginner, because I was mostly involved in the article space (including portals), reading as much as editing there, but as I got more and more involved with Wikipedia I found myself drawn into the Wikipedia namespace, with less and less need for those browsebars.  Recently, as primarily an editor behind the scenes, working on Wikipedia help and instruction pages, I've rarely used the browsebars at all!


 * But you're the one who added around 300 of them since December! --Quiddity 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * However, my guess is that the vast majority of users frequent article space more, after all, that is the entire focus of this amazing wikiproject. So, if we go on the assumption that most users don't even edit, but merely access Wikipedia to read it, then my guess is that those bars get a lot of use by them, and even more so by researchers, as those bars are incredibly useful for looking things up. But that is just a guess, not something we can confidently base action upon. So, my recommendation is that we look into methods of measuring the Wikipedia activity of its users, in order to find out what tools and links they are actually making use of.  As for interviewing, we would need to take a true random sampling somehow, since interviewing seasoned editors for instance might provide a completely different result than if we interviewed readers. Just my two cents worth.  I hope you find it reasonable.  --Go for it! 21:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just about to suggest the same thing as Oleg and Quiddity. The browsebar is on both help-related pages and portal/browsing-related pages.  We should trim down the browsebar to the most crucial browse links, as used on the main page, and just use the browsebar on browsing-oriented pages.  On help-related pages, there should be a different menu of links to connect the key help/policy pages.  I'm beginning to revise the Searching page, which is linked from the main page now, to make it more like de:Hilfe:Suche, which has a contents box with links to key pages and policies.  I'm open to tweaking the contents box on the searching page.  I envision something that could go on the other pages, aside from searching and link these "help" pages together more cohesively.  Thoughts? --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Main Page is not a good base model, since it is highly arbitrary. Without actual usage feedback we're simply shooting in the dark.  We should be bringing these issues up with Wikipedia's techies.  Perhaps there are more feedback options than we are currently aware of, that they know about.  Though, regardless, this out-of-the-way discussion page is not public enough to discuss a tool with such potential widespread impact.  Also, there are 5 or 6 versions of the bar, the most widespread being "catbar".  Discussing the fate of those other bars on this page doesn't seem appropriate.  A more public venue is definitely needed. Also, where you say "most crucial", I would urge including the "most useful".  But then again, we are left wondering which those actually are.  --Go for it! 21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I found this discussion by following the link from the Main Page talk page. Also, at some point, I had been under the impression that the browsebar on the old Main Page was merely this template (maybe it was - can't remember). I was also under the impression that the changes made to the browsebar on the old Main Page would be carried through to changing the browsebar (though I hadn't realised there were quite so many browsebar-type templates). As for the changes needed: at the very least the terminology needs to be made consistent (I hate clicking on something only to find out it is something I already know about, but just under a different name); also, the "Questions" and "Reference" and "Site News" links need to be removed - they are not browsing links. If needed, create a "help bar" a "community bar" and a "browse bar", but don't cram everything into one bar. And do consider where best to use these bars. Carcharoth 21:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Reference link actually leads to a browsing page. Though Questions and Site news were included before we had a decent help page that you could easily find these things on.  So removing the latter two would probably do no harm, but that really depends on how much use people are making of them.  Is there any way to find this out?  And shouldn't we be asking the techies if there is a way of finding out? --Go for it! 22:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I might have been too hasty in forwarding all comments here. Anyone is welcome to copy this discussion to a more appropriate venue. (village pump sub-page presummably?). If you do, please update the links i left at: 1:2:3:4:5:6:7:8 thanks. --Quiddity 22:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC) done
 * I also put a note at Village pump (miscellaneous), asking people to come here and talk about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hasty, um, I mean prompt, is good! :-) I've posted a notice on the Community Bulletin Board leading here as well, and another on the village pump.  Don't worry, between us, we'll make sure the word gets out.  --Go for it! 22:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we have one bar for browsing categories, one for browsing portals, and that's it. It does not make any sense to put some very different topics on the same bar, and especially for the bar to show up in a huge amount of places.

Unless there is good opposition, I plan to remove it from all help related pages, except Help:Contents. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oleg, What about a software change -- ask the developers for a preference setting which might instantiate a selected type of browsebar (including none at all), at the will of the reader. --Ancheta Wis 08:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgot to add that I think this is a great idea! Something you can set in preferences, or maybe have it in different skins, though I'm never quite sure whether appearance and content templates should be separated. Skins appear to me to affect layout and appearance (colour and positioning of content). I've also heard that CSS stuff in skins can allow people to adjust the content they see. Son't know how flexible this is. Would be nicer to have nice easy options to select in Preferences. Carcharoth 15:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just hijacked WikiProject Portals to get a common meeting ground to discuss issues related to portals, of which this is one. I don't really have a view on the actual topic under consideration, but it would seem sensical to have somewhere germane that these discussions could be held and interested parties would discover them. Thoughts? Hiding talk 11:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The categories were removed from the main page as an experiment last year and it led to a drop of about a third in Wikipedia's Alexa page view score, so they were quickly restored. Osomec 12:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hope this doesn't get lost in this discussion, but I tracked down at least one discussion that refers to a drop in Alexa ranking, and it seemed to be referring the removal of the interlanguage template from the main page, as discussed here and here. Carcharoth 07:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Osomec, are you sure you mean categories and not portals? I also vaguely remember that before there were portals, the main page had links to categories in the same way that it now has links to portals, or am I misremembering this? Also, roughly when last year was this? Was there a discussion about this at the time that someone can link to? Carcharoth
 * In the transition period when there were only categories and not portals, the categories were indeed the content of the browsebars. And before that, single main articles were the content. And yes, there was an Alexa drop during the brief experiment last year (several days in about about the last four months 2005. No one dared let the experiment proceed further, I assume, because the browse bar was quickly restored). You would have to go to the Main Page talk archives to get the exact days. --Ancheta Wis 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I found the right place here. Start from the New Main Page discussion and work your way down... Or just search for "alexa". Carcharoth 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it was perfectly appropriate to have one browsebar on the main page and related pages. But there's got to be some sense of proportion. Those browsebars show up in inappropriate places, like help pages and a good chunck of categories. Having the browsebar only on Help:Contents should be enough, and only on categories in the top 10.

Using a software change to turn on/off the browsebars is an added complexity which is not necessary I think. I am trying to say that one should use common sense on where to put browsebars and where not, and the tendency has been to put them all over the place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The browsebar isn't in articles, though it is at the top of lists that are on the browsebar. Those pages which are "category schemes".  It has also been made standard for portals, and placed at the top of category pages as "catbar" (though catbar points to categories and not portals, and in that respect is context sensitive).  In the Wikipedia namespace, browsebar is at the top of major help pages.  --Go for it! 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The question put forth above: "Is this bar useful?" and its extension, "Is the bar being used?" are not being answered here. Are readers using it? Do they like having it available where it is? Do they want more of it, or less of it? The opinions of a handful of veterans, as experienced as we are, doesn't shed light on how Wikipedia is being accessed by the general population. And in the final analysis, that is who we are serving. What use do they make of the browsebars, and how do we go about finding this out? --Go for it! 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * catbar is rather annoying, I've just removed it somewhere. Please no unnecessary crap in the lead section, below the ToC (maybe in a "see also" section) could be another matter. Omniplex 22:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I nominated this one for deletion, as I had found it rather unhelpful also. To answer the question of Go for it!, well, we don't know how useful or not those browse bars are, I did not see anybody saying that they are indeed, so I guess the community has to decide on it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that most people think that Now the question becomes, who is gonna redesign it :D - The DJ 03:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) it has a use
 * 2) it's used in places that shouldn't use it
 * 3) It doesn't really work anymore in it's current form because of Portals vs. Category browsing and needs to change
 * 4) it's somewhat ugly compared to the primary bar on Main_Page

I did not see many arguments on this page claiming that this bar has a use. If anything, most people say that it doesn't :) (unless maybe on the main page) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've found it quite useful when adding categories to pages that don't have them. Instead of slowly clicking up and down the category tree or typing in "Category:xxx" in the search box I can quickly jump to the top category for whatever I'm trying to find. I haven't actually found a use for Portals yet. I see they're being created all over the place but I'm still not sure how they're supposed to be used. --JeffW 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Portals are good for browsing in a certain area. I wouldn't be surprised if some portals end up as Wikibooks. The smaller ones, at least. Though I've never understood how a Wikibook can avoid the need to link to Wikipedia articles outside of its area. From what I've seen, a Wikibook needs to keep its readers focused on, and teach them about, a particular area, whereas an encyclopedia will encourage its readers to browse more lightly from one topic to another (or just dip in at random, or just be used to look something up). Carcharoth 01:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Related: Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_22 --Quiddity 05:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What we use the browsebar for...
Since the above section seems to be more general discussion, I thought I'd discuss here what I use the browsebar for. Firstly, I thought the "Reference" link went to the Reference Desk. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it went somewhere else, but this kind of shows how I don't really use the browse bar. What I do have in the back of my mind is that some of these older, more obscure, sometimes not-so-well-maintained-anymore links are in these variations of the browsebar. I don't really visit the Glossaries, Lists and Browse by overview (that one looks awfully similar to the categories page anyway) pages, but if I ever wanted to get to them, I would look around for a browsebar. Silly, I know, but it is like I go to the Community Portal using the link at left in the Monobook skin, and stuff like that. I get the impression that users can be very individual, and they use the route they learnt first, rather than learning a new, better route to get somewhere. Or even going to the effort of making a book mark somewhere (far too much effort obviously). Anyway, all the other links I would now access through the Main Page, and have done so for a long time. Carcharoth 07:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. In case it wasn't clear, I feel I navigate Wikipedia in a very idiosyncratic way, but I also feel that this is rather inevitable with such a large, and at times anarchic and organic structure as Wikipedia. There may be no clear answer to these questions, unless someone has the vision and will to impose their navigation structure on Wikipedia. Ideally, there will be several different navigation structures and methods. See the examples of Portals and Categories. Carcharoth 07:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In regards to "route they learnt first", i'd point out most of those catbar links were added in the last 3 months, so if they are rapidly removed there should be little damage done i'd hope.-Quiddity 08:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The browsebar in all of its variations has existed for several years. It used to be hard-coded before the templates were used. That is the reason that there are so many different versions. The text was developed and each template came afterward, for the different articles on which they arose. Then it mushroomed after the templates made it easy to add to other articles. --Ancheta Wis 10:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposal for new Browse nav-box


browse
 * Categories
 * Overview
 * Portals
 * A-Z Index
 * Glossaries
 * Topic lists
 * Other index schemes

To replace the browsebar (and it's unsolvably inconsistent placement (barring putting it on every page)), a new sidebar nav-box, to go below the search box. Because, If these links from the browsebar are so useful, they could be made available everywhere. --Quiddity 22:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Great idea as far as I'm concerned. -- Gareth Aus 08:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Right then. See Village pump (proposals). --Quiddity 02:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great idea, but it doesn't help deleting the browsebar, since that gives an antry to the main portals. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar Size
Anything above 84% will result in two lines being created at 800x600.

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Portal. -- BhaiSaab talk 05:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar contents and the AfD
Hi there CJ. What's up with removing philosophy from the browsebar? That's a pretty bold maneuver without concensus. Philosophy has been on there for nearly a year, and you want to remove it on an impulse without discussion. And after all the lectures you've given me about building consensus, being too bold, etc. You didn't even contact those who have an interest in the matter, like the guys over at the philosophy project. Not cool. Let's get those guys in on the discussion. Do we have to dredge up the discussions concerning why philosophy has been there all this time, and the discussion from the last removal attempt? Philosophy is as big in scope as Science if not bigger, as it encompasses all major academic fields (Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mathematics, etc.) Philosophy preceded Science, and philosophy covers most everything that science does not, and it provides the foundation of scientific inquiry itself (which is a philosophical issue). Philosophy's coverage on Wikipedia is probably the most comprehensive treatment of philosophy on the internet, and its lists and indices rival if not exceed the size and complexity of the other topics on the bar. Philosophy is also one of the highest quality collections of articles on Wikipedia. Please leave the philosophy portal on the bar. Thanks, I appreciate it. --Go for it 03:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related matter, where's the discussion concerning the removal of the reference page links from the browsebar? There's nothing about that in the Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 discussion. You seem to have done that all on your own, CJ. The concensus was to keep the browsebar, not chop it in half. I've restored it. We should contact the people involved in the AfD discussion concerning the content of the browsebar before deviating from the consensus of that discussion again. --Go for it 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Having all ten of these portals causes some visual issues for users with small screen resolutions. The solution we eventually decided on (although there was hardly a clear consensus, as cj's recent edits demonstrate) was to remove the culture portal, since it's not a very good portal (earlier discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Portal).  I don't have a strong aversion to the "other half" you restored, although I slightly prefer not to have it.  But with the culture portal, I feel strongly that it should not be featured on the browsebar unless it is improved dramatically.--ragesoss 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I forgot the cultural portal was on there. Sorry.  It's gone now.  --Go for it 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverting to the last version including philosophy.
 * Adding back the 'category schemes'/'reference pages' nav-system line is just raising the whole "This template should be at the top of every page and/or portal and/or category and/or list, because it would help everyone" question again; this isn't a big enough place for that. Take it to the village pump, please let's not edit-war live again. thank you. --Quiddity 04:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

War
is a significant part of human history and should be included in the browsebar. PianoKeys 10:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


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

If you follow WikiCharts War is always right up there. But then again, so is Free software, Nudity and Pornography, etc. Being on the Home page probably is the biggest advantage to getting lots of hits. I've never been a big fan of how many "important" topics are left off the browsebar, or that all the ones on it are not "featured" quality. I don't believe "War" is a top-level classification. Even though it is consistently popular, it's still a subset of Society. It sure would be nice if wikipedians could agree on the Main topic classifications and apply them consistently across all top level navigation tools for the encyclopedia. But then again, what would be the fun in that! I also wouldn't be opposed to just nixing the browsebar altogether. ;-) RichardF 04:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So seems to be the emerging consensus. I haven't time to initiate anything, but I'd likely support any proposals to remove it (or possibly replace it). The fact is, the hierarchy of portals many of us sought to delineate has become obsolescent.--cj | talk 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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