Wikipedia talk:Contents/Portals/Archive 1

Category scheme for grouping portals
Hi Trevor, thanks for all of your hard work on developing this page for browsing the portals. I've been trying to figure out why they're grouped and ordered in the boxes the way they are, but I can't quite seem to be able to match this category scheme with anything I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. Is it discussed somewhere else? Also, I think it would help if each box had some sort of descriptive title to give users an idea about how the groupings and boxes are intended to relate to each other. RDF 20:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, how about alphabetically merging the top two portal boxes? For example, I'm not sure what type of overarching themes group Education with Science and away from Culture. If it's a remnant from the German version, it doesn't seem to carry through in English. If it's a visual thing with the left-right boxes lining up, the white space around the antique car is just as distracting. I'm sure some putzing could get the top left-right boxes to line up so the Geography box can look well-formatted below them. RDF 20:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The rearranged topical lists could look something like this. - RDF  04:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

This layout uses the "Entertainment" heading. &mdash; RDF talk 16:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Placement of "Computer and video games" under "Entertainment"
Wouldn't it be better in the long run to place "Computer and video games" under the "Culture" subcategory of "Sports and games"? I'm sure that list will get rather large before too long. &mdash; RDF talk 14:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Or, maybe the Category:Culture subcategory Category:Entertainment would be useful. It appears quite a few portal topics fit here as well. Maybe something like this.

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


 * Good point. :-)   &mdash; RDF talk 16:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I love portals, WikiNews?
I really like the idea of portals, they can act as a nice summerizer of issues / topics. List articles do that too to an excent but are very limited in their summerizing ability.

Could this portal concept be extended to Wikinews? The specific portals could be thought of 'newspapers' for different organizations and locations. How would we go about making portals for Wikinews? --ShaunMacPherson 19:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggest a little reorganisation and reformatting
I happened by this page, thought it a good idea, then noticed what seemed to me to be the somewhat arbitrary division of topics between Culture and Entertainment. I suggest, therefore, these categories are merged along the lines that I've attempted.

I then thought the page might work better if there was more distinction between the major portal/article links and any then following in brackets, so I switched the latter to the small font-size and put each major portal/article on its own line. Does that help?

Hope the above makes sense! David Kernow 15:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the way some portals are in small text, but I don't think each portal needs a seperate line. In addition to making the page very long, it doesn't follow the same form as other browse pages. I think a divider (dash, dot, vertical line etc) is enough of a separation. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


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

Thanks for your feedback. On revisiting the page I agree that the bracketed text is too small, so have amended its size; and that too much space is unfilled, so have replaced the continuous listing layout. Since I imagine the number of portals will increase, however, I am wondering if those bracketed 'subportals' ought not to clutter the list of 'main' portals under each heading. Inserting, for example, a page listing 'subportals' before a user arrives at a 'main' portal might be too cumbersome, whereas simply removing them might be too draconian...? David Kernow 14:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) PS I have commented out the Cugnot automobile picture as, whilst pretty, I found it interefering with the list formatting.


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


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

I suppose I'm somewhere between inclusionism and deletionism. My thinking as regards the lists is that, unlike the "Browse Articles" and "Browse Categories" lists at the top of the page, the topic lists could balloon - especially with 'subportals' - and sooner or later become unwieldy. 'Main' portals could begin to disappear amongst many 'subportals', for example, especially if all were listed in the same font size.

Having said that, on revisiting the page again I too am now not that keen on the small font. What if there were some symbol following a 'main' portal link to indicate that it has a number of 'subportals' associated with it - and that clicking on that symbol would reload the page with those 'subportals' now listed after it...? (Perhaps not good for webpage structure, accessibility or browsing speed; or tricky for wiki software...)

Have left page as is for time being. David Kernow 04:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC) PS Thanks RDF for reverting the "Culture and Entertainment" heading to "Culture"; I agree and had meant to revert it myself.


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

Well, thinking of all the films, TV series, biolgical orders, branches of mathematics and so on that could have portals created for them, I'm not sure an exhaustive list of them will facilitate browsing - at least, not exhaustive lists intermingled with what I've termed 'main' portals (i.e. not the headings). Meanwhile, I've reverted the small font.

Those entries in the lists which are not portals (Fictional characters and worlds, International organizations, etc) will, I hope, become portals. For me, their remaining in italics emphasises them unnecessarily. Ditto non-portal 'subportals' now in normal font-size.

David Kernow 13:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


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

Fair enough: "Cross that bridge when (and if!) we come to it." Cheers, David Kernow 23:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)On narrower windows, the Alphabetical Index shows A B C D E F G H I J       K L M  N O P Q R S T U V       W X Y Z which looks a bit weird. I've removed the break so it flows to fit the available width. Bazza 16:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)