Wikipedia talk:Contents/Portals/Archive 2

Philosophy section
This page is intended as a portal to portals, which then act as portals to articles. The continued creation of a philosophy section with the sole intent of linking to articles defeats the purpose of this page. There are some links to articles on this portal for classificatory purposes, not simply to promote content. Please stop creating a separate section for philosophy unless you intend to create (or rather, have created) sub-philosophy portals, which I would strongly advise against. You may wish to utilise the Religion and Spirituality section to link the philosophy portal more prominently, if absolutely necessary. Thanks, --cj | talk 03:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The page is thematically oriented. Themes are conceptual.  There are some major conceptual categories missing, and the categories presented are weighted inappropriately.  Being a directory to knowledge, the piece needs to reflect the nature of the knowledge of the world.  When it is without the proper representation of topical themes presented according to their corresponding significance in the real world, the list becomes highly classificatorily SKEWED.  So, for the sake of proper classifcatory presentation of general knowledge, philosophy must be presented on the same level as Science.  Religion is actually a sub-classification of philosophy, but it is presented here as a top-tier category.  So please, quit trying to reduce philosophy's role as a major category in the knowledge of the world.  Thank you.  Go for it! 03:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that's your bias, however. Philosophy, thematically, is under culture. Religion was also, until a proliferation of religious portals justified a separate heading. You are absolutely correct that religion is actually a sub-classification of philosophy, and I would not object to the associated section being re-headered under "Philosophy". However, this page cannot be used to link to articles for the sake of promoting a particular portal area, which is what resulted from your edits.--cj | talk 03:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

One cyberbias deserves another. Your compromise works for me. However, in the future, if any more philosophy portals are created, Philosophy should be broken out to its own section so that its portals and those of Religion are not mixed together in the same list (which would get confusing if they were). Go for it! 05:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Tight hierarchy
This browser is trying to accomplish a three-level hierarchy in a tightly compact manner. The reason is because we are trying to track the spontaneous activity of portal-creators drilling down to that third leve (e.g. specific TV show of Simpsons for a portal). Categories change more slowly.

The only problem I have is that we are using W's "colon" prefix for indenting. That may be the correct way, but it forces a lot onto a single line, which I dislike. We could just do the HTML, but I am still trying to figure out if there is a better way. It would be nice if we could change to the notation in Overview and Cat Browse so that we can manage things one-per-line. -- Fplay 22:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "single line"? Are you suggesting that we should have a dot-point type list? That wouldn't work (æsthetically and ergonomically), I don't think.--cj | talk 03:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm with CJ on this one. Bulleted lists, with one item per line, don't seem appropriate for the browse triumvirate. Go for it! 08:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I put the math sections back on cat and overview browsers
If we ever get portals for the other math topics, we can also put a math sectoin back on the portal browser too. The users can live with the lack of symmetery for now. -- Fplay 17:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

We're almost completely adopted on the Main Page!
I made a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability, and so the browsebar on the main page is almost identical to our browsebar now. It was completely identical, but there's one POV'er who reverted specficially the Art and Philosophy portals from it, citing the discussion on Template talk:MainPageIntro. However, that discussion was tied 2 to 2. Please go there and support Art and Philosophy. Go for it! 07:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Actively maintained portals
I think it might help to either clean up the main page and delete dead portals or add a section that links exclusively to actively-maintained portals. As it is the list is long but most of the portals it links to are dead and haven't been updated in months. That's very discouraging for the average browser. We need to somehow highlight the active portals. --Cyde Weys votetalk 14:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Things need to stay alphabetised
The lists of sub portals in each category should be kept in alphabetical order. I fixed up a couple sections, but in the future, try to put new entries where they belong in the English alphabet. :)
 * Matt 08:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - makes life a lot easier.

Less active / substandard portals
Is there a list somewhere of the less active or substandard portals? Just for reference, these are the ones I ran across: I ran across these while redirecting List of portals here, but didn't add them to the main page because it looked like others had taken them off for one reason or another. --Interiot 21:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Muppets
 * Community
 * International relations
 * Scientific method
 * Only decent portals may be listed here - I've personally removed Portal:International relations and Portal:Scientific method. However, we haven't a page to note sub-standard portals. I'll set something up.--cj | talk 03:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What's with the stars?
At one per week, this whole page will fill up with stars in about a year. That's silly. I've ditched the stars. --Go for it! 21:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. I wasn't sure myself. I just noticed it on Portal:Accueil is all.--cj | talk 02:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetics
I tried to change some of the aesthetics, and it looked much better, but now someone has rv-ed the changes.

I would say:
 * Lose the vertical bars; dots (·) are much more appealing and less intrusive.
 * Move the icons (which aren't even necessary, but I think they have been sufficiently discussed on Wikipedia's Main Page draft talk page) to the right of each category name.
 * Don't include links to actual articles – like "Americas" because this is a page for portals.
 * Make Sports and games the same size as the others, and don't indent it; it is not enough a part of culture to require the indentation.
 * People aren't stupid, and if we're going to label Sports and Games twice, they should be separate categories.
 * Even though I understand the logic behind capitalizing "Culture" and such, when "games" is not capitalized, it is aesthetically displeasing and should be standardized.

Overall, the page looks horrible as it stands, but it definitely has potential. - ElAmericano | talk 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with your first point, ambivalent on your second, third and sixth points, and opposed to your fourth and fifth points. Sports and games cannot be a separate heading as it does not form part of the hierarchy (see WPT:P). A compromise could be to merge it back into Art and Culture. --cj | talk 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The current oranization scheme is a cross between the main section headings of a newspaper and major subject fields. However, the whole thing is in flux -- Wikipedia has not found its own identity in this regard -- and because of Wikipedia's nature, this may always be in flux. You just don't have the hang of the Wikipedia way yet -- if you want to change it, just go in and change it. Everyone is allowed 3 reverts per day, on any given page, so don't be afraid to use them. But here's a tip: if you keep your changes to separate edits, and not all in one, then it's less likely that they'll all be reverted. I like the dots, by the way, and support you on creating new subheadings/major headings. There is no standard for organization as of yet, so if you want to influence it, don't be timid or shy. That's why one of the main policies of Wikipedia is: be bold! Express yourself directly on the page itself! If others like it, they'll protect it; if they don't, it sure feels ruthless. But don't worry, you'll get used to it. Discussion isn't mandatory, but it is useful. So do both, and see what you can accomplish! --Go for it! 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Show us what you've got! If the page looks horrible, then show us what you think looks great. It can get frustrating when people start reverting parts of the new whole before you've even finished it, but keep chipping away at it, and it can transform pretty quickly. I don't like the current format either, so I'm very interested in watching (and participating) in what you transform this page into. Two other pages that are almost identical to this one in layout and design are Browse and Browse by overview, so you might want to work on those too. --Go for it! 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Go For It!, El Americano did make his changes - they were modified by me and reverted by you. For the record, I disagree with much of you above statement. In particular, I find the following comment concerning: "Everyone is allowed 3 reverts per day, on any given page, so don't be afraid to use them." This is a risky misinterpretation of the policy that could land you in trouble if you followed it literally. Edit warring is almost always counter-productive and always disruptive.--cj | talk 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he wasn't so much encouraging edit wars as he was showing exactly what the "be bold" policy means and giving good advice to a relative noob. - ElAmericano | talk 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Main page redesign
There is discussion going on now regarding the Main page redesign and linking portals (more prominently) from the main page to allow users to more easily browse Wikipedia.


 * Feel free to comment at either Wikipedia talk:Portal and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 02:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Article links from portal page
I don't think it legitimate to link to articles from a page dedicated to browsing portals. That's just confusing and seems to lack a point. Further, italicizing these article links isn't visually appealing. - ElAmericano | talk 04:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, articles are linked for the sake of topical organization. Makes it less confusing than a random soup of portals, I think. :) Lucidish 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a good idea either; since some of the supercategories are portals, the ones that link to articles are misleading. I'm going to delink them.--ragesoss 04:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Cuisine
Should cuisine be listed under culture & art? I don't see a subcategory that would work better. Jake 09:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

why missing the little portal images?
why? When I look at most of the portals there is text introducing the portal and space left for the portal image, but no portal image. The pages are coded for a portal image, but they don't show up. Who is hiding them? Thanks Hmains 00:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling check, please
I think there should be a spellcheck function in the writing or editing part of Wikipedia. This would really help with typos and make Wikipedia a better, more spell-safe, site. Let me know if this is in the wrong section. I wasn't sure where to post it. I was going to post it in My Talk, but not many people would see it.--Existential Thinker 03:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See the Village Pump or Help:Contents.--cj | talk 09:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Religion and Philosophy section
I think atheism should be included as a portal in the Religion and Philosophy section. Atheism, together with agnostism, is the biggest belief in the world today, and although not a religion, it can be considered a philosophy. Dilbert 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Two new portals for the Arts and Culture section
I have two suggestions for portals in the arts and culture section.The first is Sherlock holmes,books written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and others,plays and movies about the character,even ongoing television shows that have been made about the character.Even links to information on sir Arthur Conan Doyle and anything else about the characters creative backround might be interesting. The character of Sherlock Holmes has been around for so long and has had such an enduring fan base that such a portal might find a lot of use. The second suggestion for a portal is Western Fiction. That means fiction written in the ninteeth century American West otherwise known as the untamed frontier. The portal could include books written during or after the period.It also could include information on authors who speciazed in writting about the period such as Zane Grey and Louis Lamour. The portal should also inculde information Western fiction in the old pulps,movies,television series and comic books. Western Fiction is not used so often these days but it is a very important part of our cultural history and eveynow and then a book or a movie sells weill enough to prove interest is still our there. This portal might also attract some real interest in this important cultural topic. ((user Samdeham))

Heads up: more portal-talkers coming.
Some wit with too much time on his hands--well, me--wrote a spoof self-admin-nomination, Song/The RfA Candidate's Song, in which the candidate muses about his possible failure because his contributions to portal talk are few. I am now a candidate (here), and some prankster now insists that he will remain neutral until I post more in portal talk. And here I am. But for your sake I hope this doesn't become a fad. Portal-talk could be overwhelmed with Admin-candidates being sent over here to post something--anything--to win over the waiverers! Bucketsofg✐ 12:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, that was my joke before it was in the RFA Candidate's Song! (Not that I'd ever opposed or neutral'd for it in jest). — Cuivi é  nen  T, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 00:13 UTC

My portal
My portal was taken off the list (Austria-Hungary) why? Was it deleted? If so, bye, if not, I stay/ -- — [ Unsigned .]
 * It would appear that it was removed from the list as it was unfinished at the time of submission. It appears to be done now so I have re-added it. -- GW_Simulations Talk 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

intro
I like this intro (for Portal:Browse in Wikipedia) because it describes the page well and is not partisan about the page:

It's needed, because the one the says "Alternative entrance possibilities" is not telling that the right side is about what a portal is, or that the left side is to portals. It's also not telling about the other topic directories, which are better for term papers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuck Marean (talk • contribs).


 * I'm afraid your alternative is not better. This page exists to provide access to portals, which in turn give access to articlespace.--cj | talk 08:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is, this is is a very prominent page, that has been in a certain state for a relatively long time. On such public pages, it's best to reach a consensus on the talk page before making larger changes. Things are in a continuous state of improvement everywhere, and many of these pages have a group of active maintainers, with a plan they're slowly working towards, or from! For particularly large changes (especially graphical and introductory) it's best to draft a copy of the changes to be made, per WP:DISCUSS. A great example of a very complex change that was discussed recently, is at User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal.
 * I see from your contribs page that you might be a fairly new user; so, Welcome! Might i humbly suggest, that you spend a little more time editing article pages and observing the general proceedings, before jumping into fixing these backend pages headfirst? There are all kinds of things to do and read, listed at the Community Portal. I hope that all kinda makes sense :) Thanks. -Quiddity 09:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Portal of the week" is misleading
There is no rotation of portal displays week by week, which is what the current title suggests, and most of the portals displayed in that section are shown for well over several weeks. In order to address this, I suggest that we change this to "Portal of the Month", and rotate the display accordingly. What are your thoughts? Brisv e  gas  09:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering the imprecise timing of the thing, why not just use an approach found at many portals? Call it "Selected portal." Rfrisbietalk 13:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New Words
I sincerely apologize for putting this here... but don't know where to put this. I coined a new word today and a colleague suggested I post to Wikipedia. This is a fantastic forum, and I wondered if there is some place to create new words with new definitions. If so, please let me know and I will place it there.

Here is my entry:

bloggling v.  Strange feeling Netizens get when attempting to view a blog or webpage only to find that it is filtered by administrators or government officials for inexplicable reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbcoops (talk • contribs).
 * replied at user's talk page. -Quiddity 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Listing Portals With bullet points
I think the way we have the portals listed is very messy. We should list them with bullet points instead. Tobyk777 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Medicine portal
Now it became featured. I'd like to get this portal the portal of the month. How can I do it? Thanks. NCursework 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no system in place for selecting "portal of the month", and they aren't exactly on a monthly schedule. Preferably the portal selected has earned featured status.  Though, Association football is up there now, because it's related to current events.  I suggest leaving football up there through July 9th.  After that, I suggest going in order of promotion to Featured status, which means Tropical Cyclones, Christianity, Aviation, History of Science, and Medicine.  Though, if someone gives me a good reason for deviating from the order, I might buy it.  -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I had changed the portal, but since today is the World Cup final, I guess we can leave it to today (which is why I reverted myself). Brisv e  gas  05:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this considered precog?
i'm new so i dont even really no what i'm doing or if i'm posting this in the right place? so i hope this is ok? I just have a few questions. What would you lable these as? ...ppl. seeing through other ppl./creature's eyes; Or if a person walks pass you and you automaitically can feel how that person feels; If you look deep into a person's eye's and can see there deepest thoughts; dreaming bits and pieces of something and then you find that there coming true; visioning and feeling something that's happening but has not yet occured. — [ Unsigned .]
 * The appropriate place to ask questions unrelated to Wikipedia or any specific article is at one of the Reference desks. I suggest the Miscellaneous Ref Desk for this one.- gadfium 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)