Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 1

Template talk:Browsebar
There's discussion on the usefulness of the above template on the talk page there. Hiding talk 11:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Listing portals and their subpages
I suggest we trawl through Portal space and list all portals and their related sub-pages here. Sub pages which have no incoming links should be so noted. Pages should be categorised in the appropriate portal category, for example pages related to Portal:Comics should be placed in Category:Comics portal. Where a category doesn't exist, I'd say create it and we can always list it for deletion later if so decided. Hiding talk 11:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than manually maintain a list, it seems easier to use Special:Allpages. For example, to list all subpages of Portal:Trains, put "Trains" in the "Display pages starting at" field and "Portal" in the "Namespace" field. Slambo (Speak) 11:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, and I have been doing so. But if we list what we've found it saves repeating work and allows us to share resources. Not only that, you get subpages which aren't related to portals, for example I discovered Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured article, Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured picture, Portal:Ancient Rome/Categories, Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured article, Portal:Ancient Rome/Featured picture, Portal:Ancient Rome/Intro but no Portal:Ancient Rome.    Hiding  talk 08:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that any portal with, say, a "Selected anniversaries" section is likely to have hundreds of subpages. Are all of them going to need category tags? Kirill Lok s hin 14:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of the project?
In my experience, the stub sorting project maintains fairly rigid guidelines for stub templates/categories/creation/etc., and tends to remove anything they don't like in short order. Is it the intent of this project to enforce a particular structure on portals themselves? Or merely to keep them organized, with the traditional wide latitude given to individual portal maintainers? Kirill Lok s hin 13:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To my mind mainly to make sure we don't get half created portals hanging about the portal space, for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Family Guy and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Park. I would rather see it used as a talking shop for portal maintainers, for sharing what does and doesn't work, and for generating consensus on contentious issues regarding portals such as the recent discussion over using the term "Featured" in portals.  Your question just seems so broad that it is impossible to answer, to be honest.  Do you have any specific examples in mind?  I mean, to my eye there seems to be a standard look for a portal, namely the boxes.  I'd also, from my point of view, like to see better linking between related portals, for example I maintain Portal:Comics and had been relatively unaware of Portal:Anime and manga; it makes sense we both link to each other.  So I'm not looking to impose top down rigid guidelines over every single aspect of a portal, but areas such as linking up related portals, shared templates such as Portals, discussing unmaintained portals and keeping the portal space maintained are things it would make sense discussing in one area. Does that help?  I'm not typically one for advocating the removal of something in no short order, I'd rather this were a discussion forum. Hiding  talk 09:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Portals under construction
There are quite a few portals in Category:Portals and some of the subcategories that are not ready for general viewing. It's hard to sort them out other than by using Portal:Browse. I suggest adding a Category:Portals under construction subcategory to Category:Portals and recategorizing the incomplete portals there. Also, Template:box portal skeleton should categorize templates to Category:Portals under construction instead of Category:Portals and instructions should be added at Portal for recategorizing a portal once it is ready. Also, these instructions should be expanded to discuss adding completed and polished portals to Portal:Browse.

I'm willing to do this, but would like some consensus first. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Hiding talk 12:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Any estimate of how many existing portals would get moved there, incidentally? Kirill Lok s hin 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, a rough guess after having just gone through almost all the portals fixing a formatting problem caused by a bug in box portal skeleton, I would say at least 20%, perhaps more. That's out of roughly 200 portals, so at least 40 are incomplete. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * After recategorizing all except the Category:Portal:Geography, there are 43 portals in the Portals under construction category out of 168 total, so more like 25%. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of being bold I'm going to take these two encouraging replies with no cautionary replies as consensus. Basically, I think it's needed, so I was mostly looking to see if there were objections. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mostly done, some portals were borderline
I finished the above recommendations and recategorized all of the portals except those in the Category:Portal:Geography subcategory (I'll do that tomorrow).

My criteria for recatergorizing a portal was:
 * Any redlinks for content sections (but not simply for a red link within the content)
 * A portal in user space

Some portals had empty section content, but since they didn't meet the above criteria, I left them in Category:Portals. These portals should perhaps also be moved to Category:Portals under construction:
 * Portal:Arts
 * Portal:Confucianism
 * Portal:Esperanto
 * Portal:History of science
 * Portal:Sexuality
 * Portal:United Nations
 * Portal:New Zealand (fixed)

Other portals simply had very minimal content, but were well-formed:
 * Portal:Cetaceans
 * Portal:International relations

And finally, Portal:Classical Civilisation seemed to have all the content, but the formatting was so corrupted that it was unusable, so I moved it to Portals under construction. (If I have time, which isn't looking good the next few days, I will try to fix it.)

—Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, with some help, the Category:Portal:Geography portals are done also. This also completes a pass through all of the portals to fix formatting problems—I think I fixed problems on over 100 portals. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Project notice
I've refactored portaltalk to direct users here rather than Wikipedia talk:Portal.--cj | talk 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Portals needing attention
Just discovered Category:Portals needing attention. What do people think, make this a sub-cat of Category:Portals under construction or merge it into that and delete. Hiding talk 21:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be a separate category? A portal can be fully constructed and still need cleanup or other work. Kirill Lok s hin 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see it as separate. Portals under construction is intended to be instead of Category:Portals.  I think Portals needing attention could be used in addition to Portals.  In fact, it would be a great place to put those portals I listed above that are missing content, or just lacking enough content. I would make it a subcategory to Portals instead of a subcategory to Portals under construction. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. I just went through the portal space and categorised all the main portal pages in either portals or portals under constructions.  There were quite a few uncategorised. My next thought is, should each portal have its own category into which its subpages are categorised?  On top of that, there's a lot of redirects in portal space, I might make a list of them somewhere to keep an eye on them. Hiding  talk 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * should each portal have its own category into which its subpages are categorised? A couple (like three or four) portals have done this. I don't know if it's really necessary because the "what links here" will reveal them all, but I don't have a strong opinion.  However, I do have a strong opinion that if a portal has such a category, that the category is not a subcategory in the Category:Portals hierarchy.  You can locate the subpage category easily enough at the bottom of the associated portal page. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We disagree somewhat there then. Hiding  talk 18:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? Do you disagree about having the categories, or about including them in the Category:Portals hierarchy?  As far as the Portals hierarchy, I don't see the point in "polluting" it with a huge number of categories that basically contain the pieces used to make the main portal page.  These pieces are better located from the main page than through the category hierarchy, which, at least to me, has the purpose of finding the portals.  But maybe that wasn't where you disagree... —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with not folding them into Category:Portals. Unless you are arguing to remove all subcats of Category:Portals apart from under construction and needing attention?  At the minute, the way the geopgraphy portals are categorised it makes it hard not to put the Portal categories into cat:portals.  And if geography portals are categorised like so, it makes sense to categorise all the other portals likewise. Although, a way around it would be to categorise subpages in Category:Portal Comics sub-pages.  Thoughts?  My end goal here is just to keep an eye on all these subpages and make sure we haven't got unneeded pages kicking about.  Hiding  talk 13:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The naming convention I've seen used is Category:Comics portal (wow, I expected this to be a red link). I would create a category for each portal.  The reason I don't want to include these portal categories themselves in the Category:Portal hierarchy is because these categories will drawf in number the categories that are organizing the hierarchy.  Also, these categories are not useful for browsing, they are useful for editing the page.  Because of this, I find it adequate to just locate the category off, in this case, the Portal:Comics page.  We could have a category like Category:Portal page categories or  Category:Portal sub-pages or whatever is best, but I'm not sway that this would be all that useful.  —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why individual portals need categories. All subpages should be accessible from the portal, and if not, from What links here.--cj | talk 06:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Listing for deletion?
I'm working up a list of pages in the portal namespace which I think might warrant a listing at MfD. So far I have: Thoughts? Hiding talk 13:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Portal:Climate
 * Portal:Climate/box-header
 * Portal:Democracy/Did you know
 * Portal:Democracy/News
 * Portal:Democracy/Featured article
 * Portal:Democracy/Intro
 * Portal:Democracy/Featured picture
 * Portal:Democracy/box-footer
 * Portal:GMA Network
 * Portal:Kolkata/Featured article
 * Portal:Kolkata/Intro


 * Looks good to me. Portal:GMA Network would actually need to be listed on RfD. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to even bother with that. I've deleted it. Taking the common sense approach, I see no reason why every else in that list can't be deleted right now. Agreed?--cj | talk 10:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see a case for WP:IAR, yes. Hiding talk 12:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just delete them all, then ;-) Kirill Lok s hin 12:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Actually, we could plausibly establish a Portals for deletion process - although it's probably not necessary.--cj | talk 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Malaysian expressway system
I've listed the above for deletion, just dropping a note here. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Malaysian expressway system for my reasoning. Hiding talk 09:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Portal:University of Texas at Austin
This is an extremely bad precedent. Should this go direct to MFD?--cj | talk 05:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably too small of a subject matter. Jedi6  -(need help?)  02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to be fairly well constructed, actually. While I'm surprised that there are enough UT-related articles to make this possible, we shouldn't judge portals solely on their scope. Kirill Lok s  h in 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But doesn't Portal says create portals only on broad topics. Jedi6  -(need help?)  02:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been accepted as a guideline yet, though; and even if it is, it wouldn't really qualify as a sufficient reason to delete things. Kirill Lok s h in 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just don't see a reason why a subject matter and can be completed fully in one article needs its own portal. Jedi6  -(need help?)  02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there's obviously more than one article on this topic (otherwise, it wouldn't really be possible to create even a rudimentary portal). If your complaint is that there are too many articles on the University of Texas, that's a rather different issue, and one quite beyond the scope of this discussion ;-) Kirill Lok s  h in 03:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The only exception to judging a portal by its scope would be importance of the topic it covers. This portal, to me at least, clearly fails on both counts - it is seriously limited in scope and it isn't important. I mean, this isn't even a university portal - its a portal for a branch of a university! In my opinion Portal:University is where the buck should stop. That schools are allowed articles is already a point of resentment; this portal sets a precedent to allow portals for schools! What happened to broad subject areas?--cj | talk 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have personal reasons for wanting this portal deleted, but if I wasn't an OU alumnus, I wouldn't see much of a problem with it. It looks fairly useful and well-stocked, even if it's color scheme is hideous; it looks like a single university can be a broad enough topic to fill out a portal.--ragesoss 05:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why we should be judging scope at all, except insofar as portals with a narrow scope usually have trouble in other areas as well. Let's not drag portal-space into the eternal "notability" debate if we can help it. Kirill Lok s  h in 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid they've alway been a part of it - like it or not. The reason we consider scope is because portals are unique: just because an article or series of articles might be justified for a topic, it doesn't mean a portal is. Why? Because portals are like the Main Page, encompassing wide areas and serving as entry-points to them - that is, redirecting users to a multitude of articles. Portals are drawpoints in themselves - they are a fronts for Wikipedia. Just like Portal:Architecture which was recently reviewed by a prominent web network as one of the top 10 best planning, design, and development websites.--cj | talk 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But what does "justified" mean here? I could see your point if all portals were listed on the main page and there was competition for screen real estate; but most portals will only be found by people actively searching for them.  They may not be useful to very many readers, but some will find them useful; and I really can't see what the harm is in the existence of well-maintained portals—even if they are narrower in scope than one might expect. Kirill Lok s  h in 15:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Placement and style of portal link
I started discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, but someone suggested it had wider implications, so I've moved the discussion over here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at the links from cricket articles to the cricket portal. It seems we have no consistency about how to do this. I count several different styles:

Some articles have more than one of these.12
 * 1) Link at the top of the article, like a dab link. This is the most common style. The links can be:
 * 2) Italic and indented1
 * 3) Bold italic and indented2
 * 4) Bold italic and not indented3 (this is the most common of all, but I think if it's a dab-type link then it should be indented)
 * 5) Using that little jigsaw thingy:
 * 6) At the top of the article4
 * 7) Near the top of the article5
 * 8) In the References6
 * 9) In the External Links7
 * 10) In the See Also8
 * 11) As a text link in See Also:
 * 12) Piped9
 * 13) Unpiped10
 * 14) From the History of cricket template.11

Is there a standard for this? Myself, I don't like the dab link. I may be influenced by the fact that I'm not a big fan of portals (dare I admit such heresy here? I accept I'm probably in the minority on that), but it feels a bit spammy to me. Do we really need to trumpet the portal at the top of the article? I also don't like "overloading" the space used for dab links: it's confusing to use the space for different purposes, and it causes problems when we need a dab link as well.13,14. So that's my least favourite way.

Any other views? Or any citations of a standard?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I never realised how many methods there are to link to the portal! Like Stephen, I think the dab link is a bit distracting. Yet it won't serve as much purpose when it is very low down in the article, like in the See also section. I prefer the box in the top right corner where it catches the eye but doesn't make the reader offguard. GizzaChat  &#169; 11:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The box in the top-right hand corner still feels spammy to me, I'm afraid. It's as if portals are somehow being regarded as superior to other methods of browsing Wikipedia, so deserve special treatment. I'd be happier to have more links to the portal if it was less prominent. And also that space is often in use with a photo, or in the case of cricket articles with a biographical infobox15, so what do you do then? Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, anything in the top of pages is spammy. Isn't meta information supposed to be only on the talk page? But portals are only semi-meta? I believe the "see also"-section is the best place to put it. --Boivie 12:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The dab link option is thoroughly inappropriate. That was an option undertaken only by Portal:Cricket (principally by jguk) prior to the creation of the portalpar templates, and has unfortunately stuck and recently extended. I have been removing them where I come across it. Text links in see also are also a bad option (and one I had not encountered). Both portalpar and portal are the standard format, but they are inconsistently implemented. A discussion earlier this year at Wikipedia talk:Portal established a consensus that they should be located at article ends, preferably in the See also section. Linking from navigational templates and infoboxes seems okay so long as it is done discreetly; in fact, someone has suggested that country portals be linked to from the Infobox Country.

I think that a better way to integrate portals with articles needs to be found. Also, which articles should link to particular portals needs to be addressed. I am open to the idea of an icon in the title bar, similar to featured article, as a way to access portals. The only problem with this is that the title bar is increasingly occupied by other things including co-ordinates. --cj | talk 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm quite happy with portal in the =See also= section. -- Ian &equiv; talk 13:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't work too well when the article doesn't have a "See also" section, though ;-) Kirill Lok s h in 13:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well somewhere near the end of the article (where =See also= would otherwise be) but above ext links and refs (assuming they're there), cause it really is a see also type of thing we're talking about. -- Ian &equiv; talk 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to use portal/portalpar near the top of the portal's main topic article (and not on other articles that are related to the portal's main topic) and a See also type text link on appropriate WikiProject pages. The portals are already linked from the main page and through Portal:Browse; I don't see as much of a need to advertise them around on all related articles. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case of almost all (and presumably eventually all) cricketer articles, putting portal/portalpar near the top of the article will interfere with the infobox which is also in the top right hand corner. -- Ian &equiv; talk 05:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I confess to being a top right linker, although I've only linked one article to Portal:Comics. Hiding talk 08:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Choosing which articles to have a portal link

 * I've refactored this discussion slightly as two separate issues have developed. I hope that's OK -- Ian &equiv; talk 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

...(copied from above) The portals are already linked from the main page and through Portal:Browse; I don't see as much of a need to advertise them around on all related articles. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, where to stop is another issue. We have something over 3000 cricket biographies, before you've even thought about other articles. Should they all link to the portal? If not, which ones should? At the moment, it's all rather haphazard. Many of the most prominent articles do, but many non-prominent articles do too, depending presumably what the original author copied. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked Ianbrown about why some articles have this or not, and he said that showcase articles on the portal should link to this portal - I was wondering whether I should spam articles with the portal links to two that I had created, (Portal:Eurovision and Portal:Swimming) because it could possibly considered bad form wrt vanispamcruftadvertising portals which I had created. So I proceeeded to advertise the portal on the showcase articles. I'm fine with whatever is decided - formatting, obtrusiveness, etc. ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Showcased article linking is a good suggestion. Outside that, I figure the main article, for example, Cricket for Portal:Cricket and so on, should link to the portal, and maybe top level categories in the related category should link to it, so all the cats in Category:Cricket.  That seems like a fairly good list of places which should link.  To sum up:

Thoughts, additions or subtractions? Hiding talk 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Foo should link to Portal:Foo.
 * Category:Foo and top level categories in Category:Foo.
 * Showcased articles on Portal:Foo.
 * WikiProject Foo should link to Portal:Foo.


 * I agree that Foo, Category:Foo and WikiProject Foo should link to Portal:Foo. But for other articles I prefer if the link is from the talk page. For example like in the Portal:Cars-selected-article-template at Talk:Lincoln Town Car. --Boivie 09:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't thinking about talk page links, just links in the main article space. For items that I put in the Portal:Trains section, I put (the date it appeared there) on the talk page, so I guess putting a link on the talk page for portal features is appropriate. However, I think putting such a link on the article itself isn't appropriate, especially when you consider that many of the Did you know features are stubs. Slambo (Speak) 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that all related articles related to a portal are eleigible to be linked. It improves the functionality of wikipedia. If you have an interest in a topic, you will naturally want to look at thta portal. --evrik 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, selected articles for a portal should not link to the portal. Only one significant article in the article namespace should link to any given portal (there are probably exceptions where two or three articles might link). I think it's also acceptable for "Current events in xxx" to link to a related portal, and maybe some redirects. All links from the article namespace are only valid if the portal will contain relevant material to the original article indefinitely. As an example, Portal:Oceania covers more than two dozen countries, but Oceania is the only mainspace article other than current events articles, "Oceania portal", and "P:O" to link to it, and I think the archives of Current events in Oceania might benefit from having the link removed.-gadfium 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Images
There doesn't seem to be a policy on this and the official policy doesn't even mention portals. I've seen some editors not allow any fair use images while otheres let any image go on the portal. Thats why I propose that this project make a policy on it. Aren't portals the same thing as the main Wikipedia page. If so shouldn't portals follow that policy of allowing fair use images only in news articles/selected images only if their is corresponding text and an article and only if their is no other image to be used. Jedi6 -(need help?)  00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Portals are not the same thing as the Main page. Policies differ from portal to portal, but most have selected articles that are not Featured articles and selected pictures that are not Featured pictures. To demand that they adhere to the same standards as the main page would be to demand that they recycle the very small number of featured articles and pictures that are relevant to each over and over, or that they not have such selections. It was rightly objected to that portals initially called their selections "featured", as that devalues the word.
 * For a portal's "In The News" or "Did You Know" sections, I feel a fair use picture is okay, because it is illustrating an item directly relevant to that picture. For a selected picture, I feel it is not okay, since the picture is the focus rather than the writeup that goes with it. Also, perhaps more importantly, a selected picture should show off Wikipedia's content for the given area, and fair use pictures are not our content.
 * I'm agreeing with Jedi6 here about fair use images being allowed in suitable context on portal pages, but I think I'm approaching this from a different direction.-gadfium 02:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So does anyone object if we make this the project's policy. Jedi6  -(need help?)  07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of subpages of Portal:Trains were edited today by to remove all the company logos reasoning that fair use is strictly forbidden outside of the main article space. I don't entirely agree with this but I'm not going to start reverting things yet. Slambo (Speak) 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think it is ridiculous to straight-out prohibit fair use images in portalspace. Should we make it an aim of this project to ammend the fair use policy to allow fair use images in portalspace where appropriate; the convention the Main Page goes by seems valid.--cj | talk 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Portal space should be treated like article space in this regard.  Certainly, the case for that being standard fair use is clearcut; it's no different than in an article.--ragesoss 05:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be a flat-out campaign to prohibit them yet; if it was, I would have seen quite a few more edits pop up on my watchlist last week. It was my understanding that portals were basically special types of articles, and as long as the text next to an image directly discusses the subject of the image (like a news or anniversary item about a specific company with an image of that company's logo when no other images are available), it would qualify as a fair use of the image.  I hate to fall back on the flag images for all of the news items. Slambo (Speak)  10:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Ed g2s has been removing them from a few pages on my watchlist.--cj | talk 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a straw poll at a centralised area is probably the best idea to determine the consensus on this issue; it's a contentious one for sure. Hiding Talk 11:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Formatting Help
There are some image formatting issues that I just discovered on Portal:History of science as well a number the main portals. In Internet Explorer, many images don't show up, while other appear at the bottom of the page or misplaced in some other way. Any help sorting this out would be appreciated.--ragesoss 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines
It would be good if we can use Portal/Guidelines to articulate best-practice for portals. Please add your thoughts.--cj | talk 07:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea, but do we even have any portal-specific best-practices other than the featured portal criteria? Kirill Lok s h in 11:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could serve as an opportunity to make clear general standards for portals. This would allow as to determine what is "sub-standard".--cj | talk 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

References on portals?
In working through some updates to the anniversaries section of Portal:Trains, the thought struck me that there really isn't any reason that I can think of to hide the references on the portal page. Using the structure and including such tags within the transcluded pages, it's trivial to create a section at the bottom of the page with. Remember to place it in the see also section only.--cj | talk 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate portal creation?
Is there any policy on the notability of portals? Or do we create them indiscriminately? I have found this Portal:SAARC that makes little sense at all. The SAARC is an almost non-functional international organization (unlike the European Union, which has Portal:European Union), and the portal seems to be bent on repeating stuff from Portal:India, Portal:Pakistan, Portal:Bangladesh, Portal:Sri Lanka and Portal:Himalaya region. With the existence of all these portals it is hard to see the reason for even a South Asia portal, let alone this portal on SAARC. I have posted a comment to that end to the portal's talk page. But the creator of the portal seems disinterested to answer. Aditya (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I have just discovered Portal:Bengal, another portal by the same user - User:Armanaziz, which depicts a historical and defunct name for a geographical location, with little reference to history. All the material of this article overlaps with Portal:Bangladesh and Portal:West Bengal. In fact, the articles and images on Portal:Bangladesh are currently dominating Portal:Bengal and Portal:SAARC, and that portal was created by the same user, who hasn't still posted any answer to my query. I guess, I am a bit surprised at this indiscriminate proliferation of portals. Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Portal, "the idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." While nevigating wikipedia, I myself felt a need for a portal / "useful entry-point", for articles relating to SAARC countries and Bengal. So, I decided to create the portals myself. I don't think any other justification is required. But just to give you an example how diverse the subject matters for Wikipedia portals can be, please refer to Portal:Mario, Portal:Heraldry, Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire etc.
 * I agree that most of the items in the newly created portals are also covered by other portals. But so what? What's the point you are trying to make? Since the portals use almost no new media files (image sound etc.) the addition to server space is barely minimum - a few megabytes at most. It is fully justified to take up that space in the server to better organize wikipedia.


 * Last but not least, by calling SAARC - an international organization which holds annual summit at head-of-the state level - a non-functional organization, you are clearly trying to push you personal views. Please refrain from such behavior since even wikipedia discussion pages are subject to WP:NPOV it is prohibited in Talk page. Arman Aziz 12:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:P also says portals should cover broad subject areas. Furthermore, you are most certainly mistaken with regards to WP:NPOV — it applies only to encyclopædic content, not talk pages.--cj | talk 12:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether SAARC and Bengal are being accused to be not broad enough as subject area or too broad! Anyway, thanks for the helpful suggestion about WP:NPOV, I'll reword my statements. Arman Aziz 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the portals quoted by Arman Aziz is equally pointless then their existence shows the dire importance of reducing the portal clutter and creating a guideline of notability or usefulness or something. If they are not as pointless then the point in citing them is quite lost, I guess.
 * Please, research a bit more on SAARC to find that though the heads of states meet every four years or so, and never put up a serious agenda in those meetings. Also, research a bit on Bengal to find out that it's a historical entity and a portal can only be an "useful entry-point" if it features content to that end. My personal views are quite unbiased as I see, and not cluttered by the urge to defend my portal. It seems to a bit uncivil to order me in bold to refrain from certain behavior.
 * There used to be processes to get a consensus before someone created a Wikiproject or a Wikiportal in the past, both are defunct now as bureaucratic processes. But, it doesn't really mean that all portals should go and pass without a question. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't but highlight a few points again - a) the cited examples of portals were used to illustrate the diversity in scope of portals in wikipedia, nothing else. b) SAARC heads of states meet periodically and they agree on some sort of agenda. Whether that is "serious" or not is a subjective judgement - and by trying to push that judgement here as a reason of not having a portal on that international bloc you are clearly and obviously trying to push your personal views which is forbidden in bold letter on Talk page (first paragraph, last sentence). I just tried to remind you the basic principles of wikipedia, which your statement about SAARC on August 28 violates again. c) Please do some research on Bengal - you may try google, or a bit of onsite study may help - although Bengal is not a political entity, the people of the region (comprising of Bangladesh and West Bengal) share a common ethnic identity, have very similar culture, use a common language (Bengali) and also share a common history. There is a WikiProject Bengal (WP:BENGAL) on English Wikipedia and editors from Bangladesh and West Bengal are jointly maintaining a wikipedia in Bengali language. You personally may not feel the need of a useful entry point for items of common interest to this region, but many others (including myself) may do. Arman Aziz 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you also have noticed that WP:NN is a WP policy that violates WP:NPOV by your standards... Well, let me get a few things straight. First, your portal on SAARC is not dealing with diplomacy and/or international relations between the member countries. It doesn't serve as an "entrypoint" to SAARC at all, apart from the lead article. It deals with South Asian countries in general. And then, your use of WP:BENGAL seems highly inappropriate, as that WikiProject is devoted largely to topics that either has conflicting views between West Bengal and Bangladesh, and is largely inactive now. How can it justify your portal? Which broda range of artciles it serving as an "entrypoint" to? Finally, those bold instruction may get considered as pieces of WP:ICA, right? May be we can cut down on those. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To me it seems like the discussion is gradually becoming more specific to scope of individual portals. I'd like to continue the discussion on Portal's talk page. I'll reply there. Please continue the discussion there if you feel like. Regarding WP:NN and WP:NPOV questioning notability versus pushing personal views - there is a gulf of difference between saying SAARC is not notable enough to have a portal by wikipedia standards versus saying SAARC should not have a portal because this international bloc is almost non-functional as it fails to agree on any serious agenda.
 * If you are seriously concerned about notability of SAARC and Bengal - then this discussion should be on a deletion debate, not here. Lastly, regarding WP:ICA, ICA stands for Ill-Considered Accusations. I don't believe my accusations were ill considered at all - it appeared to me that you are trying to use this wikipedia talk page to push your point-of-view about SAARC - which needed to be protested boldly. I have not used a single negative word about you. The purpose of putting the comments in bold-face was to draw your attention. Since that purpose seems to have been served and you have stopped making objectionable remarks about SAARC, I am removing the bold-formating from my earlier comments. Arman Aziz 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Concured. Both potals are encyclopedic and I don't see any Non-notable issue. It seems to me that, Aditya's illustrating Point here. Personal judgement is pretty much against the policy. So (Aditya) refrain from such type of behavior.--NAHID 08:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Objectionable remarks? My dear defender of SAARC, it was not an objectionable remark, it was rather a statement of the realities. SAARC summits gets often deferred (from Daily Star), it has little cooperation between them (from Daily Star), has not acieved anything significant (From Daily Star) - and hundreds more newscites are possible here. I am quoting the biggest Bangladeshi English newspaper, because Indian newspapers mostly doesn't even cover SAARC news on the front page, if they do at all. It seems my point of view is shared by many, while your point of view... I don't even know where that high-and-mighty ideal of SAARC you picked from. Sorry. Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not ill considered? Look at you, dear. You have already removed the bold types, and struck out parts of your post. Very well considered, I am sure. BTW, it seems you have closed a thread on the talk page of your SAARC portal. Was that to prove that you really own it? Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The very fact that the heads of states of SAARC member countries join periodically in a summit, and that US, EU, Japan, Korea and China have requested and received official observer status for SAARC is enough proof of recognition of the existence and importance of SAARC at highest possible level within SAARC member countries and outside. Editorial comments about SAARC that you have quoted do express a point-of-view about SAARC. You are very much welcome to share that view there is nothing objectionable. But trying to establish that view as a reason for not having a portal on SAARC is objectionable and against Wikipedia policies. What newspapers say about the effectiveness of an international bloc is NOT a criterion in judgment of the notability of the bloc. Since you are interpreting my politeness of removing bold formatting as a weakness and have reengaged in pushing your point of view about SAARC, I am boldly claiming again:


 * 1) there is NO DOUBT about the notability of SAARC by any Wikipedia standard; if you are really concerned about notability, please go through the formal process of deletion request; I WILL defend the notability there.
 * 2) your attempt to use Wikipedia talk page as a vehicle to push or establish a point-of-view about SAARC is prohibited in WP:Talk page, so STOP THIS.


 * In your last comment you are accusing me of closing a thread on portal’s talk page, thereby I am supposedly trying to establish my ownership on the portal. I did mention that I would like to close a discussion, which means I am withdrawing my self from a pointless discussion. But have I deleted or archived any discussion? Have I barred anyone else from further posting to any thread? I’d very much like to close this discussion on this page – because apart from wasting time no one is achieving anything here. Does it mean I am tring to establish ownership on this wikiproject, too? Show me how wanting to close a pointless discussion violates any policy on Wikipedia or particularly the one that you have quoted. If you fail to show, then I have to conclude that you are the one who is actually engaged in WP:ICA.  Arman Aziz 03:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As a postscipt to the unsuspecting readers: please take some time to go through the links that Aditya has cherry-picked to support his/her personal view (that SAARC is an almost non-functional international organization and hence doesn't deserve to have a portal on Wikipedia) in their full context. You'll see all of them actually recognize the potential and importance of this international bloc and are simply suggesting ways to make it more effective. Arman Aziz 04:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Therefore, the verdict of creator of the portals I used as examples is clear - we can and should have portals whenever we feel strongly for one. And, if someone opposes the trend it is pointless (What's the point you are trying to make?), not worthy of a discussion at this project (this discussion should be on a deletion debate, not here), unresearched (research a bit more), unacceptable behavior (refrain from such type of behavior), cherry-picking (cherry-picked), and of course a violation of WP:NPOV. This politeness I don't understand, negating existing views to uphold unsupported feelings, I don't understand. And, this urge to protect non-encyclopedic content by demeaning the questioner, I don't understand at all. Sorry for my ignorance, but your verdict doesn't seem to too appropriate. Well, I guess, I have trying to talk reason for a bit too long and have managed to make an enemy (that hurts). It should be left to the laws that governs large population bodies (i.e. droves of bees), where the collective doesn't go wrong even if individuals do. A cheer for the community. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you just can't stop discrediting others contribution and pushing your own-point-of-view, then we would definitely ignore your comments. --NAHID 18:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, dear, it hurts. All you've done here is shouting at me - "refrain from such behavior", and bad mouthing me (see the comment above). If you want to ignore, then ignore, don't go about being incivil to people, especially someone you've been following around (in other words, trolling, though on a minor scale).
 * This discussion began as a inquiry to find the purpose of the SAARC portal, and since all I achieved was silence first and accusation of POV pushing later. When I expanded the inquiry to include the whole question of indiscriminate portal creation (there are not a lot of guidelines for notability of portals as in the scope of covered by the portals) I faced the accusation again, as well as a shouting direction, in bold letters. to refrain from behaviors stating policies that actually was found to be misplaced.
 * On top of that, the POV for which I was accused so many times (SAARC not a functional body) seems to be the dominant view of the article that lies at the base of the SAARC portal, featuring at the top of that very portal. But, the POV that opposes mine seems to be quite unsubstantial till now.
 * If you think that questioning your contribution is discrediting it, then may be you'd like to think again. Wikipedia is about a lot of volunteers, most very inexperienced at writing encyclopedias, checking and monitoring each others work. Besides, don't you think that repeatedly claiming someone's quite substantiated statements to be own-point-of-view is discrediting that person, as well as the whole idea of a credible encyclopedia?
 * Therefore, I am sure you can see that there was no discrediting or pushing my own-point-of-view at this end. But, there certainly was a lot of improper behavior on your part. I hope that you'll see that I really agree to Arman more often than not and I have already shown my appreciation for his work on a number of occasions, which he reciprocated with as much abundance. But, even the best of us can be wrong at times. The way out is discussing, not ignoring and accusations, much less false accusations. Even while discussion is happening we've agreed to and appreciated each other.
 * If this post is a bit too long, it is only so because I am hurt, surprised and baffled at your blasts that keeps repeatedly appearing out of the blue. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have decided that I won't discuss SAARC here anymore. I don't want to facilitate an irrelevant discussion on what SAARC has achieved and what has not achieved on a Wikipedia talk page just for the sake of the discussion. Anyone concerned about the notability of any of the portals being discussed here is free to raise a deletion request, which can be debated and be closed with a decision. But on this page the discussion, which is turning increasingly bitter, will go on and on without any conclusion. So why waste time?


 * However, I would like to place a gentle request to dear Aditya to have a look back at your own activity before accusing others of trolling. You are concerned about proliferation of indiscriminate portals on Wikipedia, and out of Wikipedia’s 1,000+ portals you find 2 portals (one on an international bloc comprising of 8 sovereign countries, and the second one on a geographic region with common ethnicity, culture and history) to be the best example of this "indiscriminate" activity; and interestingly both of them have just been created by the same editor! Don't you think this looks like something more than mere coincidence specially after you have just come out of a long and pointless discussion with the same editor on a featured portal candidate discussion? No matter how strongly you argue you are genuinely concerned about too many portals being created on Wikipedia and not intend to discredit any specific editor, to any reader with common sense this whole posting is bound to appear more sinister. Since you want community to give opinion here, let's accept the fact that whoever else has to give opinion on this discussion apart from the two of us, will have to appear here out of the blue. Arman Aziz 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reply to the post above I'm posting to its rightful place - User talk:Armanaziz. Anyone interested can go there to read it. Who, unlike Nahid, is not in the habit of just removing my posts from his talk page. Just one clarification, the pointless argument that you mentioned was about one of your portals, which still remains pretty much a one man show (my point of the discussion) and the one person you have come to hate, namely me, is the only one trying lend you a helping hand there. Please, don't assume bad faith like that. It really hurts. And, don't take things so personally. Instead of attacking me personally you could have mentioned quite a lot of other portals (oh my god, I didn't know there were 1000+ portals, does these "entrypoints" get any hit at all?), like Portal:Final Fantasy, Portal:Sony Playstation, Portal:Mario, Portal:Zelda, Portal:Discworld, Portal:Dragonlance, Portal:Hampshire, Portal:Kent, Portal:University of Texas at Austin or Portal:Fire, to name just few, as equally pointless portals.
 * Out of so much hostility I thank you for this gem of a direction. My accidental stumble on two of the useless portals and the ensuing tirades against me has done a lot of good in the end (I love discussions, even the hostile ones, as you always can learn a lot when approached with an open mind). It has shown that the problem of indiscriminate portal creation runs a lot deeper than expected. Well, in such a huge project you're always bound to find gold or dirt by stumbling on it. This current discussion has become so full of animosity that I think I am going to start another discussion. With or without a certain user included this is a Wikipedia-wide problem. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Question on possible new careers guidance portal
Hi I am interested in a portal that links together many articles that eventually form an alternative Encyclopedia of Careers and Vocational Guidance. Its way to big of a project for me to be the sole portal editor and I'm not even sure portals are the way to kick such a thing off. Please help me brain storm how such a thing can be started since it is exactly the sort of quickly changing, massive undertaking that is better left to Wikipedia then traditional print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DodgeTheBullet (talk • contribs) 14:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide opinions on U.S. roads vs. North American roads
I expanded the scope of Portal:U.S. Roads yesterday by moving it to Portal:North American Roads. I realize that this may not have been a good move, but what's done is done, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads needs opinions on what should be done now. Thank you. --NE2 23:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, please discuss at Portal talk:U.S. Roads. --NE2 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Latin America
A group of English-language students have made a proposal to revive or improve the Latin America Portal at Portal talk:Latin America. I'm not sure if many editors watch that page, so I'm drawing attention to the proposal here. Please go there to see the proposal and discuss it.- gadfium 01:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is someone responsible for ensuring deletion discussions are posted here?
On the 5th and 6th a whole slew of Portal MfDs were posted at WP:MFD. I don't see any of them listed on this page or discussed here. Are most portal nominations coming from here in the first place or is someone (or a bot) actively posting them here?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So as not to be guilty of trying to pawn it off on others, I posted them. But if there is a bot or a process, or if someone regularly handles this, please let me know, especially because these things seem to be coming in like zucchini lately on MfD.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

PlayStation
Can someone take a look at the bottom of Portal:Sony PlayStation. To parts intersect at the bottom.--Playstationdude 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The topics pane had incorrectly formatted columns.- gadfium 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:London Transport
Could someone help set this portal for automatic rotation on the selected article, selected image and did you know sections please? Unisouth 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusion about Portals
There appears to be some confusion about the purpose of a Portal on Wikipedia. I recently proposed creating a Portal about the 2008 Summer Olympics, see Village pump (proposals) and Village pump (proposals). Several editors have stated that "that's not the point of portals." I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject to shed their light on this. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with my proposal itself, is it consistent with what is outlined in WP:PORTAL? A ecis Brievenbus 15:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your original proposal of having a box on the main page, but as for portals, one specifically for 2008 would be way to narrow. From what I can tell, there are about 100 or so articles for the 2008 games, most of which are lists, and schedules. Perhaps you could work something out at Portal:Olympics for more coverage of what you want running up to and during the games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchme (talk • contribs) 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Browsebar
Please see Template talk:Browsebar for a suggested update to this navbar template, which appears at the top of most portals. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Index lists - RfC
Please see Village pump (policy), a complex issue which I've tried to summarize. It concerns unsourced pages in mainspace like List of timelines, List of basic mathematics topics, and List of film topics. Moving some of them to Portal: space is one of the options to consider. Its scope is currently a few hundred pages, and potentially a few thousand pages. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal: NFL football teams
I want to make a portal of NFL football teams of their history links and important people in their team. --Woaddude (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Coordinating Portal:Contents pages
A group of editors is working on coordinating Portal:Contents and all of its subpages. This activity has two basic parts. The simplest part is to coordinate their presentation, such as page layouts. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Portal talk:Contents. The more involved part is to coordinate their substance, such as what gets linked from the pages and their classifications. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at WikiProject Contents and related projects such as WikiProject Lists of basic topics, WikiProject Lists of topics, WikiProject Glossaries, WikiProject Portals and WikiProject Categories. Please feel free to join in on these activities. RichardF (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of getting into a confrontation such as that had with Aditya above, why is there a philosophy and thought portal as well as a philosophy portal and a thought portal? The current proliferation of the things seems intuitively to be a waste of time and resources. Has anyone checked whether people find such portals useful? Anarchia (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have I just misunderstood what is going on with these article? Anarchia (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Anarchia, Portal:Contents/Philosophy and thinking is part of a proposal at Portal talk:Contents to expand Portal:Contents and its current subpages to have a series of topical contents pages too. The one mentioned here is just part of that proposed contents pages series. Whatever discussions you all are having about the "regular" Portal:Philosophy and Portal:Thinking should continue. Regards, RichardF (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank ye for the clarification. Still completely confused about what is going on, but never mind. Anarchia (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We're really just trying out different ideas to see if any of them actually help make it easier to find stuff here. By the way, you did give me another idea! I'll try to summarize it at Portal talk:Contents some time. :-) RichardF (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The portal namespace improvement drive: Contents and megaportals
This is a proposal to start The portal namespace improvement drive: Contents and megaportals. It is the outgrowth of many discussions at Portal talk:Contents and elsewhere, including one about megaportals – comprehensive portals that cover the landscape on high-level topics like those listed on the Main Page. It is motivated by the widely held view that the portals currently listed on the Main Page do not live up to established standards of quality for such portals. In addition, the portal namespace contents pages are only one of many partially overlapping ways editors have organized Wikipedia's articles. Moreover, the navigation schemes for each set of pages, between each set, and among the rest of the encyclopedia pages, present a number of issues as well.

The following chart represents the four key namespaces related to this improvement drive. Portals are the doorways to the encyclopedia's articles. The categories form the network of how pages are tied together; and the Wikipedia namespace provides the project's workspace. The scope of the improvement drive will consider anything that is or consensually should be in portal namespace as fair game.

Tasks
Likely tasks for the improvement drive may include but likely won't be limited to the following.
 * Contents: Confirm and update as needed
 * What pages should and should not be included, based on key namespaces relationships;
 * What main contents topics should be used for megaportals, based on main topics classification systems.

The following chart organizes the above main topics TOC systems by the group of Fundamental categories. It demonstrates the twelve current topical sections for Contents subpage TOCs can be used to organize all main TOC topics. It also highlights the value of futher discussions about what names to use for some of the TOC section headers. RichardF (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Request and receive featured portal status.
 * Megaportals: Build as needed.
 * Start with existing main topics portals, when available.


 * Add transcluded sections from contents/, featured content and current events/, plus other contents pages types, e.g., timelines and indices, when applicable.
 * Request and receive featured portal status.
 * Navigation schemes: Develop consistent navigation schemes, using navigational templates and subpages, within and between
 * Portal:Contents and its subpages;
 * Portal:Contents/Portals and its megaportals.
 * Apply these navigation schemes to the Main Page and other relevant locations.

Discussions
Most of the higher-level discussions probably will take place at pages such as the following.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents
 * Portal talk:Contents
 * Portal peer review
 * Featured portal candidates
 * Other project discussion pages as they apply

Next steps
Many of the described tasks already are underway or are about to begin. This improvement drive is just another way to help communicate what can be accomplished and enlist broad-based participation. Feel free to post your comments here, or anywhere else you like. Happy editing! :-) RichardF (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal peer review
The Contents and megaportals portal peer review is underway. RichardF (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)