Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 15

Portal guideline
This discussion User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace was very active, but it seems to have stopped. Just like all fiery discussions about portals in 2019. That's good? That's bad? The number of portals has stabilized, but I realize that the few newly created portals are about narrow topics, redundants and created unilaterally.

Wouldn't it be time to discuss a Portal Guideline? Again ...Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd agree, but can't engage meaningfully for a few weeks as I'm studying... My only concern is that the community was very polarised before, so will any guideline gain enough support to be accepted? Bermicourt (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While I think there are areas of agreement, for better or worse, the participants have tended to skip over those and jump to the underlying goals for portals. Now I understand the desire to have a specific guiding purpose for portals—personally, I'd prefer that. I feel though that as long as a portal doesn't create any undue burden on the maintenance of anything else, then in accordance with Wikipedia's volunteering spirit, I can't really object to any reasonable motivation, quite broadly interpreted. But this hasn't been a popular view, and so the failure to agree on any middle ground has stymied progress. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Any movement will require some work on a guideline, as without bounded scope portals are scopeless, and the first step of the guideline is to find agreement on the purpose of a portal. Since discussion on that died, Portal:Coronavirus disease 2019 was created, is there anything to be learned from this portal? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The coronavirus portal seems to use a somewhat different model of extracting a number of key articles (which don't rotate). I don't think that would work well for broader topics but it seems quite appropriate here. The news feed isn't all that great -- it's missed the recent vaccine results, for example. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A recently (re)created portal is up for deletion at present, so it would be good to have some form of agreement on what constitutes (1) a sensible topic, and (2) a minimum-standard portal. If no guideline is available, MfDs tend to default to deeply held personal views for/against portals, which does not move portalspace forwards, imo. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Portal:Coronavirus disease 2019 (simple but most viewed) and Portal:Canada (more complicated) are one of the few portals that function normally in mobile veiw..thus good examples for accessibility. Most portals have mobile view problems....Topic template not seen is a problem in 99 percent of portals. Any portal that use Template:Random slideshow, Template:Transclude files as random slideshow, Template:Portal image banner and so on need a fix so that support for portals and thus a positive discussion to move forward can take place.-- Moxy 🍁 04:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm work and studying too and I'm out of free time...

It's not just the guideline, the portal concept itself. Perhaps we should use the Divide and rule strategy and create several essays about individual criteria (pageviews, broad topics, visual aspects, etc.) What is the purpose of a visually ugly portal? A portal with less than a thousand pageviews? A portal about a single company or television program? Or a portal created by a single editor, without participation, discussion or request from the related Wikiproject?

There is a lot of fear with MfDs, a good portal can be built in minutes. So... why so much attachment with a hundred deplorable portals that still exist? (WP:TNT)Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm, speaking as a former portal creator - it's not a few minutes - I'd say it took me around half a day at least just to copy, translate and tidy up decent portals from German Wikipedia. But your overall point is a fair one. I was never in favour of a portal on every subject imaginable and even flagged up a translation of the German portal criteria as an example (see here). The adoption of something similar could lead to a more balanced suite of portals and we'd all know more or less where the line was. A small approvals team (as on de.wiki) could approve new portals for relevance and quality before they went live. But my thoughts fell on deaf ears in the era of portal-hunting hysteria. Bermicourt (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

New portal
Do we have any system for handling new portals and liaising with their creators? Of course, we don't claim a monopoly on the namespace and it's perfectly possible to create a good new portal without contacting this project, but things might go more smoothly if we can offer help. I've left a message on the talk page of our newest portal but something more polished, along the lines of the "Welcome, new editor!" templates, might do the job better. Certes (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly, our newest portal was created by a sock. Please discuss its future at Portal talk:Sunni Islam. Certes (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Economy portal has been deleted
Why has the economy portal been deleted /redirected to the business portal? Those are 2 different topics.

Economy portal used to list all economy-related topics which are nowhere to be found now.. Timetravel12 (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where exactly was the old economy portal which listed economy-related topics? As far as I can tell,  has always redirected to Portal:Business, which was renamed from "Business and economics" last year.  Certes (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for y/answer. I recall two distinct portals (not just one). A merger? may be but again where are ALL the economy (not business only) TOPICS listed. Where are the featured economies also? Cheers, 18:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) PS: I can't find any discussion relating to this merger or deletion either but I am new (so may be I look at the wrong discussion pages...:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetravel12 (talk • contribs)
 * Portal:Business was renamed last year from Business and Economics. It's hard to reconstruct the portal as it was beforehand, because transcluded subpages have been edited, moved or deleted.  Did it or any other portal (apart from the short-lived Portal:Economics) ever have significant economics content?  Certes (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There appears to have been a Portal:Economics for a while but it was an all-automated one, for which consensus exists to delete. It included Template:Economics, which might be the list of topics referred to? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * . Thanks again, but where is the merger deletion discussion? and any admin can look at both portal before the deletion (deleted for readers like us doesn't mean deleted from the "system" I think)...and to answer Certes more specifically: 1. the economy portal was available for many years (as I recall when I was a WP reader only). 2. Yes it had exhaustive economy-related TOPICS listed which is very useful for people doing research or trying to self-educate. Timetravel12 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think your last point is interesting - perhaps it should be included as one of the purposes of a portal... Bermicourt (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some portals may have been merged without discussion. One possible sequence of events is that the portal was replaced by a redirect to another portal which was then deleted via MfD.  With the other portal gone, the redirect could be speedily deleted per G8.  An editor who spotted such a sequence of events might challenge it, but in 2019 some may have gone unnoticed amongst hundreds of simultaneously active portal MfDs.  I've produced a list of portals deleted per G6 or G8 in 2019.  The vast majority will be perfectly normal and proper deletions of simple redirects, such as Portal:AU which was a shortcut to Portal:African Union deleted at MfD.  A few may have a more complex history, such as Portal:Quidditch which survived two MfDs before being replaced by a redirect which was speedily deleted.  It is hard to tell whether any cases merit further investigation without access to the deleted pages' history, but the list contains timestamps for MfDs of any portal with the deleted title.  Certes (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If that happened without a bona fide merger process and with the same editor or group of editors involved that seems to me a major and deliberate breach of Wiki policy, potentially eligible for a ban. Bermicourt (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Ditto! Likewise, WHY have all the Baha'i archives disapeared here? (and without any discussion). How is it possible it goes unoticed by the WP community for so long? Timetravel12 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article moved to Baháʼí Faith a year ago. Its talk page also moved, but the talk archives were mistakenly left at the old name, which may have temporarily broken some wikilinks.  The archives have now moved too.  These changes are unlikely to affect portals.  Certes (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * @Certes; Ok, but I think in the latter case, they clearly wanted to hide their own archives! Timetravel12 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The pages were left at the same title they'd had for years. I don't think we can assume that anyone tried to hide them.  Certes (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Somewhat off-topic but for sure some people at the top of this Cult wanted to hide this hudge story (with statistic PROOF) may be (which is included in the archives) Timetravel12 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Besides, the comment about "missing archives" was sitting there FOR MONTHS without any attention or action by this cult. STRANGE!, kind regards to all! Timetravel12 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Category trees
Many portals use Category tree. Clicking on an arrow normally expands the tree, but that functionality is temporarily broken. Further information: T270360 and WP:VPT. Certes (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Breaking news
About 20 portals which were rendering incompletely and displaying timeout errors. We've fixed them by reducing the timespan for "In the news" sections. Current problems appear here. (Subpages can usually be ignored.) Relevant templates and modules don't seem to have changed recently. Is the system just busier as everyone stays indoors and got a new PC for Christmas? If more appear, we may have to reduce all the days=365 to days=183 or similar. Certes (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is Germany Calling (1982)
Hello and colleagues here! Long time ago that we had contact! Happy new year and all the best for you! Do you remember This is Germany Calling (1982)? Have fun :-) Well honestly the main reason for me to consult your talkpage is about WikiProject Portals. There has been a lot of action since June 2018, thats what i feel looking around. I've tried to find good examples for solutions here. Actually we need, (we would like so see) this examples for discussions of future portal-developments in germany. F.e. my idea was to look at Portal:Visual arts hm, nice but that doesn't knock me off my feet. Thus i looked in WikiProject_Portals/Status, with the idea to find featured portals .. uugh ... London and other ratings for "Featured Portal" last check => 2006 :-o Now if I can be so cheeky to give a rating? Portal:Politics is my favorite, not overloaded, it could need some grafic-optimization from P:Visual arts. May I quote one of our colleagues concerning portals? "'Many portals simply list their articles. Sometimes in one column, sometimes in several columns. Somehow I don't like to see it anymore. A new design revolution is needed. Today, topic pages look different on the Internet. Of course you don't have to like them either. They are heavily image-heavy and optimized for smartphones. And of course they are not as overloaded as our portals (sometimes deliberately light fare, you don't want to overwhelm anyone). '" OK honestly you (here in en:WP) had more improvements for portals as we had in germany. But the time is going on, the WP-usage via smartphones has grown and for the future we see a rising demand of interfaces with AI-Support, as you can see it in this video. In meta.wikimedia i have not found any dedicated support which could help for portals.

Well ... those are just the thoughts that we are discussing in a small circle in the German Wikipedia. Could you name for me here some portals which are actually excellent in your opinion? Thx in advance & keep healthy & best regards! --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note for and : Pls. read response there. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft is about the mass addition of portal links - this may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Mobile view improvement for random sideshows
For those interested, see Module_talk:Random_slideshow - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion occurring to ban portal links in Dog-related articles and templates, at the Dogs WikiProject

 * A discussion is occurring Here at WikiProject Dogs regarding a proposal to ban having portal links to Portal:Dogs in Dog-related articles and templates. North America1000 12:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Mass removal of portal bars from biographical subjects
My watchlist brought these edits to my attention. While I'm out of position at this time to revert all these changes per BRD, I was wondering how others felt about this? BusterD (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Biographies are not my area of expertise, but mass changes should not generally be carried out without prior consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying the user. I for one am against such mass deletion; such deletion is very much inline with the anti-portal movement that culminated in the Arbcom case. It is our fault we haven't agreed to a fuller set of new portal guidelines. Based on earlier discussion, the portal bars serve a valid navigation function, bringing interested readers to the portals in question. If all links to portals were allowed to be removed from articlespace, we'd have exactly zero portal views. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, wasn't notified exactly where this query was being held. As I said on my talk page in response to, I found what appeared to be random portal links at the bottom of actor pages. These included Portal:United States and state-related portals like Portal:New York or Portal:California. Angelina Jolie's article even included Portal:Africa (I'm guessing only because of her philanthropy)... which I just think is farcical. I mean, these articles even included a link to the Portal:Biographies because they are BLP articles... This just seem very silly to me. And I found that each of these portal bars were added into a variety of actor articles by a single user. Some of the bars were removed, some not.
 * It just doesn't seem appropriate to add exceptionally broad portal links like Portal:United States when the only connection is that the subject of the article is American or lives in the United States; that's almost akin to adding Lists of actors or some other broad aspect to the See also section of an actor article. These portal bars and links make the most insignificant connection to the article subject. Connected? Sure. Relevant? Likely not. Again, I noticed that these were added by one user, half of their bars were deleted, half of them weren't. If we are to keep these portal bars in those articles, why not add portal bars including Portal:Politics to every elected official article, or Portal:Biographies to every BLP article. I think that's absurd, but maybe I'm completely off base here. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * that's exactly right. One of the reasonable criticisms of the anti-portal group was that portals weren't used much. But that was down to the fact that there weren't many links to them; so the low hits were unsurprising. For portals to be utilised they need to be well linked otherwise people don't know of their existence. It would be useful to include some portal guidelines on this. Bermicourt (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:PerpetuityGrat you are not completely off base here. I apologize for not bring this straight to your talk and I appreciate Bermicourt communicating with you. I was traveling and was unable to revert your edits effectively. So I brought notice here, thinking like-minded editors would have an interest in your removals. Thanks for engaging and discussing your motivation. When I saw a large number of various portal links go poof, I got concerned. If I sounded alarmed, it's because I might feel a tad more defensive of portal space than I used to feel. There's some history which is unimportant now; briefly, in the last three years we've seen a fair number of worthy portals deleted at Miscellaneous for Discussion (and some drek, I'll concede). Some of those deleted portals might have served the articles you edited a bit more accurately. I'm not certain which editor you discovered inserted the portal bars. Would you continue to pause before more removals? I work on many American History articles and it's not unusual for me to add American Revolutionary War portal and American Civil War portal links on some of the relevant pages. BusterD (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * there aren't any more edits from what I found from that user that include those bars, so I won't be deleting any other bars from here on out. I noticed that Donald Trump and Joe Biden have their own portals... but I won't dare touch those pages lol. I'll try to track them down. Also not too familiar with the portal/anti-portal history, but I'm happy to learn. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to continue the discussion, in the name of improving Wikipedia, I stumbled across the article Minnie Driver——I did not go hunting for this article, as I usually edit state political BLP articles. Anyway, I'm just so confused by the portal bar. It includes a biography portal link (because it's a BLP article) and a London portal (because she was born there, no other connection to London). I won't edit it, but looking for some clarity on this. At a glance, portal links seem more relevant to historical articles and national leaders rather than actors and most other BLPs. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the portals deleted in 2019 had their incoming links diverted to a surviving portal on a parent topic. For example, an article which once linked to Portal:North Carolina might now link to Portal:United States.  The broader portal may be less relevant.  Certes (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I had not paid close attention before, but I must confess I like the portal bar concept, style and appearance, as opposed to the older "See also" links previously attached. Is there a bot out there making these transitions? If not, why not? Again, I prefer the new style but that doesn't mean much if the style isn't working for less attached editors. BusterD (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Unusual issue with our portal project banner on Portal talk:Belize
I call attention to this edit, to repair a strange "scripting" effect when Template:WikiProject Portals is applied to Portal talk:Belize. This issue becomes apparent when after visiting the diff linked, one was to back up one iteration. I tried using the identical code on another portal and didn't see the defect. Is this something I'm staring straight at and still missing? BusterD (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Module:Portal maintenance status seems to be transcluding the portal repeatedly.  may be able to help. Certes (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember that certain templates only work when they come first on the page. This may or may not be relevant.  I tried swapping the templates over; predictably, things appeared in the wrong order, but it didn't fix the error. Certes (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Restoring Portal:Peak District to mainspace
During the Great Portal Cull, I moved Portal:Peak District to project space so that at least it could be available to WikiProject England. Now that the dust has settled, would it be acceptable to restore it to mainspace and begin linking Peak District articles to it? Or is it likely to become another candidate for deletion? Bermicourt (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. We probably want to avoid resurrecting portals deleted through process at this time, but since this one has not been "adjudicated" yet, I see no compelling reason why anyone would object. If you need help feel free to call on the project (or at least me). I know there are many of us who'd like to do more than merely defend portalspace. BusterD (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

New portals
Do we have any guidance for editors creating or recreating pages such as Portal:Kentucky? They can be welcome additions but creating a good portal without help can be a challenge, especially for newer editors, and incomplete or malformed portals may need some support to ensure that they enhance the encyclopedia. Certes (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I’ve given this a lot of consideration over more then ten years. I think Portals belong in WP WikiProject space, and that the Portal should be the main WikiProject page.  Portals do not serve readers well, and to the extent that they do, they overlap and detract from the parent article.  Portals do look like a feature of pride for editors, they frequently highlight the great work of editors, and for this purpose they belong with their WikiProject.  If the WikiProject main pages were redesigned to look like Portals, I think this would be positively engaging for all involved. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Compare:
 * (1) WikiProject Kentucky
 * (2) Kentucky
 * (3) Portal:Kentucky
 * (1) has an exciting header, then turns into a collection of resources.  The resources belong in subpages.  The WikiProject is inactive.  This is the location to celebrate editors’ work on Kentucky.
 * (2) Provides the best overview of the topic, and is active and up to date.
 * (3) Is limp. If rebuilt, what do you say is it’s purpose?  How is that distinct from (1) and (2)? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Kentucky portal is clearly under construction and it's fair to describe its current incomplete form as limp. As you say, there is a school of thought that portals have no purpose.  The idea of deleting them all has been discussed several times, most notably in WP:ENDPORTALS.  But the consensus there was to keep the namespace, so our advice to the creator of the portal can hardly be to delete their work because such pages shouldn't exist.  Of course, just as some articles go to AfD, some individual portals fall below our standards.  Kentucky does today, though it may improve.  Several editors devoted much of 2019 to weeding out portals they saw as bad, and they can feel satisfied with eliminating two thirds of a namespace which the community had just !voted to keep.  If it doesn't improve, the right outcome for this particular portal may be deletion, but with the rationale that it failed to reach the required standard, not that it was a portal and all portals must die.  I'm hoping for a more positive outcome, but I know little about Kentucky and won't be adopting the page myself.  Certes (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree that Portals serve no purpose, nor that there is a reasonable argument that they don’t, if you consider that they serve an unmet need of WikiProjects.
 * I don’t agree that the consensus was so much “to keep the Portal namespace” as it was to reject the proposal to “delete all portals”. I read the ENDPORTALS RfC as an ambit claim from the Portal deletionist extreme.  I made one comment there, and am eager to continue that conversation.
 * I do not think Portals generally should be deleted. I did nominate one, which was a serious NPOV failure that posed a risk to the reputation of Wikipedia as a politically neutral site.  But generally, the worst Portals were harmless, and should have been archived, and not subjected to 7-day MfD discussions. It was an appalling period.
 * On Kentucky, I am very serious in encouraging the interested editor in turning the WikiProject main page into a Portal. The WikiProject is inactive, and it needs activity, and the WikiProject mainpage needs rejuvenation, which I think portalisation would be. I propose that the portal-format WikiProject main page should be linked from the parent article in the side frame.  How many pages, is a question to discuss. One?  Several?  Many?  Every paged tagged by a WikiProject as important?
 * I think that WikiProject Portal pages could be an excellent conduit to invite readers into project space, into WikiProjects. Currently, Portals seem confused about whether this is their purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that a portal's purpose is directly related to its scope. There have been mass deletions in recent years so that most of the remaining portals are top-level subjects. These are very broad; they highlight the main aspects of a broad topic and then Wikipedia's work related to it. They are the ones that are most useful to interest people in getting involved in WikiProjects. But then last year we got a lot of praise for the portal on COVID-19, a smaller topic, a reader-facing portal, and one which does invite contributions but (to start with) warned that it is a complex topic to edit. It is like a one-sheet on the key facts, incorporating transclusions from data so that it constantly, reliably, updated. That's a different resource altogether, but still "a portal into the Wikipedia efforts relating to a topic". Say that's the difference then: where Wikipedia contributions relating to a topic are different, so their portals should be different, too. Editing related to a given country is probably just trying to slowly compile facts into pre-existing articles and other clean-up; their portals will have a focus on the detail and quality. Editing relating to COVID-19 was and is still mostly about breaking news and combatting misinformations. If we allow portals to be created again, which will inevitably have different scopes rather than the important top-level portals, we need to pay attention to their uses. If there are underserved parts of Wikipedia, like the Women in Red efforts, portals can be tailored for those purposes. Kingsif (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Idaho
has just succeeded in having Portal:Idaho undeleted. I think this situation is exactly the same as for Kentucky above. The Portal is limp. (The only content, a “tasks awaiting attention” section, I think obviously belongs in the WikiProject.). WikiProject Idaho is semi-active, inactive except for User:Mjquinn_id himself. Idaho itself is up to date, but unpromoted.

I recommend that User:Mjquinn id would do best to update the WikiProject main page in the style of a Portal page. Go easy on forking content at Idaho, highlight WikiProject work and achievements, especially FA and Good Articles. Push the WikiProject resources into subpages, where shy newcomers will more easily improve them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The resurrected Idaho replaces a new skeleton portal created recently by . I've left messages on their talk page explaining more about portals and mentioning relevant WikiProjects.  Certes (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Portal:Kentucky is no longer limp, thanks to sterling efforts by . Certes (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Northamerica1000, the Portal now looks very good. However, it has a massive barrier for newcomers to edit.  To looks like ordinary editors are not allowed to edit it.  It therefore is a poor conduit to attract readers into become WikiProject editors.
 * Do you not think a portal should be a conduit for converting readers to WikiProject editors? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how the layout of the Kentucky portal could possibly discourage others from editing it. Having a bunch of subpages is what typically discouraged users from editing, because of the level of work involved and having to constantly create new pages. With the single page layout, the page is easily editable. North America1000 02:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Northamerica1000, most obviously, there are no section [edit] links, which are the standard invitations to edit every mainspace page. Next, if one edits the whole page, it begins very template heavy, which discourages editing. Everything from the top until the “Topics” section feels like it’s an imitation format and style of the Main page.
 * From the “Topics” section onwards, I think it suddenly switches from Main Page style to a WikiProject page style, but without any hints or invitations to for to help.  I don’t see a list or link to a list of Featured Articles, or Good Articles, which I think is wanted, and more importantly, a list of articles where editors are currently improving or seeking promotion.
 * I think the portal should connect more to the WikiProject, and putting it as the WikiProject main page would do this. I think that it needs some (not none) appeals for help.  An appeals for help section could also attract existing editors to add their appeals. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming we're talking about Portal:Kentucky (as this section is titled "Idaho"), well, it could be considered to be WP:OVERLINKing to have the same "edit" link in each section that simply opens to the same portal edit page. Essentially a bunch of clutter, and the main "Edit" link remains atop the page for all to click upon. WikiProject Kentucky is tagged as semi-active, and there is already a link on the portal page to the project. Not sure that strongly directing readers to a semi-active project to encourage them to edit is the best way forward. You're mistaken about a link to Featured articles being nonexistent; it exists in the Recognized content section, titled "More recognized content", links directly to WikiProject Kentucky/Recognized content, and was placed before you posted here. The notion to make the portal the "WikiProject main page" for WikiProject Kentucky would need to have consensus from the project, and seems like a bit of a strange move. Portals exist in Portal namespace, and Projects exist in Wikipedia namespace. Regarding your notion of invitations to help, I have added a Tasks section to the portal (diff). North America1000 03:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Northamerica1000, yes, this is the Idaho subsection where I thought the discussion would benefit User:Mjquinn id who appears interested in Idaho.
 * More Recognised content, yes, I didn’t see it, despite looking for it. I suggest putting it at the top.  There is already stuff there (Recognized content - show another
 * Entries here consist of Good and Featured articles, which meet a core set of high editorial standards), I thought it odd that there was no link to the rest.
 * I think the additions of the Tasks section is really good. It almost motivated me to immediately start updating WikiProject Kentucky/tasks. I think this is good.  Is it commonly done?
 * On “directing readers to a semi-active project to encourage them to edit is the best way forward”, I suggest that User:Mjquinn id should declare WikiProject Idaho “active” (he is, after all, editing it), and I think Portal work should be considered WikiProject activity.
 * “The notion to make the portal the "WikiProject main page" for WikiProject Kentucky would need to have consensus from the project, and seems like a bit of a strange move. Portals exist in Portal namespace, and Projects exist in Wikipedia namespace.”
 * Yes. This is my serious radical suggestion, with the aim of rescuing portals, WikiProjects, and attracting readers into WikiProjects.
 * Yes, it requires consensus from the WikiProject, but if you are the only WikiProject active editor, you are already there.
 * I suggest, in time no rush, deprecating Portal space, not deleting it, but merging portals to WikiProjects. The biggest most active portal is in mainspace.  The rest are in a weird namespace that readers and editors don’t understand.
 * I suggest, in general, making Portals the top level page of the WikiProject, because they look so much better than most WikiProject top level pages. Most WikiProject top level pages look like pre-launch working pages.
 * You think this is a “bit strange”. Good.  Think about it.  Then please tell me your opinion on this radical idea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe portals should first be improved and built-up more before working on notions of changing their entire format and placing them in an entirely different namespace. North America1000 10:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, sure. I am not objecting to the excellent work you have done on Portals Idaho and Kentucky.  Change the entire format?  No, I think the format looks good, except the page is maybe a bit long, with a style change halfway down.  I’d make it two pages, but that’s not changing the entire format.  It’s the format of WikiProject main pages that would be entirely changed, and I can’t imagine many defending their current style.
 * Also, what do you think of the idea that the Portal link belongs in the side navigation frame, next to Community portal (another portal not in portal space). If the article matches a Portal, the Portal link goes in the frame.  Better there than somewhere at the bottom, on templates or in the See also section. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to admit that I have a bit of a different take. A PORTAL should be an informational "center-point" for "How do I find out more about this topic". The Page Idaho, as it is a U.S. State, is really just focused on the "definition" of Idaho ("Just the Facts", if I may). The Portal:Idaho leads a person down a journey of all possible things related to Idaho...through a Portal. The WikiProject Idaho is more toward editors looking for ideas about how to help with a topic. I take all this from the Portal:Tennis which might be a better example of a number of things that cannot (and SHOULD NOT) be done on the Tennis page. Where-as the WikiProject Tennis is really just a giant ToDo list. I think there is a rather large difference between Joe User who wants information on Tennis (goes to the Article..then wants "MORE INFO"...Then goes to the Portal) and an editor (of any experience level) thinking, How could I help this topic? (WikiProject). What is the percentage of "Lookers" versus "Editors"? So, that is where I was headed. Me, personally, on my "JustAnotherEditor" journey...but I have been reading quite a bit since I started the Portal:Idaho un-delete discussion. Seems like we need a couple of essays on what people are thinking to build a consensus on usage, look and feel, all of it....And it seems like All Y'All are right group of people to do it? - Mjquinn_id (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:POG was once used as a guideline but did not gain consensus. (For me, the tipping point came when it defined Culture as "not a broad topic".)  User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace was a noble attempt at recovery but came at a bad time, when relations between portal maintainers and editors deleting portals were strained.  Portals could benefit from a consensus, but agreeing one might be a challenge.  Certes (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Certes, I think User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace was progressing very well, and is very good to continue with, despite the pause. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No article should be considered “just the facts”. Review WP:PSTS.
 * Stating that the purpose of a portal includes “all possible things” is to dilute “purpose” to make it meaningless and impossible to satisfactorily achieve. Purpose needs focus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Portal Lua errors
Although 99% work perfectly, a handful of portals intermittently show Lua timeouts, taking over 10 seconds to render. The list varies with random extract selection and system load. Most of the time is spent in Transclude files as random slideshow. I tried a to limit each slideshow to 50 image/extract pairs. It successfully limits longer lists to 50 randomly selected items, with earlier and later items having an equal chance of selection. However, the change saves very little time, because most of the hard work (such as opening all the file description pages to check licensing) is done at an earlier stage. Do we think it's worth implementing a more complex solution? I think we'd have to list all potential images, deferring as much hard work as possible, sort them randomly, then carry out the deferred work one image at a time until we reach the quota of valid images. Certes (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Portal lint errors
''I have boldly moved this discussion from my talk page to this project's talk page, so others can consider these notions. North America1000 12:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)''

Hi Northamerica1000,

Thank you for all the work you have put into Wikipedia Portals. I know you've worked hard at it and I know there was at least one editor who actively undermined your work a couple of years ago.

The Portal namespace of English Wikipedia is getting close to be lint-free, as can be seen at Linter errors by namespace. Other than 3 bogus file options, there are lint errors of only two types: Missing end tag and Stripped tags. For both types of lint errors, tags are the overwhelming majority of the problem. Just now, I fixed stripped tags in Portal:Madagascar, Portal:Vietnam, Portal:Anglo-Saxon England, Portal:Jamaica, and Portal:Mexico. For Portal:Mexico I also fixed a missing end tag for.

My method for fixing stripped tag lint errors is as follows:


 * Go to the lint error page, i.e. Stripped tags
 * Edit a portal page by right-clicking on an edit link and opening in a new tab
 * Whatever tag is highlighted in the edit session, mark it by putting some text such as Foobar in front of it
 * Open Special:ExpandTemplates, copy the Portal name into Context title and copy the entire portal contents as just modified into the Input wikitext field
 * Click OK
 * When ExpandTemplates completes its work, click the yellow lintHint button (to install lintHint, see WP:Linter)
 * lintHint identifies lint errors
 * if there is only one stripped tag and it's right next to my Foobar markup, I've located the stripped tag
 * If there are other stripped tags, it may be helpful to make educated guesses about which ones they are; mark them in the Input wikitext field, click OK, run lintHint again, see if I guessed right
 * Fix the lint errors in the original portal edit session and click "Show preview"
 * Compare the Show preview to the production template to make sure I didn't mess up anything
 * If it looks OK, click "Publish changes"
 * click "Page information" in the left column of the page, under "tools"; near the bottom of the Page information page are lint errors, if any, but it can take a minute or so for these to be updated after an edit, and if lint errors go away, I consider the task complete

I realize this may not be how you want to spend your time, but I thought I'd share it with you, in case you're interested in helping to get rid of the last lint errors in the Portal namespace. Even if you don't want to go on active lint hunts, it would be great if you would simply check for lint errors at least some of the time when you're editing for other reasons.

Also, for what it's worth, getting rid of lint errors in the Portal namespace is far more challenging than most other namespaces. Bogus file options are almost always external to the portal, in an article. lintHint can't correctly identify Stripped tags and missing end tags in the portal edit session, because of of the prevalence of relative links that lintHint can't evaluate, so the search for lint errors has to be done in ExpandTemplates. So, if you are interested in working to remove lint from Wikipedia, Portals are about the hardest place to do it.

Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. From the Portal namespace, I have eliminated all missing end tags and stripped tags except except those involving, other than a missing end tag for in Portal:Georgia (country)/Navbox2 and a stripped  in Portal:Georgia (country)/Navbox-bottom2; Without restructuring, they can't be eliminated because they work with each other. Sometimes there's no way around it, but in my opinion, to the extent possible, it is best if tags open and close in the same template, portal, or other unit. Unfortunately some templates and portals are set up with opening and closing tags in separate editing units. That said, I believe the majority of missing end tags and stripped tags in the Portal namespace can be eliminated without any restructuring, just by inserting or removing tags. That said, I think I will work on other namespaces for awhile. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed information. I need more time to consider all of this, and will reply at a later time here. North America1000 11:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've thought matters over a bit, and lint error correction is certainly not my specialty. At the very least I (and others) can take steps to prevent introducing lint error into portal pages and other pages. North America1000 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion notice: Removing links to portals from the main page's top banner
Hi, I have launched a discussion at Village pump (proposals) arguing for the removal of links to portals from the main page's top banner. Your feedback is welcome. Direct link: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner. JBchrch  talk  20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Allow dashes in files=3-5 etc.
I've made a so that 3-5 etc. can contain en dashes or em dashes. The recommended character is still hyphen-minus (the plain "-" found on most keyboards), but some scripts change that to an en dash when used within a number range. This should make no differences in practice but, as always, please report any problems. Certes (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Biochemistry
Portal:Biochemistry, a page that falls under the purview of this project, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biochemistry (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Biochemistry during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. North America1000 07:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now deleted. Certes (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks like the restart of the deletion campaign. If we can't keep a portal like this, why bother with any at all? Personally I like portals and think that, properly constructed and linked, they are useful, but we seem to be in a minority which is why I don't spend time on them any more. Bermicourt (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Although the MfD attracted the usual generic comments that all portals are bad, the nominator seems motivated by a genuine interest in biochemistry, so there's hope that this was an isolated occurrence and will not spread to other topics. Certes (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A case study
As part of a case study, I would like to create a portal for an active Wikiproject and measure how creating that portal would, or not, enhance the view of the Wikiproject. Suggestions of tools I could use? I think a good metric would be pageviews of the Wikiproject page before and after creating the portal.


 * Comment:Portal:Nudity seems to have been important to reactivate the Nudity Wikiproject.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Unlink portals from main page
An RfC to unlink portals from the main page has closed with no consensus. Certes (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The close is being discussed further at User talk:The Gnome. Certes (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Important update
Template:Portal-mobile has been created, which more easily enables portal links to be seen on mobile devices. This has been tested using Wikipedia's Mobile view. Previously, inline templates had to be used, which is more tedious, because portal links cannot be stacked within the same template with inline linking, so a separate line for each portal is needed using this method. With the new template, multiple links can be added:

Hopefully project members can spread the word, as this will improve portal usage amongst Wikipedia's readers. North America1000 07:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's great news. Does Portal-mobile have any disadvantages compared with Portal?  If not then, rather than edit the pages which use Portal, would it be sensible to upgrade existing uses by moving Template:Portal-mobile to Template:Portal?  One reservation is that we may be leading mobile readers to portals which may themselves be hard to use on mobile; I think  is our expert on that topic. Certes (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the long-term goal is to have all moved to one portal template. However only 20% of our portals are accessible for mobile readers to begin with... so an upgrade too many portals has to be done to make it viable for readers in mobile view before all are switched over. We have many portals that simply don't work in mobile view so there's really no need to send people to those ones if they're on a mobile devices. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What specifically needs to be done to make portals functionally viewable on mobile devices? North America1000 01:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Many portals still have odd side scrolling like here others are using the "list=" parameter in Template:Transclude random excerpt quote ="Coding not compatible with mobile versions of Wikipedia causing display and accessibility problems" causes huge amount of scrolling per section. Any portal using a normal navigation box like Template:Canada topics or Template:NUTS-RO is not seen ......need to add the nav boxes by hand (copy over coding) to use the hidden/secret parameter "|border = none" all over to make them visible. This same  problem happens with the template "Template:Box-footer|topics" is used like here. Many portals still show a vast amount of images as seen here because of the "Recognized content" setup. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "odd side scrolling"? The mobile version of Portal:Vatican_City looks normal to me.  Do you mean that the right side of the portal is inaccessible on very narrow screens, or do you see some other problem I've missed? Certes (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example of where none has been used well? We may be able to automate that, perhaps by having a template which reads the wikitext of a navbox and inserts the parameter, so we can write something like  and always have the latest version. Certes (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Viewing Portal:Modern history on mobile, I see only the lead (from Human history) and the Selected Articles. It seems to cut off before the Need help? and I don't see anything below there.  Do others see that too?  Is this problem shared by other portals?  Do we know the cause or how to fix it? Certes (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that Module:Portal bar was on 14 November.  It no longer puts the bar into the "navbox" CSS class when it has a border.  This should make Portal bar visible in mobile view without the none workaround. Certes (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Those mobile views don't look too bad, really. Sure, the lists are in a single line format, but mobile screens such as those on smart phones are typically narrow, so that's how it goes. Also, the horizontal scroll bar that shows up enables readers to have the option to see the entire page by scrolling around, which is certainly better than it not being there. This is how it is. The font size of lists could be reduced to potentially make divided lists in mobile view, but the links would be so miniscule on mobile devices that the links would be difficult for the average human to even read. Overall, I thinks it's all right, and this project should move forward to enable mobile readers to actually see portal links . That would be a good start.


 * Per all of this, Template:Portal-mobile should be used immediately and often, because at least the links will show up. It's that or put blinders on mobile WP:READERS regarding all available reading options on Wikipedia. I prefer the former, by far. North America1000 12:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We may not have room to make everything as large as we would like but wikilinks on mobile are a priority because their purpose is to be touched accurately with a finger which may be large or unsteady. Certes (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What ever you guys think is best. Keep in-mind most will only scroll 2 times...then off to another site. No ones wants to or will scroll through a huge list of nothing or image after image to get serviceable info  DATA. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 20:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel that we should move forward with moving content from Template:Portal-mobile to Template:Portal. Another idea would be to redirect Template:Portal to the mobile template, but directly moving content would prevent tens of thousands of links from having to redirect on Wiki servers. So, I think we should move forward with the former right away. On the Template:Portal edit page, this could be accomplished by simply changing to , unless I'm missing something. North America1000 09:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (I'm reading the first sentence as "...to Template:Portal-mobile from Template:Portal".) That works, but perhaps Portal (or something like Portal link) may be a better name for the template, as it's not aimed specifically at mobiles.  One trap is that, although it could easily be expanded, Portal-mobile only handles eight portals. 77 articles have more.  (Even if some are commented out, they still push the live portals into position 9+.) Certes (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Couldn't more transclusion parameters simply be added to Template:Portal-mobile, say to 16, to cover bases into the future likely forever? My idea is to keep it as simple as possible, to simply update the wiki markup to invoke content from the mobile template at Template:Portal. I'm thinking of an easy upgrade that will then also enable Wikipedia's many mobile readers to actually see portal links, and in the easiest manner possible. If we create a new page, that would still require redirection of Template:Portal to the new page, which IMO could be easily avoided. That is, if changing the invoke function to invoke from Template:Portal-mobile actually works out. North America1000 19:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, increasing the number of parameters accepted to 16 would be easy. (If there are more than eight, we should consider pruning the least relevant anyway.)  We could replace the wikitext of Template:Portal by something similar to Template:Portal-mobile, but that would basically be a CUTPASTE move, so it might be better to page-move Template:Portal-mobile to Template:Portal (leaving a redirect).  That assumes that we want to advertise all portals to mobile readers, even those which are display best on desktop. Certes (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What about just changing to  on Template:Portal, after adding the additional parameters to the mobile template. No page moves necessary; if it works, it would take about five seconds to accomplish. The entire contents of the edit page for Template:Portal consists of:








 * Regarding Template:Invoke, I don't work with Lua stuff, so adjusting all of that for Template:Portal to be viewable in mobile view vis-a-vis Lua editing would be entirely out of my reach. North America1000 10:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Nb. I have expanded Template:Portal-mobile to display up to sixteen portal links (diff). North America1000 11:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Although the documentation for #invoke: talks about transcluding a lua template, it is actually the way for a template to call a module. For example, Template:Portal uses #invoke: to call Module:Portal.  However, Template:Portal-mobile does not use Lua, and there is no Module:Portal-mobile, so #invoke:Portal-mobile won't work.  Our options include:
 * Redirect Template:Portal to Template:Portal-mobile
 * Copy-paste Template:Portal-mobile to Template:Portal
 * Have Template:Portal transclude Template:Portal-mobile (rewrite it as )
 * Do something cleverer, perhaps involving a list of mobile-friendly portals which are shown by Template:Portal-mobile whilst Template:Portal shows them all.
 * Other ideas are welcome, of course. Certes (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew I was missing something there. I say let's go with option number one, a simple redirection, which is the easiest to perform, and also easy to undo if any errors should arise, although I don't foresee that occurring. I may just boldly go for it shortly, because the mobile users having no portal link access problem has been going on for way too long, and we can fix that right now. From there, mobile users may comment on portal talk pages regarding any issues as well. North America1000 12:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Nb. Struck part of my comment directly above, option #2 from ' suggestions, "Copy-paste Template:Portal-mobile to Template:Portal", was ultimately implemented. North America1000 03:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅. Wiki markup has been updated at Template:Portal by utilizing aspects of Template:Portal-mobile (diff). This relatively minor change has been tested at Template:Portal/sandbox and Template:Portal/testcases prior to implementation, and the new wiki markup added does not affect the vital parameters of Template:Portal, other than 1) removing the box and 2) making the links viewable to readers on mobile devices. North America1000 03:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See also Template talk:Portal. Certes (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Portal link template categories
notes at User talk:Northamerica1000 that the categorisation of articles which link to portals has changed. This is because Portal now transcludes Portal-inline once per portal. As each transclusion specifies only one portal, Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals, which lists transclusions where some but not all portals exist, will be empty. Instead, the articles will appear in both Category:Portal templates with all redlinked portals and Category:Portal-inline template with redlinked portals, which now essentially measure the same property. We can use a tool such as AWB to remove parameters which represent redlinked portals, but this is a painstaking and error-prone task, as it requires checking each portal for existence. I'll think about a more practical solution. Certes (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed a few obvious errors manually (replacing Turquie by Turkey, etc.) and have a list of affected articles and portals. I had JWB set up ready to finish the job and have done a dozen test updates, but I'll pause here and wait for input, especially on whether this change, invisible to readers, might fall foul of WP:COSMETICBOT or WP:MEATBOT.  Most of the work is in unlinking every dribble of water in Quebec from deleted Portal:Lakes and rivers or Portal:Lakes and streams; I may leave that case for a bot.  Certes (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks so much, and go for it. I view this as a bit of a hiccup, but the gravitas is minimal compared to the heavy gravitas of billions of monthly readers now being able to actually see the portal links in articles. I can manually remove some of the red linked portals from article pages as well. I have to leave it to those who are more tech savvy, such as and others, who can work on Modules, etc. North America1000 03:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been working on these today with AWB & genfixes, there are usually other non-cosmetic edits to be made so I am doing it and not expecting complaints since it is not a large number of cosmetic-only edits. MB 03:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also fixed some and unlinked the rest, and the category is now almost empty. Subcategory KF Vllaznia Shkodër players is problematic: it calls  which in turn calls .  We could defuse that by adding a #ifexist: to Template:Clubplayerscat at the risk of duplicating effort. Certes (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've edited Template:Clubplayerscat to avoid absent country portals. Certes (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The category was empty apart from the Shkodër subcat, but it's filling up again as fast as I can empty it. We may need to revisit this once the template changes finish percolating.  I've fixed a few category descriptions but will hold off with the category template fix in case a wider problem emerges. Certes (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to MB and others who continue to deal with the new entries. I've fixed the remaining Quebec watercourses.  This query suggests that 1800 links (from 1450 articles to 500 non-portals) remain, which seems manageable.  In most cases we should simply unlink portals which were removed or never existed.  Others need manual attention:  obviously means Portal:Judaism, and  can link Portal:Yorkshire where not already present.  I'll work through the list as a background task.  Certes (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think all redlinks which could usefully be diverted to a surviving portal are now fixed. I have a JWB session ready to unlink the rest, starting tomorrow.  Many corrections were translations from French, though most French terms are left for unlinking as their topic no longer has a portal in English.  Certes (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of the links are via templates. Some explicitly use Portal, which is easy to remove.  Others call more generic templates such as County, and require an undocumented yes parameter. Certes (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * After a lot of fiddling with templates, the error report is now clear and the error categories are empty. Certes (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose removing the Portal:Genocide logo
(repost) Hello, I find the logo of Portal:Genocide to be in incredibly poor taste. In my opinion, a laurel wreath around a capital G with a nice underline is completely out of touch for a topic like this, and frankly quite offensive. I would therefore like to propose removing the logo from Template:Portal (and maybe removing it from Portal:Genocide as well). The default puzzle piece is better than the current one. (This section, if no opposed, should turn into an edit request to remove the logo from Template:Portal)

Support as Nom. -- Mvbaron (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. I'm not sure it's "offensive", unless offensive means anything we don't like, but it's certainly inappropriate because the laurel wreath is a symbol of achievement or triumph. A logo with multiple small crosses would convey the meaning without glorifying it. Bermicourt (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Support I agree that the laurel wreath looks like a symbol of great achievement, and is thus quite inappropriate as it stands. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Support – I'm sure that the wreath was added in good faith as a sign of mourning, but it is ambiguous enough to cause offence. Do we have a more agreeable alternative, or should we simply use the default icon? Certes (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry yes maybe I was too harsh, but I came across it and found it very inappropriate - I am also sure that it was 100% added in good faith, and I would have talked to the editor who created it if they were still active (but they haven't used their account since 2010). Best, -- Mvbaron (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Regular purging
Several portals implement anniversary sections etc. by transcluding /Subpage/{&#123;#time:M j}} or similar. A daily purge would keep them relevant to the current date (in UTC at least). Suitable cases can be added to User:ProcBot/PurgeList. will update a portal shortly after midnight UTC. Certes (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Modern portal
Is Template:Modern portal used in portal creations? Or was it left under construction since 2018 and never used? Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who may know. Certes (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think I just restored it from deletion after a request at WP:PORT. Looking at the history of the page it seems to still be "under construction" and doesn't seem to have been used in any portals. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the info. I'll probably send it to TfD if that is the case. Gonnym (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC#2 : Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner
Editors who watch this page may be interested in WP:VPPR. Certes (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Excerpt options
Transclude lead excerpt etc. now implement keepSubsections, keepRefs and nobold as documented. Those options were accidentally removed from the portal version of the Lua module when it was expanded for use in articles. Certes (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Portal-mobile
Portal-mobile now redirects to Portal. To achieve its previous behaviour, please use. no has been added to its existing uses. Certes (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Airreg
I've changed Module:Excerpt/portals to remove the footnote from Airreg. This should remove an intermittent error from Portal:1990s. Please report any related problems. Previous discussion: Module talk:Excerpt. Certes (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your work on this stuff and we all appreciate your notices when you make improvements. In terms of technology, portals can now be as automated as the designer desires, and only require periodic updates and improvements. This sort of software improvement may allow those of us who appreciate the platform to spend our energy making wise choices in terms of broadening coverage of each topic. Didn't mean to platitude, but to express the appreciation of many. BusterD (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Birth name
I've removed another unwanted footnote from Portal:1990s, this time via selected biography Bill Clinton. Module:Excerpt/portals now removes the Note parameter from Birth name, etc. I've also enhanced Template:Birth name to work correctly without a note. Certes (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine
Portals aren't and shouldn't be news feeds, but the exceptionally important recent events may deserve more coverage in Portal:Ukraine. I've added an automated In the news section to replace the outdated version which was rightly commented out. I'd like to do more but am wary of creating something which will date quickly on such a dynamic topic. One possibility is to transclude navbox 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, preceded by the lead of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Both will change, but hopefully for the better. The logical place for this is below the existing Topics section, but it may merit a prime slot immediately after the existing excerpt from Ukraine. Does anyone have other ideas? Certes (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Portal links on the Main Page: RfC workshop
Editors who watch this page may be interested in another attempt to unlink portals from the main page: WP:VPPR. Certes (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to change portal links on the Main Page
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Proposal to change portal links on the Main Page. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Impact in pageviews after change ; in |Portal:The_arts|Portal:Biography|Portal:Geography|Portal:History|Portal:Science|Portal:Society|Portal:Technology main page portals and in |Portal:Erotica_and_pornography|Portal:Human_sexuality|Portal:War|Portal:Biology|Portal:LGBT|Portal:United_States|Portal:Film|Portal:Food|Portal:Nudity others popular portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I was going to look at that after waiting a few days for the effects to settle. Mission accomplished, I'm afraid. Certes (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And the assertion may well be that mainpage was propping up the entire platform. Next will come the wave of portal link removal from individual articles, based on pageviews. Then no place will link to portals. It's been a long slog but I didn't even get a t-shirt. BusterD (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you have to buy your own. Certes (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I opened a new thread, Wikipedia talk:Portal, but my English is too limited to raise the flag of a new concept for portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you buy all the "proud portalista" shirts? BusterD (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Views for former main page portals remain about 90% down except Portal:Biography, which is "only" 70% down, perhaps due to prominent links elsewhere. Other portals seems to be holding up well except for Portal:Anime and manga which is nearly 90% down.  There may still be an Easter holiday effect.  Certes (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow" brings in stuff it shouldn't
In Portal:Thailand we find {{Flex columns {{/box-header|Selected articles {{#if: {{{Purge|}}}{{{purge|}}} | {{{Purge|}}}{{{purge|}}} |- {{purge| {{color|white|load new batch}} }}}}}} {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | fileargs=left | limit=10 | more= }} {{Box-footer|More selected articles}} ... and if {{Tlx|Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}} happens to bring in Chiang Mai, we have there {{Contains special characters|Lanna}}Chiang Mai ({{IPAc-en|ˌ|tʃ|æ|ŋ|_|ˈ|m|aɪ}}, from {{lang-th|เชียงใหม่}} {{IPA-th|tɕʰīəŋ màj||Th-Chiang Mai.ogg}}, {{lang-nod|{{Script|Lana|ᨩ᩠ᨿᨦᩉ᩠ᨾᩲ᩵}}, เจียงใหม่}} {{IPA-nod|t͡ɕīəŋ.màj||nod-chiangmai.ogg}}), sometimes written as Chiengmai or Chiangmai, is the largest city in northern Thailand, the capital of Chiang Mai Province and the second largest city in Thailand. It is {{convert|700.|km|mi|0|abbr=on}} north of Bangkok in a mountainous region.{{Infobox Chinese Northern Thai with Tai Tham script (bottom) [t͡ɕīəŋ.màj] }} and both {{Tlx|Contains special characters|Lanna}} and {{Tlx|Infobox Chinese}} expand to include  markup, and somehow this leads to two Multiline table in list lint errors. I found this extremely tedious to diagnose, in part because inside, commenting out with   or   does not always work, I kid you not. Anyway, somehow {{Tlx|Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}} needs to ignore {{Tlx|Contains special characters|Lanna}} and {{Tlx|Infobox Chinese}} ... this is as far as I can take it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 =
 * Portal:Thailand/Selected article
 * pic = Lanna- Thai Chiang Mai.svg
 * picsize = 160px
 * piccap = "Chiang Mai" in Thai language (top) and
 * tha = เชียงใหม่
 * rtgs = Chiang Mai
 * lang1 = Northern Thai
 * lang1_content = {{Script|Lana|ᨩ᩠ᨿᨦᩉ᩠ᨾᩲ᩵}}
 * {{fixed}} by excluding two more unwanted templates from the output. Certes (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Make portals visible in default search
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Portals with many images
Some portals may time out due to showing too many images. One fix is to combine all images from core articles with a rotating display from one randomly selected non-core article, by moving non-core articles into Random item so only one is used. For example, Portal:Pakistan used to time out showing images from several provinces and cities. keeps images from Pakistan-wide articles but limits local coverage to one article at a time. Certes (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

List of portal pages
I have updated the list of all portal pages in WikiProject Portal/List of all portals, which was outdated by nearly 4 years. Currently the total number of Portal pages is at 105,352, down from 146,596 in April 2018. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

A change to Module:Excerpt/portals
Hey! After a recent report from another editor, I've decided to address a couple of the existing issues with files and Module:Excerpt/portals on the sandbox. The main changes include a change to the caption grabbing system, which should improve the fetching and display of captions, as well as minor changes to the fetching and displaying of images. I've tried to match as much of the functionality as I could with the existing version while implementing these changes, however there are some slight changes in the behaviour of the new system. Therefore, I'd like to get any suggestions, bug reports, or comments before releasing it. If there are no issues with the changes, I'll likely roll out the change somewhat soon.

For reference, this change will effect these templates and these modules, including anything that relies on them. An example of the bug fixes in action are here and a more general test case page in most scenarios can be seen here. Aidan9382 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all the good work. The code was overdue a rewrite, as its functionality is very different from when it was first written.  The test cases all match or look better, with the possible exception of Khamgaon which is a known outlier and a small price to pay for the improvements. Certes (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Request to create Portal:Saxony
We've had a request at Portal talk:Germany to create a portal for Saxony. In fact, there was once a Portal:Saxony but it got trashed in 2019 during the mass deletion campaign. However, it was 'rescued' and moved to project space at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Saxony along with the other state portals that didn't survive the cull. Is it now acceptable to restore those German state portals that aren't yet in mainspace and, if so, would this one be suitable if we could bring it up to date? Bermicourt (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I have replied in that discussion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Portal:Saxony is now up and running and I've encouraged Germany editors to use it to track and update Saxony articles. It would be useful if we could incorporate bots that give automatic readouts on the number of Saxony articles, the newest articles and those with issues. German Wiki uses bots like "User:MerlBot/InAction", but I can't find its equivalent. Bermicourt (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Antigua and Barbuda
What's the best way forward for Portal:Antigua and Barbuda? It has potential and a willing maintainer (ping: ) but isn't quite ready for the big time yet. Certes (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § Portal CSDs
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § Portal CSDs. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 February 13 § Template:Featured portal
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 February 13 § Template:Featured portal. --Trialpears (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Tanks
Portal:Tanks, a page under the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tanks (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Tanks during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ~ North America1000 11:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding biography of South African LVMH Prize Winner Lukhanyo Mdingi
Hello, I am new to wiki - wanting to write and upload an article about South African fashion designer, Lukhanyo Mdingi. I feel there is a not enough representation on wikipedia for South Africans in the creative and arts industries Could any assist me in this process or provide key pointers in writing a biography for fashion designers? Thanks so much. Bellbobaggins (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , First establish WP:NOTABILITY with sufficient independent reliable sources. I also suggest you ask for more advice at the Teahouse. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:War
Portal:War, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:War and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:War during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Japanese football‎‎
Portal:Japanese football‎‎, a page under the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Japanese football‎‎. Thank you. Certes (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:World War I
Portal:World War I, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:World War I and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:World War I during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Portal maintenance status
What does Portal maintenance status do? This week Category:Portals with untriaged subpages is the backlog of the week, but it doesn't explain how to address the issue or what it means? I'd love to assist, so please let me know here and on the category page what to do! SWinxy (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Its pages use Portal maintenance status but lack the date parameter which would categorise it instead within a month subcategory such as (as well as ).  The top level is a container category which flags a backlog when it has five or more pages needing finer categorisation.  I don't know why it shows a backlog now (even after purging), as it has only two pages. Certes (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now what would be needed to clear it and the subcategories out? (Oh, and the container category uses Backlog, which invokes, and according to WP:PARSER will count subcategories.) SWinxy (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Portal:Library and information science
Can this be created for WikiProject_Libraries? Skylife117 (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Isle of Wight portal
Portal:Isle of Wight was a victim of the portal deletion wars, on the basis that it didn't have enough scope to be a portal. I disagreed with that then, and I disagree with it now. It's a county, it has many settlements and places of interest and a lot of history - there are loads of articles, biographies and pictures to pick from. I'm minded to take it to Deletion Review but I don't want to do so if it doesn't have a decent chance of success. I want to be clear, I am not canvassing for support; I'm asking for advice on whether we think it would have a good chance of being reinstated. Wagger<b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  08:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It received the usual boilerplate deletion rationale: WP:NOBODYREADSIT; nobody spends all day changing it; all portals are rubbish anyway. The topic is relatively narrow, but the portal was unusual in having a regular maintainer.  It may be relevant that the closer acted in 78 portal MfDs, closing 68 as delete, 9 as no consensus and just one as keep (Outer space being a broad enough topic). Certes (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requested at proposal to enhance Module:Excerpt
A proposal is under discussion to enhance transparency and navigability of Module:Excerpt. Your feedback would be appreciated at Module talk:Excerpt. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Get a complete list of STEM categories, their subcategories, and page ids
Question - Imagine that I am a STEM educator and wanted to get a complete list of all on-topic categories, subcats, and page ids for just STEM articles on wikipedia. How would I do that?

I've looked at categorylinks table (too over categorized, eg botany->plants->coats of arms with plants), wikidata, and wikiprojects - following up on various suggestions by various other editors. Portals is probably the closest, but there doesn't seem to be any backing effort/database to capture the implicit categorization knowledge being added by portals. Wikiqrdl (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump (idea lab)
You are invited to join the discussion at Village pump (idea lab), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Cremastra (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a bad idea?
I recently created Portal:Vital articles based on an idea. The most successful portal is Portal:Current events (see Massviews), the only portal that is not content-based. Per WP:PORT - "Portals are meant primarily for readers, while encouraging them to become editors of Wikipedia by providing links to project spaces" then why not create others portals about Wikiprojects that provide a different focus for readers rather than subsets of specific themes.?

This idea was not well received by some editors, so I would like to know the opinion of this Wikiproject in Portal talk:Vital articles. Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Portal:Current events is successful because it's linked on every page in the sidebar (or wherever that's hidden in Vector 2022). We know that linking is a vital factor in portal success, because portals such as History and Science suffered a 90% drop in page views when they were unlinked from the main page. Certes (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of Chicken or the egg, Portal:Current events is successful because it's linked on every page or it's linked on every page because is successful in offering something useful to readers? Per WP:P "Portals are created for encyclopedic topics only and not for article maintenance categories. " this could be rethought. Content portals offer very poor content compared to the main article (example Portal:Insects, Insect). Portals such as Portal:Lists, Portal:Portals or Portal:Women in Red could offer differentiated content.Guilherme Burn (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Portal deletions
Portals are once again being nominated for deletion. It is not yet clear whether these are a few isolated examples of particularly poor portals, or the beginnings of a wider and more systematic trawl of the namespace. I'm sure we are all keen to avoid a repeat of the protracted and uncivil discussions in 2019 which led to an ArbCom case and caused long-term editors to leave Wikipedia. Can we find a more reasoned approach this time? Certes (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please can you tell us your plans? Have you identified a small number of portals you consider particularly poor, or is this the start of another systematic nomination of the bulk of the namespace as attempted in 2019? Certes (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Robert McClenon. I am operating independently. I've no desire for a repeat of the BHG (Better Homes and Gardens) issue. I won't initiate any sort of WP:ENDPORTALS discussion, though part of me wonders if there would be less hurt feelings on the part of portal creators if they were deleted en masse rather than singled out? Schierbecker (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Certes - First, I am acting independently. Second, neither I nor  nor any other critic of portals started what happened in 2019, and it didn't start in 2019, but in 2018.  After an RFC to end or deprecate portals was defeated, a portal platoon developed a script for the mass creation of portals, and created thousands of portals.  This went largely initially unnoticed, because the creation of portals either went only through New Page Patrol, and no one reviewer might have noticed the mass creation, or didn't go through New Page Patrol.  (I don't know whether Portal namespace was one of the namespaces that was checked off by NPP in 2018 and early 2019.)  A little later, some of us became aware that thousands of portals had been spammed into existence, and then also became aware that many of the existing portals were also of poor condition.  Some of them were mass-deleted by bulk MFDs, and, as Certes refers to, many of them were deleted by individual MFDs.
 * Third, I recognize that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia and intend to treat editors who disagree with me with courtesy and respect. The arbitration case did not deal with content issues, because ArbCom does not decide content issues, but was mainly about incivility and personal attacks.
 * Fourth, I still don't know what the advocates of portals consider to be the purpose or purposes of portals.
 * Fifth, there isn't a portal guideline. It was discovered in 2019 that the page that had been used as a portal guideline for about 13 years had never been approved.  I started an RFC to ratify it as a guideline, but most of the advocates of portals !voted against approving it, and we don't have a portal guideline.  Maybe either the advocates of portals don't want to be limited by a guideline, or they can't explain why they like portals, perhaps because they consider portals to be mystical.
 * Sixth, I am only planning to nominate portals that are poorly utilized and poorly maintained. I am not planning a systematic nomination of the bulk of the namespace as attempted in 2019, but I will note that the bulk of the namespace in 2019 needed nominating for deletion because it had been mass-created using a script.  I am not planning a systematic examination of the namespace, and will only do a systematic examination of the namespace if I find that it is in as bad condition as it was in 2019.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. The mass-created portals largely went away in two bulk MfDs, which I supported.  If any are left then either they're exceptionally good or they have been overlooked and should be deleted now.  Other than that aberration, the 2019 exercise also deleted almost 1000 longstanding portals, reducing the number from about 1500 before the mass creation to 500, a number which has remained stable until now.  Although XfD can be inexact, we presumably kept the best third of what existed.  I understand that a significant minority of editors would like to remove the entire namespace, but we've had that discussion a few times now and found no consensus to do so.  If anyone feels that hundreds more portals should be deleted, they should do by repeating the 2018 RfC.  XfD exists to deal with small numbers of exceptionally poor pages.  Abusing it to purge a namespace which has already been pruned back very severely would be a disruptive act and against the spirit of Wikipedia's established processes. Certes (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a question for portal enthusiasts. Does the current version of WP:P seem realistic at the moment? Another question, is this Wikiproject interested in updating WP:P (needs to be updated since 2019) in the sense of letting go of what didn't work and investing in what does? The portals have failed in their three original purposes, Main Page for subtopics, Aiding navigation, Providing bridges between reading and editing However, the community has kept the space, in my opinion because the portals are still useful for a reason, they function as a "magazine cover" for a subtopic and that's "fun" in a nutshell. That's why I always vote delete on most MFDs, the portals should be simple (something like KISS principle), fun and universal (like a magazine cover that gets you interested in the content), but what I find are truncated portals about narrow topics that want to compete with the mainspace content. Per WP:TNT too, fix portals with automation, it's a lot of work, it's quicker to create one. A portal can be created in minutes, updating it involves conflict with editors attached to the old model.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Image cropping
Easy CSS image crop is being tested. It may be particularly useful for displaying a panorama at the top of a portal, where the source has the desired skyline in a narrow strip across a landscape image of conventional aspect ratio. Certes (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's largely ready to go, just be warned that if you're cropping large parts of an image, the viewer still has to load all the material cropped, so if you're zooming in too much, maybe make a crop instead. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 10:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)