This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Not sure how to put this (which is why it's here and not on the main page), but this is one guideline that I try to follow with Portal:Trains...
I follow this on the Trains portal within each subsection as much as possible. I'll try to think of others that I follow that aren't in FPC. Slambo (Speak) 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This has been a nasty issue for portals dealing with topics where most images are fair-use; I don't think having this required will be feasible in that regard. Kirill Lokshin 22:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's something else to add into the guidelines. With the selected picture and selected article sections, be sure to include links to suggestion/nomination and archive pages. This will help visitors to the portal to suggest articles and images that the portal maintainers might not know about yet and to show visitors what has already been used in each section. Slambo (Speak) 16:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding the following to have some clarity on FU image use on Portals:
For a portal's "In The News" or "Did You Know" section a fair use picture is okay, because it is illustrating an item directly relevant to that picture. For a selected picture only free images are acceptable.
Feel free to discuss, edit and criticize this proposal. See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Fair_Use_Images.
feydey 13:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have categorized this page as it was lacking a category. Please feel free to categorize this article more accurately if possible. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 22:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think a few more things should be required than what is currently here. Specifically:Selected article, Wikimedia, and wikiprojects. And at least one more rotated content section, preferrably picture, should be recommended instead of optional. There should also be a guide to picture selection much the same as the article selction. Jo e I 23:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: If you want to create a Portal on a topic, area of interest or geographic location, check the Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects for a project that covers that topic. Some WikiProjects have a subpage called /Portal for building up content to include on a planned portal. This prevents a Portal that is "under construction" out of the Portal namespace. It also provides a " Queue" area for maintaining the portal if and when a presentable version is created.
There is currently an amendment being propsed to allow Fair use images in portals following several guidelines. Editors are encouraged to participate at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Misza13, the Wikinews Importer Bot now is available to automatically import certain dynamically-generated Wikinews pages into Wikipedia portals. See the pages that link to User:Wikinews Importer Bot for a growing list of examples. Check it out! RichardF ( talk) 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This page had an older template for {{style-guideline}}
. See discussion (if any) at WT:WikiProject Portals. I'm fine with this being a style guideline if it's going to get regular maintenance and input. - Dan
Dank55 (
talk)(
mistakes) 13:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
On working MfD, I noted that there was no guidline against which nominated portals could be applied. I read through all prior portal MfDs, revised the Portal guidelines page, and tagged this page as an English Wikipedia content guideline. Identifying this page as an English Wikipedia content guideline will help at MfD discussions. -- Suntag ☼ 13:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not looking to make new guidlines here. I would like to add a new section providing a summary of criteria that may be used at MfD in deciding what should be done with a nominated portal. If there is no disagreement or modifications, here is what I'm going to add (or someone reading this can add) in a section eleitled, "Portal Criteria":
In deciding what should be done at Miscellany for deletion (MfD) with a MfD nominated portal, the following factors should be weighed: (1) Is the portal subject area broad enough to present a diversified content? (2) Is the portal subject area likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers? (3) Does the portal receive regular maintenance? (4) Does the portal have enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section? (5) Is the portal associated with an active WikiProject that supplies new portal content? (6) What is the likelihood of complete portal layout?
-- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Somebody know how I can change portal icon?. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 11:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It can happen that an article (say Egypt) falls under one portal Egypt, but that portal itself falls under a higher portal Middle East.
Now, if these were Categories rather than Portals, then my understanding of guidelines is that the article would be marked as belonging to the lower category, with the higher one being 'automatically picked up' rather than explicitly linked in the article.
But what is the recommended case for Portals? You see, at the moment, Egypt is marked as a member of both portals. If WP were consistent, it seems that only the lower portal (Egypt) should be marked in the article.
I notice that some portals - e.g. Latin America - list their subportals near the bottom of the main ("umbrella") portal. So, another question: is the listing of subportals advisable for all portals?
Can anybody point me to a useful guideline re these aspects or - failing that - what are people's views? Thanks, Trafford09 ( talk) 17:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Should the portal guidelines, and possibly the portals themselves, be perhaps altered to give higher priority for portal selectionn to those articles which are most significant or important to the topic of the portal? John Carter ( talk) 20:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The portal guidelines don't currently say whether portal pages should include references. I would like to add a statement somewhere that portals should not contain references; the verifiability requirement is met by including a "Read more" link to the article, where, in theory, everything should be referenced.
This follows the example of the Main Page itself, and is the practice adopted by the featured portals linked at the top right of the Main Page.
The question has become relevant following a recent change to {{ Broken ref}}, which has added red "citation error" messages to thousands of portal pages. I don't want to see editors spending lots of effort adding reflists, tracking down missing named references, and so on, when I think a better fix is to remove the references completely.
Comments, opinions? -- John of Reading ( talk) 15:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been working in evaluating WikiProjects (according to Template:WikiProject status and am finding many inactive or semi-active WikiProjects that have been updated for years. I came across a similar Portal that contains dated information and I was wondering if there is any guidelines for marking Portals as retired, inactive or historical. It's on a topic that is unlikely to be of much interest in the future as it concerns a retired political figure.
Personally, I have found the project of reevaluating the status of WikiProject has led to renewed activity on some of them which had been dormant. Changing the status tag led to the WikiProjects appearing on editors' Watchlists (after being absent for several years), reminding editors of their previous activity and they often return to assess the state of the Project. It might help revitalize Wikipedia Portals if there was a similar reevaluation of their activity status every few years. Liz Read! Talk! 15:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:POINTy and timewasting post. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Per this guideline, "Portals should not be a vehicle for advocacy...." So what's to stop someone from setting up a page in the project namespace, and operating it like a portal, but avoiding the name "portal" (e.g. so that it can be used for advocacy)? For example, Wikipedia:Top 25 Report says at the top, "Please note: This article is outside the mainspace, and is not required to follow WP:NPOV. Its contents reflect the opinions and thoughts of a single editor." So each of the 25 most popular Wikipedia articles is described there in not-necessarily neutral fashion, while advocating personal opinions about many of those top 25 article subjects. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Not sure how to put this (which is why it's here and not on the main page), but this is one guideline that I try to follow with Portal:Trains...
I follow this on the Trains portal within each subsection as much as possible. I'll try to think of others that I follow that aren't in FPC. Slambo (Speak) 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This has been a nasty issue for portals dealing with topics where most images are fair-use; I don't think having this required will be feasible in that regard. Kirill Lokshin 22:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's something else to add into the guidelines. With the selected picture and selected article sections, be sure to include links to suggestion/nomination and archive pages. This will help visitors to the portal to suggest articles and images that the portal maintainers might not know about yet and to show visitors what has already been used in each section. Slambo (Speak) 16:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding the following to have some clarity on FU image use on Portals:
For a portal's "In The News" or "Did You Know" section a fair use picture is okay, because it is illustrating an item directly relevant to that picture. For a selected picture only free images are acceptable.
Feel free to discuss, edit and criticize this proposal. See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Fair_Use_Images.
feydey 13:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have categorized this page as it was lacking a category. Please feel free to categorize this article more accurately if possible. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 22:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think a few more things should be required than what is currently here. Specifically:Selected article, Wikimedia, and wikiprojects. And at least one more rotated content section, preferrably picture, should be recommended instead of optional. There should also be a guide to picture selection much the same as the article selction. Jo e I 23:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: If you want to create a Portal on a topic, area of interest or geographic location, check the Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects for a project that covers that topic. Some WikiProjects have a subpage called /Portal for building up content to include on a planned portal. This prevents a Portal that is "under construction" out of the Portal namespace. It also provides a " Queue" area for maintaining the portal if and when a presentable version is created.
There is currently an amendment being propsed to allow Fair use images in portals following several guidelines. Editors are encouraged to participate at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Misza13, the Wikinews Importer Bot now is available to automatically import certain dynamically-generated Wikinews pages into Wikipedia portals. See the pages that link to User:Wikinews Importer Bot for a growing list of examples. Check it out! RichardF ( talk) 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This page had an older template for {{style-guideline}}
. See discussion (if any) at WT:WikiProject Portals. I'm fine with this being a style guideline if it's going to get regular maintenance and input. - Dan
Dank55 (
talk)(
mistakes) 13:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
On working MfD, I noted that there was no guidline against which nominated portals could be applied. I read through all prior portal MfDs, revised the Portal guidelines page, and tagged this page as an English Wikipedia content guideline. Identifying this page as an English Wikipedia content guideline will help at MfD discussions. -- Suntag ☼ 13:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not looking to make new guidlines here. I would like to add a new section providing a summary of criteria that may be used at MfD in deciding what should be done with a nominated portal. If there is no disagreement or modifications, here is what I'm going to add (or someone reading this can add) in a section eleitled, "Portal Criteria":
In deciding what should be done at Miscellany for deletion (MfD) with a MfD nominated portal, the following factors should be weighed: (1) Is the portal subject area broad enough to present a diversified content? (2) Is the portal subject area likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers? (3) Does the portal receive regular maintenance? (4) Does the portal have enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section? (5) Is the portal associated with an active WikiProject that supplies new portal content? (6) What is the likelihood of complete portal layout?
-- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Somebody know how I can change portal icon?. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 11:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It can happen that an article (say Egypt) falls under one portal Egypt, but that portal itself falls under a higher portal Middle East.
Now, if these were Categories rather than Portals, then my understanding of guidelines is that the article would be marked as belonging to the lower category, with the higher one being 'automatically picked up' rather than explicitly linked in the article.
But what is the recommended case for Portals? You see, at the moment, Egypt is marked as a member of both portals. If WP were consistent, it seems that only the lower portal (Egypt) should be marked in the article.
I notice that some portals - e.g. Latin America - list their subportals near the bottom of the main ("umbrella") portal. So, another question: is the listing of subportals advisable for all portals?
Can anybody point me to a useful guideline re these aspects or - failing that - what are people's views? Thanks, Trafford09 ( talk) 17:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Should the portal guidelines, and possibly the portals themselves, be perhaps altered to give higher priority for portal selectionn to those articles which are most significant or important to the topic of the portal? John Carter ( talk) 20:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The portal guidelines don't currently say whether portal pages should include references. I would like to add a statement somewhere that portals should not contain references; the verifiability requirement is met by including a "Read more" link to the article, where, in theory, everything should be referenced.
This follows the example of the Main Page itself, and is the practice adopted by the featured portals linked at the top right of the Main Page.
The question has become relevant following a recent change to {{ Broken ref}}, which has added red "citation error" messages to thousands of portal pages. I don't want to see editors spending lots of effort adding reflists, tracking down missing named references, and so on, when I think a better fix is to remove the references completely.
Comments, opinions? -- John of Reading ( talk) 15:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been working in evaluating WikiProjects (according to Template:WikiProject status and am finding many inactive or semi-active WikiProjects that have been updated for years. I came across a similar Portal that contains dated information and I was wondering if there is any guidelines for marking Portals as retired, inactive or historical. It's on a topic that is unlikely to be of much interest in the future as it concerns a retired political figure.
Personally, I have found the project of reevaluating the status of WikiProject has led to renewed activity on some of them which had been dormant. Changing the status tag led to the WikiProjects appearing on editors' Watchlists (after being absent for several years), reminding editors of their previous activity and they often return to assess the state of the Project. It might help revitalize Wikipedia Portals if there was a similar reevaluation of their activity status every few years. Liz Read! Talk! 15:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:POINTy and timewasting post. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Per this guideline, "Portals should not be a vehicle for advocacy...." So what's to stop someone from setting up a page in the project namespace, and operating it like a portal, but avoiding the name "portal" (e.g. so that it can be used for advocacy)? For example, Wikipedia:Top 25 Report says at the top, "Please note: This article is outside the mainspace, and is not required to follow WP:NPOV. Its contents reflect the opinions and thoughts of a single editor." So each of the 25 most popular Wikipedia articles is described there in not-necessarily neutral fashion, while advocating personal opinions about many of those top 25 article subjects. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)