Portals | ||||||||||
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
For anything requiring an admin to accomplish |
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
In the previous discussions in 2019 it was understood that the exclusion of subpages must be by MfD. I believe that this section "Requests for Admin assistance " should be removed from this talk page. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 12:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This section is only for tracking bugs and feature requests, in the MediaWiki software itself, which affect portals. For general technical help with portals or portal-related templates, create a new section on this talk page.
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#This is a bad idea. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 19:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{ 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)
Portals | ||||||||||
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
For anything requiring an admin to accomplish |
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
In the previous discussions in 2019 it was understood that the exclusion of subpages must be by MfD. I believe that this section "Requests for Admin assistance " should be removed from this talk page. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 12:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This section is only for tracking bugs and feature requests, in the MediaWiki software itself, which affect portals. For general technical help with portals or portal-related templates, create a new section on this talk page.
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#This is a bad idea. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 19:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{ 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)