Wikipedia talk:Featured portals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 What is a featured portal? 2 Thought 3 Abbrev. 4 That little featured star 5 Unpromoting portals 6 Bold? 7 Inconsistent portal browsebars 8 Please excuse the noinclude & includeonly tags 9 Isn't Portal:Christianity more suitable for the Culture section? 10 Would main page qualify as featured portal? 11 Addition of nl link 12 Using web resources on the portals 13 Overuse of word "Portal" 14 Featured color - orange to blue? 15 Interwikilink fr:

[edit] What is a featured portal?

So where are the guidelines? Wikipedia:What is a featured portal? is still a red link. Would Portal:Trains meet the as yet unspoken criteria? Slambo (Speak) 16:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting there :P! I'm just setting up the infrastructure. You're welcome to start at it. I'm not resolute yet on what the criteria should be.--cj | talk 17:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Okeydokey. I'll wait a little longer before chiming in further (besides, it's lunch time for me now). Slambo (Speak) 17:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's way past my bed time. I started this a little late/early, so I might just create the page and expand at it later tomorrow/today.--cj | talk 17:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thought

Highlighting our best content is always good, but I can't help thinking that for portals (which are supposed to be mini-main pages), they should all meet the criteria for being 'featured' or else they shouldn't be listed on the template. I slightly worry that a 'featured portal' process may accelerate the creation of portals on narrow and esoteric topics which aren't really suitable for portals in the first place - there have been a growing number of those recently. Worldtraveller 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I hope the idea of a featured portal will highlight the best designs and stimulate comment on how to improve portals. If a portal is too esoteric, it won't be useful and won't link to enough pages - in which case it won't get featured. Rather than trying to set out precise guidelines, let's just nominate some good ones and see what comments we get. I'll start the ball rolling:) jguk 14:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with jguk. Having a process by which we can highlight some of the more effective portals should, if coupled with a portal proposal mechanism, overall lead to better portals. I was probably a bit silly starting this without finishing, but hopefully I'll have time to complete it this week - unless, of course, someone else does first. Wikipedia:What is a featured portal? is the most important page for this process, and is not yet complete.--cj | talk 14:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Go have a look at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates and make comments and add your own nominations. Let's get things off the ground:) jguk 18:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abbrev.

I'm curious if we yet have an abbreviation for Featured Portals? FP is Featured Pictures...It would be nice to have a shortcut... Jon 18:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. On a separate matter I'm tempted to create a new Portal:Featured material that can be featured. Anyone else willing to help? jguk 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you say, featured pictures got in first on our initials, meaning I had to create awkwardly named templates and shortcuts. At present, the shortcut for this page is WP:FPORT. Perhaps we could suggest featured pictures rename itself featured images? What did you have in mind for Portal:Featured material, jguk? --cj | talk 07:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

An easy, user-friendly way of accessing WP's featured articles, featured pictures, featured lists, featured portals - and if they ever get off the ground - featured topics and featured sounds. So readers who want to see WP's very best (and only WP's best) can do so. At present, we have separate pages in the Wikipedia namespace that are working pages rather than reader-facing pages, jguk 07:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't a composite list be just as good? How would Portal:Feature material (or content) be formatted? Would there be like a featured article/list/portal boxes and links to "more featured content"? Such a format could be useful, I think. I'd be happy to help.--cj | talk 07:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That little featured star

Is there any reason we haven't added the {{featured article}} star to the tops of the featured portals yet (other than the fact that {{featured portal}} is still a red link) like has been done on the WP:FA and WP:FL content? Slambo (Speak) 21:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Presumably nobody has gotten around to it yet ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If nobody does it before me, I'll get 'roundtuit. I was actually thinking that it'd be an interesting way to link to portals in articles - by having the portal icon in the space linking to the relevant portal. The only problem is it might look a little busy where the featured icon is also present.--cj | talk 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unpromoting portals

I think as soon as a portal ceases to be regularly updated it should qualify for unpromotion. It only makes sense. Once a featured article is no longer up to featured standards it too is demoted. --Cyde Weys 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a three-month note somewhere in the criteria, no? —Kirill Lokshin 14:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Jguk's proposal was supported and included in the criteria. Any portal in neglect for more than 3 months will be "summarily demoted". Cyde, did there happen to be a portal in particular that sparked your interest or were you unaware of the previous discussion? Thanks, --cj | talk 08:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bold?

Why are some portals bolded on the project page and not others? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the bolded ones have appeared on Portal:Browse as "Portal of the Week" (which doesn't seem to be getting updated every week, actually). —Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, that was the intent. Sorry, I'm falling behind with wiki-stuff on account of limited access.--cj | talk 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Any idea when the next portal for Portal:Browse is going to be chosen? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Portal of the Week" to "Portal of the Month". Clearly changing the featured portal every week is somewhat onerous, so let's just leave the current portal for the rest of April and select a new one for May. Brisvegas 11:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent portal browsebars

Looking through the featured portals there seems a lot of deviation how the bar on top is handled. Some have it inside the table of the portal others outside and than you have those who use pictures.Like christianity.

This is a bit too inconsistent.A standard should be chosen.--Technosphere83 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree. In web design the "common look and feel" principle has great merit, and I think we should approach portals from that standpoint - although allowing for diversity nonetheless. I think the picture browsebar should be deleted - it's just too obtrusive.--cj | talk 00:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please excuse the noinclude & includeonly tags

Please excuse the <noinclude> and <includeonly> tags I've scattered throughout this page. I thought a list of featured portals would make a nice addition to Portal:Browse, and rather than have a list that would need manually updated, I preferred to have it automatically call this one. — GT 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't Portal:Christianity more suitable for the Culture section?

Just a thought... obvioulsy this is one of those grey areas where multiple categories apply, yet I feel that religion fits more into the cultural category than the "society" one (and Portal:Food looks rather lonely...) Brisvegas 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would main page qualify as featured portal?

Per a question on its talk- I was just a bit curious. Borisblue 07:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. --WikiSlasher 06:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of nl link

I suspect about the recent addition of nl link about featured portals. There are many portals listed there. Are all they featured portals or the page has been linked at wrong place? Shyam ^(T/C) 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using web resources on the portals

I have addressed the issue on the featured portal criteria page. If you want to share some comments, then please respond there. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 18:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse of word "Portal"

Emblazoned across the top of the page says "Featured Portals" - we then list each subject "architecture portal", "food portal" etc.etc. It seems to me that all these "portal" words are rather redundant and I think we should edit the list so it simply reads:-

• Architecture
• Food
• Literature
• Photography
• Poetry
  

etc. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured color - orange to blue?

I propose we change the default featured color from the current orange( #FFF7E6 ), to the blue now used in most top level pages. E.g. this demo diff.

Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Featured content#Color. Thanks :) —Quiddity 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwikilink fr:

Hello, this page is (semi-)protected, so can someone put the link [[fr:Wikipédia:Portail de la semaine]] on this page. (PS: I'm from the Dutch WP) 81.245.218.26 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That page is not equivalent to this. It's akin to WP:FC#Featured_portals.--cj | talk 03:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)