Portal talk:Byzantine Empire

Insertion of the History browsebar on top of the lede

The {{History browsebar}} has been transcluded on top of the lede of the portal obscuring even the portal name which lies well below this monster of a navbar. No. It is not a good idea to make the top of the portal so top-heavy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument and it is less so in this attempt to install this ugly navigation bar at the top of the portal. Also there is already Portals → History → Byzantine Empire navigation to the History portal. Conclusion: We do not need this monster and unless there is a good policy-based argument for its insertion it should not be installed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile insertion of the history browsebar destroyed the layout of the Ancient Rome Portal and sent the introductory title segment to the bottom of the portal diff. I since fixed it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an on-going push to standardize the History portals and raise them all to featured portal status. After we get a few more raised, we can return to this issue - that is the "policy reason" I propose. The worst argument you can make to justify removing something at Wikipedia is the one you made above...ugly...top heavy...monster? Please review: WP:JDLI. --Workedits (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First there is no binding policy for this addition according to the WP:PORTAL#Guidelines. Second I just told you that the history browse bar destroyed the Ancient Rome intro section and plunged it near the bottom. Third throwing around links to essays like the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT essay is not the best technique to argue your points and it is also patronising. I may have used some colourful language to convey in a humorous manner my concerns about the functionality of the history browse bar, but that does not render my criticism invalid and it does not make me a candidate for a tutorial, especially from an essay that represents the thoughts of its author and maybe a few other people and is not even applicable to what we are discussing here. Aesthetically the history browsebar is too big and adding it to the top of a portal makes it unnecessarily top heavy. So why not add it at the bottom? Aesthetic considerations cannot just be dismissed as simply an IJUSTDONTLIKEIT issue. We don't add hefty browsebars on articles, so why here? In addition how can this browsebar be added to all portals when it just caused a malfunction at the Ancient Rome portal? First get the problems out of the browse bar code then come and discuss its addition. These issues should not be discussed here but at the relevant centralised discussion page be it at the village pump or anywhere else. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Status report from the Portals WikiProject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018.

Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, and design the portals of the future.

As of April 29th, membership is at 56 editors, and growing.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for each component of portals.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject.    — The Transhumanist   03:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to delete all portals

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Basilica#RfC_-_scope_of_the_article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Basilica#RfC_-_scope_of_the_article. GPinkerton (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)