Wikipedia talk:Featured portals/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Someone needs to remove "# Automobiles Portal - www.IndiaAutomobile.com"

{{editprotected}}

Remove:

1. Automobiles Portal - www.IndiaAutomobile.com

86.149.97.92 10:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have also nominated Portal:Automobiles for speedy deletion, per the fact that it's complete spam. 86.149.97.92 10:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ck lostsword•T•C 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Improper FPO close

I believe the intention of this edit was to promote Portal:Illinois. This seems clear based on the {{featured portal}} and {{featuredportal}} tags. However, the discussion page is unclosed. The talk page indicates a promotion, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine; the discussion is no longer listed on WP:FPCAN. The featured portal process doesn't normally use archiving templates, as far as I know. Kirill 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks Kirill :) Correct, we don't. These templates are a rather superfluous recent introduction to the featured processes and I don't think they're necessary. However, if others prefer them to be used, I'd be happy to use them in future closures.--cj | talk 00:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Discussions here the Portal looks unclosed. Generally, we keep WP:FC discussion pages on our discussions page for two weeks after they close. People may continue to comment since it looks like an ongoing discussion. Something should be used to say debate has concluded. However, that is not my decision to make. It just seems like it should be part of the closing procedure. In the future if Portal:Chicago becomes a candidate a similar problem could occur.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was noting that many Portal discussions take a while. A long while. I think archival templates might improve this situation. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 04:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently there are 77 featured portals.

Currently there are 77 featured portals. -- Out of how many total portals on the project? This statistic should be mentioned here, as it is at WP:FA. Cirt 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Sport portals

Just thought it was worth mentioning that the Cricket portal is categorised under Art and culture whilst the Rugby union portal is sitting under Social sciences and society. Seems odd that two sporting portals be categorised differently. Any chance of a new category Sports and list them together?? --Bob (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

They're both under the "Sports and games" subsection of Portal:Contents/Portals - Arts and culture. For now, all these portals should be under "Art and Culture" here. Go ahead and move the Rugby union portal if you want. See The portal namespace improvement drive: Contents and megaportals for a discussion about messing with all these section headings even more! ;-) RichardF (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not both under the "Sports and games" subsection on Portal:Featured_portals, as that subsection does not even exist. On Portal:Featured_portals, Portal:Cricket is listed at Portal:Featured_portals#Art_and_culture and Portal:Rugby union is listed under Portal:Featured_portals#Social sciences and society. However, I will take your suggestion and move it to a new section of sports and games. --Bob (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The main organizer is at Portal:Contents/Portals. That's where "Sports and games" is located. RichardF (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I just noticed the TOC is based on the old system and the section headings are based on the new system! >;-o) I'll update the TOC and move the Rugby union portal. RichardF (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, so you will rearrange it all to be standardised? Thank you.--Bob (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done RichardF (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Importer Bot

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) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tutorial about Portals

The signpost is going to be running a tutorial series soon. One of the sugested topics was Portals. Could someone who is knowledgeable with portals sign up and right a tutorial? The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly archiving

Although Wikipedia:Goings on needs to be archived every Sunday at 0:01 UTC, and reports Featured articles, lists, pictures, portals and topics, I seem to be the only person making the effort to archive it each Saturday night. It would be nice if some of the other processes could help with this talk occasionally. The instructions are right in the top of the Wikipedia:Goings on page. I've attempted to get a bot written to to it, but there have been no takers for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Color change?

Not sure I like it, but don't want to revert and start a flame-off. Just thought I'd express my opinion. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

All better now. Thanks. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearer standards for featured portals

As many of us know, people come and go from wikipedia on a regular basis. This includes portal maintainers and portal reviewers. With this frequent turnover, it becomes necessary for us to have relatively clear standards for what does and does not qualify for featured portal status.

Several senior editors retired this past week. Had any of them been regular recent featured portal reviewers, and had they left without clear ideas as to what their standards were, their replacements, who might not be able to necessarily figure out those previous standards, might in all good faith disagree with them on virtually every nomination and review.

Portal maintainers probably retire at an even more frequent rate. Given the regular promotion and demotion of articles and other content, the people if any who replace the original portal maintainers might well find themselves shortly having to replace most if not all of the articles selected for inclusion in the portal. Without necessarily knowing the standards for the various article segments to be included, they would have no way to ensure that the portal remained a good one.

Taken together, these two points lead to, basically, chaos.

I can and do understand how we would not want to try to "enforce" personal opinions on portal review, despite the fact that, without such clear standards, that's what every portal reviewer is basically doing anyway.

On the basis of all the above, I think the time has come for there to be at least relatively clear and explicit standards for FPs. As a starting point, I would suggest the following considerations:

• (1) That there be standard average, minimum, and maximum "vertical" lengths of an FP, with the variation basically being dependent on the number of sections
• (2) That at least three sections, the topic section at the top, a picture, and the related Wikimedia sections, be required for every FP
• (3) It is already the case that any portal to avoid deletion must have at least thirty well developed articles. With at least five or six variations in the rotation, which I think is also the standard, that means that there could be at least five or six different articles available for each spot in the rotation. I would suggest that these include at least one regular "Featured article", where appropriate a Featured Biography (Portal:Mammals and similar portals might not need these), and a DYK section, preferably with at least two or three separate entries. It also would make sense to list any related WikiProjects in that section, although it may not be workable in all cases. The size of these various sections would be dependent on how many sections the portal has, with the objective being to fill the standard vertical length of a portal.

I can and do imagine that other points could be included as well. However, would the rest of you agree to at least trying to get together a few such basic standards, so that we can help ensure that the FP process and the FPs themselves have some degree of long-term consistency? John Carter (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)