Wikipedia talk:Contents/Portals/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

This page needs a complete reworking

This page needs to be rewritten from scratch. Its current form is a nonsensical jumble of random topics thrown into overly-general main categories. We have Archaeology stuck next to Austria-Hungary, the television portals listing cartoons and scifi (ie, nerd-oriented), half the Sports & Games section is made up of cartoon/scifi computer games (ie, nerd-oriented). Sure, I watch all those shows and play all those games, but I don't assume that the majority of the world does the same. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-22 19:47

All portals, or just some?

This page is linked to from the Main Page under the label "All portals"; this doesn't really work if people are removing functioning portals from the list here. We need to hash out some sort of arrangement that won't leave the smaller portal orphaned off somewhere. Kirill Lokshin 23:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the problem is that the main page wants this page to function differently than it currently functions. The main page only lists the most general topics. It then sends you to this page to look for more specific topics. But, this page is different, mixing together very general topics with ultra-specific topics. There needs to be a better hierarchy. This page should list the general topics as headers (which it does now), and then under those, list portals (or categories if the portals don't exist) for more specific topics, which people can then go to to find more specific content. So, Science should list Biology and Chemistry under it, but not Mars. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-22 23:41
    So the obvious question then: where is Mars listed in such a scheme? (Or are you suggesting that this be turned into a full category tree of some sort, rather than a guide to portals specifically?) Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Mars should be listed on the Portal page for Astronomy, under "Related portals". I think one of the problems is we are focused on Portals, rather than on helping readers find content. If a portal doesn't exist, we should point the reader to a category, rather than to another portal that is way too specific. If Joe Q. Reader is looking for info on Saturn and its moons, he looks under Science, but sees Astronomy and Mars as the choices. We should only list Astronomy, and let him go through that portal to find the more specific portals/categories. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-22 23:46
    If the page isn't focused on portals, though, won't it be redundant with Wikipedia:Browse? Kirill Lokshin 23:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, that's true. Categories should be kept out, but there should be a better hierarchy for the portals. Mars should be linked on the Astronomy portal page, for example. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-22 23:51
  • I suggest as a first draft that this page adopt the layout of the right bar on the Italian Wikipedia main page, which is much more useful. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-22 23:43
    • Until there is a working substitute, I don't think we should remove working portals; it may not be optimal to list Mars alongside Chemistry and Biology, but it's better than leaving it off, the way the page currently works.--ragesoss 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The Portal Directory lists all the portals. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-23 00:36
        • But the Portal Directory serves a different purpose; it is not for browsing, or even really for non-editors. If a portal deserves to exist at all, it deserves to be on Portal:Browse.--ragesoss 00:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This page is for All Portals, it links from the Main Page under the link 'All Portals', it is headed 'Portals' not 'Some Portals'. If you remove functioning portals from this page it will just make them more and more obsolete as less people will find them. The featured portals page holds the best ones, this page should definately hold all the portals, as suggested by the name. How can you limit the portals to be browsed to just the ones you think are worthy, who even would decide? --chris_huh 17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Atlas

The Atlas portal was removed from the geography portal. I don't agree, since geography is about more than continents alone. Atlas is clearly a geographical portal (as it is also a portal under history]]. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No portal should be listed more than once on this page. The geography section is currently occupied entirely by places. I agree that Atlas is a hard one to classify.-gadfium 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Geography fits best. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Redesigned layout + Changed PotM

I came to this page and thought it had some problems, so I made some fairly substantial changes to the layout. Hopefully they are to everyone's liking. I also rolled over the Portal of the Month since Portal:Christianity had been there all of August. I selected Portal:Biography since it appeared to be the only featured portal that was both never selected as PotM and updated more than a few times a month. We don't seem to have a process for formally selecting PotM's (unless I blindly missed it), and I think we could take a cue from French Wikipedia's Portal of the Week page. In fact if there is sufficient interest maybe we could also adopt a weekly system again, and we certainly wouldn't have to restrict it to featured portals, in the interest of variety. — GT 00:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I welcome attempts to improve this page, but I feel your redesign was flawed (at least insofar as aesthetics are concerned) and have reverted to the previous version. In the present design, the only areas where I see particular problems are in the general listing of portals (it could be done more clearly) and in the sidebar (which is largely unused space).
When I imported the idea of a selected portal from Wikipédia française, I neglected to set up a process for updating Portal of the Month. I instead intended to update of my accord with portals from my other new project at the time, Wikipedia:Featured portals. However, I have lacked the time to be consistent, and others have picked up the slack. I would like to see a suggestions/nominations page for Portal of the Month established, and an automated turnover system (queue system) adopted on Portal:Browse. However, I'm hesistant to support allowing non-featured portals to be selected (though I have personally selected Portal:Eurovision and Portal:Association football as special highlights).--cj | talk 09:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that I am welcome to edit this page, Cyberjunkie, and forgive me for not personally seeking your permission first. I came to this page after reading an old discussion where this portal was described as being of very poor quality (though I think they were focusing on the way of listing portals, the whole thing looked bad to me compared to the well-designed portals we link to on that page). So I undertook to do what I could to both make it more engaging and more useful. I didn't really end up doing that much other than inserting a list of featured portals (it's relevant to a person browsing portals to see which few are considered our best), moving the "Quick links" to the top (so as to make them truly "Quick"), and creating a short introduction that I thought would be a little more helpful than a simple clumsy heading of "Portals" at the top. And you couldn't leave my work intact for more than nine hours without dismissing all my work as "ugly" and "flawed"? Maybe you're right, and what looked like a perfectly efficient and visually appealing layout to me was in fact garbage (many thanks for being merciful your criticisms, by the way), but it would have been nice to get some input from more than a single individual before flushing everything I did down the drain, including preventing anybody from looking in the past history and seeing what my layout properly looked like by reverting the other page I edited to permit transclusion into this one. After your reversions the portal is back in its previous state of poor quality and something needs to happen to improve this prominently linked Portal, even if we don't use my changes, and your bullheaded behavior not conducive to change. — GT 23:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. For historical purposes here is the page as I redesigned it. I'm not sure I care to continue to fight this battle of egos here, especially with someone who can block me, but in case anybody else wants to refer to it they may. — GT 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think your implication that you might be blocked for your good faith edits is rather over the top. Cj has disagreed with your redesign and reverted it, but I see no threat or even criticism of your action (as opposed to your design).-gadfium 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion that I've asserted ownership of this page is disingenuous. I do not. However, I had as much right to revert your change as you had to make it (though, per WP:DISCUSS, you should have first proposed it). Moreover, your admin paranoia is not at all warranted.
I am actually interested in working with you to improve the page's design; as I said in my initial comments, some of your ideas are good, but were poorly constructed (inconsistent format, extraneous spacing, etc). I support making better use of the sidebar, and creating a more structured Portal of the Month went some way towards doing this. However, I feel it is highly un-necessary to turn this into another page listing featured portals when that function is fulfilled better elsewhere – and without the cumbersome transclusion of your design. As for the top bar, it previously contained explanatory comments, but these were replaced by others in order to be consistent with equivalent pages (at least at that time). I wouldn't mind seeing a brief introduction return. However, it should be kept simple, and Quick links are required in the sidebar so as to fill it up.--cj | talk 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:List of portals, which has to get brought up sometime... It's part of the reference-page redesign The Transhumanist has been working on. I like the overall scheme (of his redesign), though I think the current Portal:Browse scheme is cleaner and possibly superior, at least for this page. (I have a history of antagonism/reconciliation with Transhumanist, so am not the most objective person on this issue.) I believe it is his intent to request a page-history merge for this pair and 2 others(done); but he's on a semi-wikibreak for the next couple weeks, so input from him might be sporadic. --Quiddity 18:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
(The other 2 pages that need to get history-merged are Wikipedia:Browse with Wikipedia:Categorical index, and Lists of basic topics/Original list with Lists of basic topics. I don't know if it gets harder to merge, the longer/more they diverge...?) --Quiddity 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC) -- Merged
What does "history-merged" mean? Get rid of Wikipedia:List of portals? Rfrisbietalk 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. I'll start the process for the other 2 pages, but I presumme this page's merge will require consensus first (on adapting the new design, or not). --Quiddity 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:List of portals, I somewhat like the horizontal arrangement, but I agree with Quiddity that it is not as clean (or elegant) as Portal:Browse. --cj | talk 04:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the basic layout of Portal:Browse over Wikipedia:List of portals. I've already matched the color palettes, and it wouldn't be all that hard to match the headers here to Template:Reference pages (header bar). After that, I'd be all for "merging" the other page into here (at least design-wise). I really don't care which page name is used, but we really should pick one and go with it throughout the encyclopedia. Rfrisbietalk 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference pages wikiproject?

Where should we be discussing the overall design and content of the pages listed in {{browsebar}} and at Wikipedia:Reference pages? Do we need a new Wikiproject Reference pages to oversee them all? (It's been very quiet lately at the Reference pages talkpage, and I can't see anything appropriate at the list of wikiprojects)

For one thing, I'd prefer if 'Philosophy' and 'Religion' were kept merged as a single section heading. Same for 'People and self' with 'Social sciences and society'. And where do we decide what titles these sections should have?

Also, if we merge this page's current basic design, could we also do the same at Wikipedia:Categorical index, using the old Wikipedia:Browse design? --Quiddity 22:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would go for something even broader, like WikiProject high-level pages, that would include every high-level page...whatever that means. As a working definition, I would include the Main Page and everything that links from it and the sidebar. The project could cover the "look and feel" of this group of pages in terms of appearance, and usability. If something like that already exists, I would just throw in the reference pages there. Rfrisbietalk 23:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I was considering the content more than the design at the moment. I think perhaps we need (to find, or start) 2 wikiprojects.
Another content issue, is whether the ref pages should be in the mainspace or wikispace: eg Shouldn't List of glossaries be at Wikipedia:List of glossaries? --Quiddity 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring the first point, the List of glossaries is like the List of lists. They both look like mainspace pages to me (their content is mainspace). Lists are encyclopedic. They also belong in the encyclopedic categories. All Portal: pages belong in Portal space. About the encyclopedia...about it, how to use it, featured content, etc. belong in Wikipedia space. Rfrisbietalk 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yikes, yes. Scratch that. Ghost of list-namespace proposal past. Ignore that bit. --Quiddity 04:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Page layout & project

Let's call a short moratorium on changing this page's layout too much until we can work out a process for addressing some design differences. Quiddity suggested, and I second, starting a project to work out some look and feel conventions for high-level pages like this. I'm sure they all won't be the "same," but it would be nice to have a go-to point of reference for what's what. Any more takers? Rfrisbietalk 17:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Content merge

These are the only portals currently listed at Wikipedia:List of portals, that are not listed here:

I'll let the portal:browse maintainers decide what gets added from there.

Apart from that, the only content difference (that could be incorporated from there) are the sub-groupings within the "Art and culture" section and the "Natural sciences and nature" section. And maybe the use of • instead of · as bullets.

Then we need to decide on a page title. I'd prefer leaving it as Portal:Browse. Changing it to "Wikipedia:List of active portals" would be my 2nd preference. --Quiddity 00:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've redirected Wikipedia:List of portals back to Portal:Browse, and fixed most of the incoming links. My feeling was that duplication was a bigger problem than the aesthetic difference. --Quiddity 19:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
In reply to Postoak, the page was merged with "List of portals" recently.
I'll add some of the above portals now, and cross them off. --Quiddity 21:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Added all except Portal:Palestine which seems to be lacking sufficient content and maintainers. (added it to Category:Portals needing attention.) --Quiddity 21:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Browse

The Main Page links to Portal:Browse. This page should not act like it doesn't exist. I suggest discussing some "merge" issues at Portal talk:Browse#Page layout & project. Rfrisbietalk 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

A couple of people have expressed concern over there being two pages with like content (this one and portal:browse), and that this situation should be corrected, therefore...

I believe Portal:Browse should be redirected to this page because:

  1. This page has the more accurate title, which follows standard naming conventions and clearly indicates what the page is. In contrast, "Portal:Browse" is somewhat ambiguous, which is an important factor to consider on behalf of new users of Wikipedia.
  2. This page's classification scheme matches that used on the other reference pages in the navigation bar. By comparison, Portal:Browse's links are all shuffled around, so if you arrive from another page in the refbar set, things aren't presented in the order you'd expect.
  3. Portal:Browse has a mostly blank column on the right hand side, which makes the whole thing seem lopsided.
  4. Portal:Browse presents Geography out of order.
  5. Portal:Browse has for the past few weeks or months been a stand-alone page, with no refbar support. Navigation bars have been routinely removed from it.
  6. Because of its standard formatting, this page is obviously part of a set, emphasizing the need to keep the navigation bar in place.
  7. This page has a table of contents, allowing you to jump directly to the section desired. This will become increasingly useful as the page grows. It is also convenient now, because it allows the subjects to be presented in order (including Geography), without excessive scrolling.

Keep in mind that we don't have to pick one or the other, but can integrate the best elements of both pages or can add or change anything to make the resultant page even better. So if there is a particular feature you really like and want to see retained or added, please express your desires and comments below. Thank you for your participation. --The Transhumanist 11:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I support the merge, redirecting portal:browse to Wikipedia:List of portals. --The Transhumanist 12:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This merger proposal is just the opposite of what it should be. Wikipedia:List of portals should be merged into Portal:Browse. All portals are in their own namespace, "Portal:". The location of their directory page should be in that namespace. All other arguments and concerns should be addressed within a Portal namespace context. Rfrisbietalk 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Directory pages belong in the Wikipedia namespace because they contain self-references. See WP:SELF. By the way, Portal:Browse isn't a portal, it's a list. --The Transhumanist 15:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Portals are self-reference hybrids. That's part of why the new namespace was created. The WP:SELF argument does not apply here. The preferred name of the page is a completely separate issue. Rfrisbietalk 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Point taken. The domain issue is irrelevant, as it is not even the issue I was trying to address. Therefore, I've moved the page to the portal namespace, so your concern about namespace placement has been taken care of. Now that that issue is out of the way, let's get back to the discussion of the merge itself. --The Transhumanist 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the redundancy of the name change. As far as page layout design goes, I have two main concerns with the "reference page list" design. First, I prefer to use the Community Portal sections as my point of reference. From that perspective the header and subheader boxes are a bit clunky to me. Second, the navigation toc template seems forced. Some pages have little or no content for a subheader. That's why I added id= codes to the Portal:Browse arrangement. It's nice to have navigational consistency when the content warants it, but that's often not the case, such as with portals. In this case, they exist or they don't, so you can't legislate an unyielding navigation structure. As far as modular layout goes, sometimes breaking things up increases the visual interest. Wikipedia:Department directory is a nice example of that. Rfrisbietalk 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for the compliment on the Directory - I created that as "Go for it!". Second, I have no problem with your rename to Portal:List, thanks for removing the redundancy. So, you are saying that you like the community portal's section format and that the reference pages don't implement that format correctly? Can you be more specific as to what you consider to be the clunkiness to which you referred? There is only one section (on Glossaries) that is blank, and I can cure that easily enough. For pages with scant sections, there's an alternate format that matches the refpage design for use with such pages - I don't know why I didn't think of applying it on the portal list. I'll give some thought on possible ways to "break things up" visually. Thanks for the input. --The Transhumanist 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Put another way, I'm not a big fan of the "reference pages design." There's more heading and subheading space than content. In addition, the "reference pages toc template" is the only case I know of in Wikipedia that forces a predefined toc across pages. I think that's inappropriate when the content across all those pages clearly does not have the same coverage. Rfrisbietalk 00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken about the TOC issue - it isn't forced. Currently, there are two TOC templates, and there could just as easily be more. Or a TOC template can be pulled in via substitution and customized to add or subtract entries. Note that List of glossaries has a different TOC than the rest of the reference pages. The reference pages simply need more work, which has always been the case. Thanks to your feedback, we know where some adjustments need to be made. --The Transhumanist 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
An opinion can't be mistaken. I'm aware you created two versions of the template – with and without "References." You subst'd the glossaries toc template after you posted the above comment, even though it still looks the same! If you go ahead and substantively modify it at some time, that simply supports my point about the template's attempt to force content being inappropriate. The lack of a toc template at "Fields" List of academic disciplines (another name issue) is more support.
Your definition of opinion is way off. We are using standard English definitions here, right? Thanks for pointing out that I forgot to remove Geog. Oops.  :-) Your assumption that that the template is attempting to force anything completely off-base. The whole purpose of the template was to cut down on repetitive work. So this whole "forced" issue is something you are reading into the situation, which I find inappropriate. --The Transhumanist 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
So, we disagree. Judge it as you see fit. Rfrisbietalk 12:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe Rfrisbie is referring to the topic heading uniformity, something which I just brought up at Wikipedia talk:Reference pages#Sections or topic headings. --Quiddity 03:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried to make the page layout more consistent with the Community Portal design – with [1] and without [2] header bars. Although I think both are an improvement, I prefer the version without header bars. Also, by substituting the toc, it would be quite easy to match the background color (I know it's also possible with parameters) and design a more realistic content for it.
The page "Lists of basic topics" was already set up like #2 above. It got changed after more links were added. --The Transhumanist 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition, I still see nothing wrong with having an accent section, like at Wikipedia:Department directory (I'm confident the extra "white" space can be reduced if that's a big deal to you) or rearranging content out of A-B-C order, like with Geography, for a page layout visual effect. Rfrisbietalk 08:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you've lost me. What is an "accent section"? --The Transhumanist 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That must be the house painter in me. It's like the different background color for "Portal of the Month." The different color is used to accent that particular feature. Rfrisbietalk 11:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I made some layout changes to Portal:Browse to demonstrate what I had in mind. Whether it has a table of contents or not is up for grabs. Rfrisbietalk 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I really like it. I also really like the 1st example you linked above, and would like to see the rest of the ref pages use that or something like it. Definitely fixes the "boxy/whitespace" problem on the shorter pages.
The righthand-sidebox style (what I think you're referring to as the accent section) at Portal:Browse might also be a great way to display the ToC box, on the pages that need one. --Quiddity 02:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

time to wrap this up

It looks like consensus is for the current blue version's layout. I'll be porting some of the content differentiation over to that page - feel free to revert any changes you don't like. Also, could you move the accent section away from the outer border a bit (leaving some margin space), just to see what it looks like? --The Transhumanist 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

List of portals

moved from User talk:Quiddity

Quiddity, I've undone your redirects. There was virtually no feedback on your merge request at all, and it lacked consensus, because you knew I opposed it. There's no need for impatience. You should focus on getting the sidebar installed, with the List of portals intact, so that we can see how the overall community likes it -- keep in mind that we aren't merely presenting to the community a new sidebar, but a refined reference page set to go along with it. I support a merge in the other direction, because 1) the othe page has a more appropriate name which clearly identifies what the page contains and it is standard for lists to be named "List", and 2) the classification scheme for the links matches the other ref pages, which makes them all easier to use. In the meantime, the two pages can coexist while we work out a merge properly, by discussing which elements of each to retain. You were a little too hasty in executing the merge, the merge wasn't properly announced with merge templates, etc. --The Transhumanist 09:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Or instead, you could show that there's any support for needless duplication of these pages...
The content is the important thing, not the page design. It is confusing for people to arrive at Portal:Browse from the Main Page link, and then arrive seperately at List of portals via the browsebar.
Why are you implying that I'm already "mad"?
The sidebar design is over, it's up to the programmers now. --Quiddity 09:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You might want to check up on WP:OWN and WP:DISCUSS (particularly in regards to Lists of basic topics). --Quiddity 09:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant "dont get mad". Slip of the thumb. But before I reply, I wish to express that your tactic of moving my message to here was uncool, because the message wasn't written in the context of being posted here - it was addressed specifically to you on your talk page. Therefore I've revised it to present my position on this matter more clearly and completely.

Having the two pages coexisting is temporary - the other page is being developed to support and conform to the refbar set - this page wasn't even connected, and even the browsebar kept getting removed, so creating a page that didn't keep getting removed seemed like the best course of action. Portal:Browse has for awhile been a standalone page (that is, with no navigation bar at the top). Though I've not seen a single post by anyone concerning their confusion about the two pages coexisting. Can you point them out to me?

I agree with you that the content of the pages is important, including the order in which it is presented. The main headings should match, so when a user is comparing the treatment for a subject area across the set, they'll actually be able to compare them. It would also help when editing, because you will more easily be able to see if a link which is covered on one page is covered on another.

As for your WP:OWN allegation, show where I've overridden anyone on any project recently, or forced my opinion upon them (that has been your specialty as of late). It's true that I've adopted the basic topic lists as a project, but I don't act like I own them, nor have I done anything to impede other from making contributions to those lists. On the contrary, I welcome any help I can get on those pages, and am quite happy when I find contributions made by somebody else. My work on the collection of pages presented on the List of basic topics has gone virtually unimpeded because aside from the occasional casual edit, nobody else has been working on those particular pages, nor has anyone voiced any complaints about the improvements I've been making.

The main thing I have been doing over there is creating new lists to add to the collection, and adding material to lists which badly need content or cleanup. Since when does anyone have to get preapproval to create a page on Wikipedia? You're main objection was that my creating so many pages created a danger of those pages being vandalized. And while I appreciate your concern, it's no reason to stop building Wikipedia.

I didn't post discussions on most of the basic topic lists I've worked on because for the great majority of those pages there has never been any discussion - the discussion tab is still red! Yet the pages have continued to grow and improve over the years. For those pages with messages, the posts can go unanswered for months.

There is a ton of work involved with getting the basic topic list collection into shape, and I haven't seen you roll up your shirt sleeves to get it done. As for my participation, I've been under rather close observation by you, and I have been working fairly closely with you, so it isn't too much to assume that if you didn't voice any objections or disapproval over the past few months concerning my edits or reorganization of the contents of the basic topic lists, then you must have been okay with what I was doing. I've responded to and worked with you in good faith on every issue you've brought to my attention. Therefore, your accusation is groundless -- a rhetorical political tactic, which violates good faith, and is downright uncivil.

And let's not forget the little extortion episode you pulled on me not so long ago. What right do you have to push other people around with threats of taking action against them unless they do what you want? Your idea about posting notices all around Wikipedia to recruit help on the basic topic lists was a good one, except for the part where you expected me to obey your edict to do so. You even had the gall to accuse me of violating good faith because I wouldn't put your plan into operation. You need to quit giving orders and stop making personal attacks, and limit your discussion to pages and their page elements. That is the only way we are going to reach a meaningful consensus. --The Transhumanist 11:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay then!
Ref page design: I've been trying to give you space to work on the content, which you are adept at, instead of quibbling over page design, which I think is too boxy. I was going to address that later.
Where's the consensus for this page move? or Consensus for splitting the topics {{Top list toc with ref}} into your chosen groupings and titles? And my concern with Lists of basic topics was your wanting to add it to the sidebar, with all the red links and light blue links still there -- ie, the same reason we don't add portals that are still under construction to this page.
I notice you've started a merge/move proposal over at Wikipedia talk:List of portals, hopefully others will respond to that, as we seem to have problems working together. --Quiddity 19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
We both use the direct approach from time to time. On your portal merge, I should have just edited your end page, cuz there wasn't much difference between the two anyways. It was a kneejerk response. Sorry 'bout that. We should skip the arguing stage in our consensus building, and assume we will find a mutually agreeable, and perhaps even transcendant solution. --The Transhumanist 03:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay folks, breathe in ... breathe out ... "I am one with the Wiki..."
Regardless of your interpersonal banterings (which are best left to your talk pages), I value both of your contributions to the project! :-) I hope Quiddity continues to weigh in on relevant ideas like the merge proposal. Personally, I consider location, content, and design to be separate issues. I prefer this location and most of this design. I tend to skim over content (!) so I don't have much of an opinion on that. I think the reference pages design is a bit clunky, but I haven't said much about it because my attention has been elsewhere. If someone wants to pick a centralized location for that discussion, I'll probably join in. Rfrisbietalk 20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Redesign here looks great. --Quiddity 19:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been nice working with you two on the reference page redesign, let's keep this teamwork going. Quiddity, thanks for supporting direct development in the article and portal namespaces. Rfrisbie, thanks for pushing the CP design elements - they are translating well to this project. I like your contents/footer coloring too. --The Transhumanist 03:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely wrapping up very nicely. Looking really good all around. I'm finally feeling good about these being promoted via the new sidebar links. And no complaints from the peanut gallery yet! --Quiddity 07:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge complete

I've redirected Portal:List to here, and imported some of its content formatting. Thanks for moving the accent box out, I think it looks better, but I'll leave that up to you to decide. --The Transhumanist 03:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Duja 14:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Browse → Portal:List – Simpler and clearer title. Listing for full move-process as Portal:List has an edit history that might be worth keeping(?), but merging-histories might be unnecessary(?), so perhaps the histories/titles could simply be swapped? And to give a chance for objections. Quiddity 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support - seems slightly clearer than "Browse", and follows the recent renaming of Wikipedia:Browse to Wikipedia:Categorical index. --Quiddity 18:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Portal:List already redirects here, so the basic "merge" issues have been resolved. "List" name more consistent with Wikipedia:Contents naming conventions. Rfrisbietalk 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - List seems to go along with other wikipedia lists, and is also clearer. -Gphoto 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I've no issue with such a change (though I'd note the contradiction of maintaining this page (and Portal:Current events) in portalspace, but this is irrelevant to this discusion).--cj | talk 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Contents/Portals/Archive_3&oldid=1079354259"