This page is within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve portals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortalsWikipedia:WikiProject PortalsTemplate:WikiProject PortalsPortals
This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Additional information:
/
No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.
This template was considered for deletion on 2018 November 30. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".
These portals should be linked from a related portals section on the respective portals, not in a mock browsebar.--cj | talk12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The format of linking seems like merely semantics here; we can consider this to be an alternative layout for the related portals rather than a true "browsebar", if you prefer. All things considered, formatting the links like this is rather neater, in my view, than the standard huge block of related portals (see, e.g. Portal:War), particularly given the strong interlinking among the ones listed. Kirill Lokshin12:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps we should just do away with the 'true browsebar', which is long since irrelevant, and use this format in place of related portals sections. Either way, maintaining a 'common look and feel' among portals is important. --cj | talk12:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we shouldn't go crazy over enforcing an identical layout on every portal; the subtle variations are part of what makes reading them so interesting (and the layout are so fundamentally different in many cases that the browsebars are the least of anyone's concerns). Personally, I think I've come up with a reasonably clever way to position both browsebars on a page without interrupting the flow of the main portal content too much; see Portal:Italian Wars. (Obviously, other portal maintainers may have different layout ideas to better fit with the design of other potals.) Kirill Lokshin13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that the variations amongst portals that are of interest to users is content, not construction. This isn't about crazy enforcement either; it's about good design. Navigability and usefulness of portals to users is integral to good design, and cannot be achieved without providing familiarity between portals. If there is a problem with established elements, the solution needs to be developed for all portals.--cj | talk04:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certainly the content is the primary interest; but I would say that varied visual design is interesting in and of itself. If all the portals looked like the same boilerplate but with different articles pasted in, that would be rather monotonous, no? While certain common elements are basically present everywhere, I don't think we ought to force a rigid layout, with regards to those elements or otherwise.
(On a practical level, there are a large variety of different designs used by portals at the moment—going through the FPs brings up at least a dozen—so trying to enforce a strict common layout at this stage isn't really going to work.) Kirill Lokshin04:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirill Lokshin and Cyberjunkie: After ten years we need to re-activate this discussion (I do not see problems since both are active) most of the portals listed in this template are abandoned, it's time to remove it from the top of the portals and look for another way to related them.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this mass removal with no prior discussion. If portals are navigation tools, it makes sense that one can navigate between similar or related ones. BusterD (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @BusterD:, how are you? For this there the "related portal" section, common in most portals, with more appropriate templates for linking similar portals. The current template stuffs the top of the portals and no gives freedom to link portals other than the default ones. A partial consensus has been defined HERE. Please note that this template is full of outdated portals and with recent exclusions is out of balance.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This browsebar was nominated for deletion unsuccessfully in November. If you want to delete a tool which appears on several of the better portals still extant, portals which contained this tool at the moment they were featured, portals which share a specific interest common to each, you'll have to get consensus to do so. Breaking the usefulness of tools and links common to specific portals and then bemoaning the portals' usefulness and pageviews during mfd procedures seems to me an attempt to game the system and perhaps unintentionally further the anti-portal movement. One can't in good faith hijack a twelve year old thread and then claim consensus. Removing a useful tool without positive consensus and later claiming the tool is unused also seems a shady strategy. BusterD (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was to revitalize the portals, I disagree that the portals listed are good, to me all seem outdated, but anyway ... The deletion of the template was not consensus, but its use also is not, let's wait this discussion about the future of portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
