This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Portal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Do I understand correctly that you want to remove all entries that have images for deleted portals? Or do you want to just delete the images, leaving the red links in place? — JFGtalk16:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I read that like delete the images. I think also the portal boxes/portal bars-with-deleted-portals probably should be removed/fixed as well, but that's an aside. --Izno (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: I agree that the portal boxes/portal bars-with-deleted-portals should be removed/fixed.
I have just finished a month-long process of cleaning up those categories, which between them had over 100,000 entries when they started. As of the evening of tuesday 13th, they were clear of article and content categories, but still had a few dozen project pages in them.
I agree with Guilherme Burn that these images should be removed from the list. Discussion is ongoing on the deletion of more of the depressingly large number of abandoned junk portals ... but about 4870 of 5705 portals have been deleted since February, so we are already in a position to do a big cleanout. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Just came here to see if there was a discussion on removing deleted portals from the module code. I'm also in favor. --Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to reactivate the edit request because I believe there exists consensus here. I'm not concerned about sandbox versions; the change is trivial here and just needs someone to go through 26 pages regardless. --Izno (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Izno that this should proceed. However, I disagree about sand boxing. Given the huge number of pages using those modules, it's important to sandbox the changes to minimise the number of edits. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The list posted above does have incorrect removals. I did find evidence that all of those As on User:Izno/portals were deleted (with or without the spelling listed), besides those listed with "??? HUH ???" which appear either to have had some bizarre spelling or were never created in the first place. --Izno (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: Even though this edit was not implemented, the list provided by the original edit proposer needs to be double checked. Reason being: The entires on these pages are not case-sensitive. For example, the edit proposer claims that ["American civil war"] can be removed, which is false since Portal:American Civil War exists. Steel1943 (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2019
This edit request to Template:Portal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
@BrownHairedGirl: If you read the deletion log for Portal:National Basketball League (Australia) the original deletion was due to it being an abandoned draft originally made in 2006, with only a two-line intro, one navbox and a category listing and no updates since it was created. The revival of the Portal in September 2019 was a completely new version with no links to the previous portal and much more content (included features articles, did you knows, maps, list of the next games, standings and more). dylan.ingleby (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason these group of modules are preserving (an insane amount) of entries for deleted portals? It would seem at least one editor has reverted removals of deleted portal data. --Gonnym (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jerodlycett: that image isn't really the best to use as a portal primary image as it is quite grainy, this isn't a "no" but do you have any other suggestions? — xaosfluxTalk16:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
TheDJ, I'll leave the request since it requires protection as well, but have you considered applying for template editor access? I don't think that would in any way lessens the impact of you giving up the bit and would be useful for you. Whatever you choose I respect your choice. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I have protected the style sheet, so a template editor can make the changes to the module, if they wish — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Done Implemented. Any template-editor may revert if necessary, given the number of pages which may change, should there be something unexpected that crops up (though of course I would prefer correction instead :). Izno (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Senegambianamestudy: From your reply directly above, it sounds like this is good to go, so I have removed the "{{edit template-protected|Module:Portal/images/p}}" from atop and added {{edit template-protected|Module:Portal/images/p|answered=yes}} here. North America100008:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Don't understand what you mean by complex. It's just a globe, a 90s-style computer and 3 letters, WWW, for the World Wide Web. The internet became popular globally in the 90s, so the symbolism of that image seems to capture that essence in a very powerful way, doesn't it? Here's the 1990 computer used in the image. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there05:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how to explain it, but it seems too 'busy', like there's too many things in the pic for it to be 'intelligible' at an icon size. - Sumanuil (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Portal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Some of the file strings in subpages of Module:Portal/images don't have the link= parameter which makes the portal icons unclickable. Most of them do, so I take it that unclickable portal icons is the desired behaviour. At least for consistency's sake, can someone with the appropriate permissions add link= to those strings without it? For example:
Hi, from looking at Template:Portal/doc/all it appears that the majority of portals were deleted, would it not be sensible to now also tidy up the associated images and remove all non-existent portal image entries? Is there a reason to keep, or it is just a lack of a WikiGnome with the "Template editor" perm to grind through? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer Pppery - although even with Buaidh reason that some are used in other places, many aren't (as can be checked by image usage). However as I thought, mostly just a lack of a editor with the will and the permission. Cheers, keep safe KylieTastic (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
We talked about this before but apparently this are interfaced with Template:WikiProject box so project boxes need them.
Module:Portal/images was specifically set up to provide a more efficient way for Template:Portal to access images. Since these other templates also had a need to access many of these same images, it was felt that Module:Portal/images could serve as the image link source for all these templates rather than creating redundant modules for each template. I suppose we could have renamed Module:Portal/images as Module:Images/images so that users wouldn't assume that it was only for the use with Template:Portal, but a consensus felt this would generate an unnecessary amount of work. Please visit my talk page if you have any questions or suggestions. Yours aye, Buaidh talkcontribs23:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 13 April 2020
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - This module is to fetch images used by Portals, so, even if that image is used in other contexts, it is still a Portal's image and the name of this module accurately describes its function. Also, there may come a time when we need to make use of such a top-level module name like Module:Images for some unrelated function, and I would not want to see that name locked behind this particularly limited function. -- Netoholic@03:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, does there not being consensus to rename the module mean that there isn't consensus to broaden it's scope either and I should go ahead with the original proposal to remove non-existent portals? * Pppery *it has begun...20:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Clearly misunderstood the point on the module.....use by much more then just portals. Aslong as its not deleted we can do the right thing down the road later when more understand it's purpose.--Moxy🍁20:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The Global Warming Portal has an icon that's a map from 2008. It matters because if you click the icon, it zooms the image instead of taking you to the portal. You can see the effect in the portal link on the right.
I can't figure out how to edit portal icons, the help docs seemed to point me towards making a request here. If so, please swap away from this:
To the newer / better:
.
If I can do this myself please let me know how. Editing the global warming portal didn't seem to be the way. Thanks! Efbrazil (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Efbrazil (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
This was the right venue, and you couldn't have done it yourself, so Done, but I personally think both images are too detailed to make good icons. * Pppery *it has begun...00:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
{{Portal|Banks}} puts a link to Alt=icon on the symbol. I don't know where to correct this. Oh I see, it's the entry at Module:Portal/images/b, it has to be
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The SVG seems enough larger not to implement off the bat, and I'm not quite sold on switching to the one (more noise in small size). Izno (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Changing Comic Picture's Portal
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello. I would like to request the update of the new portal image please (also present on the portal in other languages). Change ["evangelical christianity"] = "Ichthys.svg to ["evangelical christianity"] = " ChristianitySymbolWhite.PNG. ServB1 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello. Can someone add an image to the portal bar of the newly created Portal:Clans of Scotland. I’m not sure what the image should be here are some examples.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You didn't specify what em image you want to add, so there's nothing a template editor can do. * Pppery *it has begun...20:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2021
Greetings and felicitations. I just discovered that the border box is missing from this template's output, and I already miss it. I read the revision history, and understand the problem this fixes, but am wondering if there is an alternative that includes the box, at least in desktop mode. (Notification: Northamerica1000.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@DocWatson42: See below for more context. Personally, I like the layout without the box; portal links in See also sections look less choppy that way on article pages, in my opinion. North America100010:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Put me in the camp that would prefer the box restored. It would then be more consistent with the box around the Commons links, for example. Imzadi 1979→04:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind the box, just as long as billions of readers can still actually see portal links in articles with a boxed version. As it was previously, they couldn't. Otherwise, the encyclopedia would be moving backwards in favor of aesthetic layout, rather than providing information to readers, essentially putting blinders on them. North America100005:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Stradivarius: I just wanted to let you know that I have upgraded Template:Portal to enable the portal links in articles to be viewable on mobile devices. The previous, Lua based version of the template simply does not display the portal links on mobile devices, which has become a significant problem. For example, way back in February 2013, Wikipedia Mobile received 3 Billion Monthly Page Views. The former Lua based incarnation of the template shortly thereafter in April 2013 had a problematic side effect of disenfranchising billions of readers from having access to portal links in articles, a major problem, because if readers don't have access to thei links, they can never choose to use them. I don't know how many monthly page views Wikipedia Mobile receives now, but it is very likely a much greater amount compared to 2013, particularly when one takes into account the ever-increasing usage and popularity of mobile devices to surf the web.
This matter has been discussed for years here and there, and going into 2022, it seems like the right thing to enable billions of readers to have access to viewable portal links, so they at least have the option to easily access portals and know that the option to do so exists.
I hope this is okay with you. Some minor parameters that exist in the Lua version don't exist in the present version, such as moving the links to the left, resizing, etc. However, it does not appear that many pages utilize these functions anyway, and compared to the gravitas of enabling billions of mobile readers to now see portal links, when before they were blinded, the latter is logically of much greater significant benefit to the encyclopedia at this time.
A question for you, would it be possible to correct the Lua version to enable the portal links in articles to be viewable in Mobile view? Thanks for all of the great work you do. North America100005:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: Having portals display properly on mobile sounds like a good idea to me! When I ported the template from wikitext to Lua, I basically copied the template structure exactly as it was, and didn't think about mobile at all. Improvements to the template are certainly welcome. I think it would be a good idea to merge Module:Portal and Module:Portal-inline now that Template:Portal and Template:Portal-inline use such similar syntax, but I don't have any plans to edit them myself right now. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪06:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind sentiments. Bottom line is that now, billions more readers will now see the portal links. I have no experience editing Module pages and Lua stuff, so pinging Certes here, who does. Certes may have ideas to mention here as well. Frankly, my main concern was the ongoing problem of portal links being nonexistent on mobile devices, which has been solved. It's a situation that needed to be addressed for a long time, and now it is fixed. North America100007:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
On desktop, Template:Portal (example) and Template:Portal-mobile (example) look similar and seem interchangeable. Redirecting Template:Portal to Template:Portal-mobile seems reasonable and probably won't break anything. However, it might be more efficient to change Module:Portal to remove whatever hides the links on mobile, which may be one of the classes inserted at Module:Portal#L-136. Behind the scenes, Template:Portal-mobile transcludes Template:Portal-inline which invokes Module:Portal-inline which in turn calls functions from Module:Portal. There are also 6,500 direct uses of Template:Portal-inline (example). Some of them could be edited to use Template:Portal, but others do want the portal link inline rather then in a sidebar. Certes (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
The Lua version can be made to show on mobile by changing the css class name from portal to anything else, so I've changed it to portalbox in the sandbox version. See this demo. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you; that may be all we need. It adds a box around the links; does anyone have any preference about that? If the box is wanted or can be suppressed, we could release that, then either replace Template:Portal-mobile by a redirect to Template:Portal, or even bulk-replace the transclusions and TfD Portal-mobile. Certes (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hang on: that raises a more general question. Why does class=portal hide content on mobile at all? Where else is it used? Should we simply change the css to stop hiding class=portal items on mobile? Certes (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, class=navbox also prevents appearance on mobile. As well as navboxes, that hides other portal features such as lists of other selected articles, and we've discussed creating a Navbox-mobile template to work around that. Does class=portal apply to anything other than these lists of links to related portals? The change to Module:Portal/styles.css should solve our current problem, but I'm concerned about what might break elsewhere. Certes (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Done, but I'm still accustomed to seeing not only portal templates, but also other, similar templates (e.g., Wiki sister projects) set off from the rest of the article by a border. The border draws attention to the template. I reiterate: is there a way to have both a border and make the link(s) available to mobile users? —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Part of the problem with the instance noted directly above is that the portal link was placed directly below the infobox, where portals are not typically placed (perm link). I have since corrected this (diff). The portal links stack fine elsewhere in articles, such as in See also sections. However, thanks for bring this up, because Module developers may be able to fix this, whereby when a portal link is placed right below an infobox or other types of boxes, it is automatically placed below that content. North America100010:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Fixing problems and refactoring exception handling
When I did the refactoring work, above, I noticed some problems in the tracking and error handling of {{Portal}} and {{Portal-inline}}:
Tracking was off by default (which wasn't intended, I believe)
When only non-existent portals are given, {{Portal}} returns a tiny little box.
When {{Portal-inline}} was given two portals, the result was both an error message and a single portal, which looks very odd.
Given these issues, I took the opportunity to fix, clean up, and refactor the exception handling code in Module:Portal/sandbox. All of the exception logic is now centralized in p._checkPortals(), which does two things:
Determines whether too few or too many portal arguments have been provided
Find which arguments correspond to existing portals, and filters out the non-existent ones (depending on args.redlinks)
The function returns a (possibly) filtered list of portals, a (possible) tracking category, and a (possible) error message.
Any comments or feedback before we make this go live? I'm about to go on Wikibreak until after Jan 1. A code review would be appreciated: feel free to edit the sandboxes to fix any bugs or make improvements.
Thanks for carrying out this work. I haven't analysed the code changes in detail but this looks like a very handy improvement. I've recently fixed all articles I could find which attempted to link deleted or mistyped portals, but getting the tracking sorted out would be helpful in finishing the job. Certes (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Done I moved the sandbox versions of Module:Portal, Module:Portal-inline, and Module:Portal bar up to their respective main versions. Please let me know if anyone finds anything anomalous. @Certes: there were only 2 pages with broken portal links (now fixed), so I think you did a great job in the cleanup.
@Paine Ellsworth: The current green file has been turned to blue twice on Commons (since it represents Europe in cultural and political terms), but it's used in geographical projects too, so they restored the green version, while projects referred to Europe in cultural and/or political terms preferred the blue version, and that's the case of this project, so we made two distinct versions, keeping the green one for the geographical context. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 01:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
For this Portal : [ "normandie" ] .
Now, the image is Drapeau de la Basse-Normandie.svg .
The image should be Flag of Normandie.svg (better quality image, and the image generally use in Wikipedia for the Normandy flag) Oedipe23 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I just realised that the portal itself has been deleted, so that line of the module isn't in use. The entry could be left alone along with the other deleted portals, or removed if it's messing up any reports (Template:Portal/doc/all?). Certes (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as I know, all icons used portal links are already marked "noviewer". Can you provide an example where Media Viewer is popping up? — hike395 (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Position not working
I have been trying to get the box displayed to the left, using |left=yes, but it still appears on the right. Is there a problem with the module or is the documentation incorrect? Keith D (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Mr. Stradivarius
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
