Portal talk:Contents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is not the page to ask for help.
Emblem-important.svg This page is just for discussion of the Portal:Contents page itself. It is semi-protected, and changes should be requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents.

You may be looking for one of the following pages:

See also:

February 5, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Portal talk:Contents/Navigation

RfC on a new layout.

The following discussion 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.

Proposer blocked, as sock puppet of an LTA (long-term abuser).    — The Transhumanist   05:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a follow up RfC to this, where I proposed a update to Portal:Contents/Portals. This new RfC is to update all pages within Portal:Contents.

This RfC is very simple. Please detail whether you want to retain the existing layout, or replace it with a new one. JLJ001 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want a new one, please give details of what you want it look like, if you want to make design mockups, then put those in a sandbox and link them. If you like someone else's design, say which one it is. If you think something else on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the internet looks good, link to that. Explaining why you think something should be used (or omitted) could be beneficial.

After the RfC, (unless there's no change) we will try and build a complete working layout based on the most popular ideas. This will then be put forward in another RfC to allow for people to complain about things that were missed out, before then being implemented.

The working layout will obviously be tested as part of the second RfC to avoid breaking an important section of Wikipedia for 80,000+ readers. There is no hurry on this process.

Voting on this RfC is not required since it's not that sort of RfC.

I will try and advertise this everywhere.
JLJ001 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ec 22:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


  • As proposer I have made two mockups so far, JLJ's number 1 and JLJ's number 2. I personally prefer the first one. If I were given free reign to replace the entire system I would probably blend the two. JLJ001 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I have also started work on a new Portal:Contents page at JLJ's number 3. JLJ001 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@JLJ001: I left some comments on your first proposal's talk page regarding button layout and size. — AfroThundr (tc) 17:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. The nub of my reply is that the buttons will eventually float, center, and change size dynamically, but I need template styles for that. JLJ001 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


Just a note that in the very unlikely event that a non-autoconfirmed user wants to contribute to this RfC, they are welcome to post on my talk page and I'll transclude their comments into this discussion as proxy. Cesdeva (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I like how the image divs in draft JLJ#2 look when using a mobile. They form a neat grid. Cesdeva (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Would it be simpler for the UI to display on the base page by itself and act as a portal? The rest of the content could be on sub-pages (with a browsebar at the top of each page). I've thrown together a base page example here. Cesdeva (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts right now are to use something like your mockup as the second layer of pages, but with the main Portal:Contents page looking more traditional, without any icons infact, but featuring the search bar, as shown here in JLJ#3. Then a set of pages each with icons like you show and then subpages beyond that following something similar to JLJ#2. JLJ001 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion that was previously archived here has been revived and moved to #Navigation buttons. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

In design 1, I don't like that the topic icons have different heights. This doesn't make it "Wikipedia"-enough (i.e. with regards to the Main Page). wumbolo ^^^ 19:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Luckily, they're SVGs, so resizing them is trivial to do. — AfroThundr (tc) 19:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I am hoping I can get the SVG's redone or replaced with a better set of modern ones, but as AfroThundr shows, they are all supposed to be the same height. JLJ001 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say once the height issue is resolved, I prefer the design of Number 1. This is laptop based - I'll have a look on my mobile when i get a chance Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the mobile view still leaves something to be desired. The buttons don't scale down for smaller screens, and probably won't until we have mw:Extension:TemplateStyles running. — AfroThundr (tc) 13:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
They definitely won't scale until it's possible get some media queries into the design, mainly because mediawiki expresses all it's image sizes in pixels, and thus the buttons have an absolute size in pixels to contain the fixed size pictures. This is... not ideal. Hopefully the above linked TemplateStyles will allow this to be fixed. JLJ001 (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current design?

Unless significant problems can be identified: Wikipedia:Solutions looking for a problem. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the existing layout. It doesn't need fixing, and this isn't a magic solution. The idea is simply to improve on the layout if possible, taking into account new technologies enabled since the previous design over a decade ago. The most obvious is mobile responsivity, but it appears there are also accessibility issues, it is possible both of these could be fixed with no noticeable visual change for normal desktop users. Any change or improvement to the design purely relies on the community preference. JLJ001 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2018 (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.

Navigation buttons

Just a note that the buttons at the top currently fail MOS:CONTRAST. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: Wait, could you clarify how they fail? JLJ001 (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
#000000 (black) text on a #2962CB (blue) background has a contrast ratio of 2.81 (fails WCAG AA) and #ffffff (white) text on a #3366cc (blue) background has a contrast ratio of 5.27 (fails WCAG AAA). TheDragonFire (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't considered that. I might try black on white & blue on white instead and see how that looks. JLJ001 (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
However it occurs to me we are looking at #ffffff text on #3366cc background being the mw-ui-progressive class of Template:Clickable button 2, a template which is used on over 400,000 pages. Could this potentially be a problem? JLJ001 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

────────── I have boldly replaced the buttons with hlist links. I have done this for two reasons:

  1. As above, they use #000000 (black) text on a #2962CB (blue) background when the relevant button links to the current page, which is an extremely bad failure of MOS:CONTRAST, and is quite jarring to me even as a ably sighted editor.
  2. Buttons in HTML are not intended for "static" navigation actions. Thankfully, {{Clickable button 2}} does not implement the buttons with an actual underlying <button>, or this would be an accessibility nightmare, but it's still inconsistent with Wikipedia as a whole, and the web platform in general.

TheDragonFire (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Would it be a good idea to use hlist and so insert <div class="hlist"> in the Overviews, Lists, Portals, Glossaries and Categories pages?

  • Advantage: The editing interface will become easier to use.
  • Disadvantage: Indenting with : and :: will not work. <div style="margin-left:2em;"> could be used instead.

Instead of writing [[Link]] {{bullet}} [[Link]] ([[Link]]), the similar source will become
* [[Link]]
* [[Link]]
** [[Link]]

Iceblock (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Contents Overview empty category

Currently, in the page Portal:Contents/Overviews, the "Human activities" section is completely empty, and the link it includes "see all page types" links to an page that was created as a test page. I propose removing the section completely from the overview. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712, The Transhumanist; It is an omission from the original design. There are a significant number of topics which do not fit into any of the current categories, that would fit into human activities. Populating the sections is not the problem, the problem is I do not know how to add the sections. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't think of a single human activity that won't fit into one of the other classifications, but that is beside the point, as multiple organization schemes can be useful for looking things up. The main problem is that this section is nearly empty, so let's fill it up. :) Human activities make up a huge range of topics, a great many of which are scattered throughout the existing navigation systems (portals, outlines, categories, etc.), and those topics would need to be added to this section on each of their respective nav pages. At least redirects to the tops of each branch of such. For example, all sports are human activities, and there are a lot of sports. To prevent having to list them all again, a section link to (an anchor placed at) sports in the Culture section could be included. Similarly, all the performing arts are human activities. A section link (to an anchor) could be used for that as well. Business, and Communications, both listed under Society, are chock full of human activities. Meanwhile, most applied sciences, such as the fields of engineering, are human activities. And so on.
Overlapping classifications aren't forbidden, because the current classifications overlap a lot. Medicine, for example, is an Applied science, but it is also a branch under Health. Cuisines are Food, but also fall under Culture.
Concerning the new section types being empty, note that the Religion section of the Portal:Contents/Outlines nav page was almost completely empty for years until it started filling up. There's a pretty funny story about how that came about, by the way. :) It all started with a long forgotten outline of Islam, that had been deleted before the creation of the outline project, getting resurrected at Deletion Review...    — The Transhumanist   12:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Link order

I have now edited Portal:Contents/Topics layout and reordered the bar containing

Reference: Overview • Lists • Outlines • Portals • Categories • Glossaries • Indices

to match the top navbar link order and the current section order:

Reference: Overview • Outlines • Lists • Portals • Glossaries • Categories • Indices

This applies to e.g. Portal:Contents/Reference. Iceblock (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)