Template talk:Contents pages (header bar)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is the purpose of this template[edit]

If it's for general aid in browsing, why doesn't it include any entries into category pages? --JeffW 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It does now. --Nexus Seven 10:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. It reminds me of template:browsebar and template:categorybrowsebar and Template:Wikipediacats-flat. It should probably be deleted/redirected like all the former browsebar-variant templates were.. -Quiddity 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly of interest: Template talk:Browsebar#Proposal for new Browse nav-box. --Quiddity 03:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What good does it do to discuss it on remote pages like this? To get something like this approved, you'd have to take it to a major disucussion area, like the village pump. Have you posted it there? --Nexus Seven 10:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Like it says, I don't have time. You're welcome to do it :) --Quiddity 18:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why "Portals" is not included[edit]

This bar used to be part of Template:browsebar. The main maintainer of the portal page removed it from that bar, and hence from the portal page. That page still has browsebar on it. Placing Portals on the reference pages bar makes this header discontiguous, and disorients the reader. One of the main functions of the reference pages bar is that it remains in exactly the same location on the page at your destination, to facilitate easier navigation amongst its members. In this way, it is a more powerful reference tool itself. If you can get acceptance of this bar as Portal:Browse's header, I'll support that page's inclusion on this bar. --Nexus Seven 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Way too cluttered[edit]

This version: [1] is just way to hard to read and follow. It's a mess, and doesn't follow the streamlined style of navigation bars: links only. For these reasons, I'm compelled to revert it. Please don't take it personally. Besides, if we do a good job on the sidebar, there will be no more need for this header. In theory, anyways. Smile.png --Nexus Seven 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

okay, I didn't know about the no links policy. i think this and the portal bar should be integrated. why the 98% font size though? --gatoatigrado 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I dislike the redesign. I don't have time to revert/explain/fix, just to register my opinion. I'll change it if it remains the same by tonight. --Quiddity·(talk) 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Content of navbar[edit]

This navbar should have a link to main page it relates to, which is Wikipedia:Reference pages. It's the same principle as the template, Template:List resources footer. If there's an issue with the layout, then discuss it before summarily deleting the entry. Rfrisbietalk 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This change lacks consensus. See Wikipedia:Consensus. The reason I'm opposed to the change is that there isn't enough room in the header, as it suffers from word-wrap at relatively small size. Also, the colon throws it off. Nav bars generally do not have the parent page included. Instead, each member page has the main page link presented in their content, typically in a footer. --The Transhumanist 19:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As noted at Redesign, the current design lacks consensus. Neither Quiddity nor I support it. This should be resolved at Wikipedia talk:Reference pages. Rfrisbietalk 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There was already linewrap at 800x600, and the extra link doesnt cause linewrap at 1024x768, so that isnt an issue.
Navbars generally do include links to the parent page/topic: eg {{Christianity}}, {{Politics}}, {{Guideline list}}. However, the only other single-line top-navbar is {{browsebar}}, which doesnt link to a top page, but that's only because there are 3 places it could link to, which are covered by template {{Portals}}.
The colon can be changed. I agree with the general addition of that link. --Quiddity 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Contents" works for me, and there's no colon. Looks like a nav header bar again. --The Transhumanist 22:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Overview is a list of articles. Lists of topics, Lists of lists, and List of reference tables are lists of lists. See talk:List of reference tables#Huh?. As things are being grouped, they definitely go together.

Though I think the punctuation being used on the nav header bar makes it clunky.

Also, this navbar has grown beyond its convenient size = it's no longer a simple header line. --The Transhumanist 07:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the rearranged order or just using "|" for separators. I also think the number of links is just fine. It's one line for most resolutions. However, I think the "A-Z index" isn't particularly useful and should be removed. Rfrisbietalk 13:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the Lists of lists entry, as I think it's one of the key reference pages. Once List of glossaries has been substantially expanded, it should be replaced too. --Quiddity 03:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A user has been trying to remove all of the glossary pages to Wictionary. I expressed my opposition at Category talk:Glossaries. I'll help add links from the category that aren't on the list. Rfrisbietalk 14:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I added all missing terms from the main glossary category to the list, so I reinserted the link. I'll go through the subcats next. Rfrisbietalk 03:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured content?[edit]

Why is not Wikipedia:Featured content linked in this template? Xenus (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert removal of Outline of knowledge[edit]

See discussion at Portal talk:Contents#Oppose removal of Outline of Knowledge link from this portal's nav bar.

The Transhumanist 01:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No Tags in header bars, please[edit]

see Portal_talk:Contents#Tags_on_header_and_footer_bars Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 10:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


Should bars of this nature follow our basic policies on accessibility....I think so after seeing a question at the help desk. This is not grade school....templates should be pretty over accessible.

-- Moxy (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)