2,175
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:The Un-Portal Page: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:The Un-Portal Page (view source)
Revision as of 10:57, 3 July 2009
, 3 July 2009Comment
(comment reply) |
(Comment) |
||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:Wikipedia is very much "Un-Portal", no boxes to clutter except for info-boxes usually containing basic facts. I've been editing some of the pages there and have yet to see a "Portal" type page. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | :Wikipedia is very much "Un-Portal", no boxes to clutter except for info-boxes usually containing basic facts. I've been editing some of the pages there and have yet to see a "Portal" type page. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I do not know what the percentage is like, but Wikipedia definitely does use portal pages. Here are a few examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Zimbabwe Zimbabwe], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Norway Norway], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Singapore Singapore], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Istanbul Istanbul], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Utah Utah], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:United_States United States]. Yes, I realize that they many (or maybe all) of these pages may have regular articles in addition to portals. My point is just that they do exist. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | :I do not know what the percentage is like, but Wikipedia definitely does use portal pages. Here are a few examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Zimbabwe Zimbabwe], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Norway Norway], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Singapore Singapore], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Istanbul Istanbul], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Utah Utah], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:United_States United States]. Yes, I realize that they many (or maybe all) of these pages may have regular articles in addition to portals. My point is just that they do exist. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Thomas, if you check the history, there are little contributions compared to the ones not in portals. Knock portals out of urls, you get the much much more information and the public don't even know they exist. Utah portal in Wikipedia is a joke, little information and fewer links and oversized boxes. Again, the public users do NOT even see those portals! The unportal Utah has far more edits and more information. The key is the ease of editing and updating. The portals give me quite an headache trying to edit and update. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | :Thomas, if you check the history, there are little contributions compared to the ones not in portals. Knock portals out of urls, you get the much much more information and the public don't even know they exist. Utah portal in Wikipedia is a joke, little information and fewer links and oversized boxes. Again, the public users do NOT even see those portals! The unportal Utah has far more edits and more information. The key is the ease of editing and updating. The portals give me quite an headache trying to edit and update. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:My point is purely that they do exist, are used, and can be found within a search. I am not against nor for portals, just trying to find compelling reasons one way or another and stay objective with the facts. Some have expressed headache both ways. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Maness === | === Maness === | ||