Template talk:Portal/Archive 1#Printable

{{tl|editprotected}}

The way the template is arranged now, there is quite a bit of wasted space above and below the text within the template—in fact, there's enough room for a another whole line of text. To make the template more compact, could there be an option to use a line break to put the first word above the word "Portal"? This would allow for a box that is a bit narrower. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

:Is the width a problem somewhere?There's not an easy way to put a line break in the middle of a link using wiki syntax, as far as I have ever seen. CMummert · talk 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

::20px Done. I added a {{mono|break}} parameter that must equal "yes" to activate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't know what I was thinking earlier. Thanks for taking care of that. CMummert · talk 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

{{tlx|editprotected}}

Please remove |Portal:{{{name|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}} from this template. This will improve the user experience for screen readers and text-only browsers by removing useless alt text. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:20px Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I note Template:WikiProject Jainism has a link to the religion portal, but not to the Jainism portal; I have no idea why. Is there any way to change the portal parameter so that it links to two portals instead of just one, and, if so, how would I do that? John Carter 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

{{tlx|editprotected}}

There is currently a small of whitespace above the template which means it appears slightly further below the header when positioned at the top of a section. Could this possibly removed? MinuteElectron 18:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

:The space is just a .5em margin; there's no extra newlines in the template code. Is there danger of this hitting other boxes if the margin is removed? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

::I've disabled this editprotected request. The box has been set like this for too long to suddenly undergo a change that would undoubtedly screw up certain pages. Further research and study is needed before this change can be made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

{{tl|editprotected}}

There should probably be a parameter to center the template. For example, I'm trying to use it in our WikiProject Sidebar -- Template:WPMT Sidebar -- and am having all sorts of issues. Any help would be appreciated. —  MusicMaker5376 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:This template is designed for use at the bottom of articles floating to the left or right and is not designed to be put in sidebars. You might want to consider having a direct link to the portal, rather than use this template. Tra (Talk) 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::Is there a specific reason why it can't also be centered? I understand that it's mainly for those uses, but I don't think we're forbidden from using things a little differently from how they were designed. This template is practically the "logo" for portals. Why can't it be centered? —  MusicMaker5376 05:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:::There's nothing wrong with using the templates for the wrong purposes, but the problem is that they may later on be changed and break the uses that are incorrect. I've changed the sidebar you mentioned to have the divs and tables hardcoded in to try to solve this. If you would still like a centered option, please make sure you know exactly what code to use and make sure you have tested it in a sandbox before using {{tl|editprotected}}. Tra (Talk) 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that there is a hard-coded height value of 28px for the image size, I question whether there is any point to having a "size" field except to make it smaller (which, given how small it already is, again makes little sense). Suggest either removing this field entirely so that default size is 32x28px max, or adding an additional height parameter so things can be more easily tailored. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Use the "name" parameter, to automatically look for the image as "Portal name.svg".

Example, Image:Portal $1.svg. So if you specified {{Portal|History}} it would automatically look if a file called "Portal History.svg" existed and use that. -- Frap (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

: The image for each portal can also be listed in the template code like this:

[[Image:{{{image|{{{2| {{#switch: {{{name|{{{1|}}}}}}
|Free Software=Free Software Portal Logo.svg
|Video games=Gamepad.svg
|Portal.svg
}}}}}}}}]]

: This could be put in a subpage such as Template:Portal/Logos and transcluded in the main template.--DStoykov (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a lovely little template but.. what do all those variables do? What inputs do they accept? What is a break? Nanonic (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. Because the template is protected, it's not even possible to open the template in edit mode to see what the code does. Instructions are defenitely needed. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

::The "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Portal&action=edit view source]" link that replaces "edit" on protected pages like this one seems to work fine here. You can't edit the edit box on that page if you're not an admin, but you can still look at the code and even copy-paste it elsewhere. Or does the button not show up on some different skin? Anomie⚔ 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Hmmm, that's strange. It doesn't show up when I look using my server (Win2k3 with MSIE) and it didn't show up on this PC (WinXP with MSIE) before (I pulled the cached page from my firewall to confirm) but it is showing on this PC now so I guess there are times it doesn't show up. Still, that doesn't help people who can't understand the code, which I guess would be most editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Unless someone beats me to it, I'll dissect the code and work up some documentation when I have some extra time...something I've been meaning to do for a while. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Thanks - just had to work out what break did by trial and error. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this template would look alot nicer and more stackable if it had a fixed width, because on some pages where there a multipul portal templates some a longer and some are shorter. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 02:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

{{tlx|editprotected}}

The letter "l" of the italicised word "Portal" touches and in some cases breaches the right-hand border using some fonts. Can someone please pad the template a little better?

:{{done}} The number of nbsp is obviously flexible, but I expect one should fix the problem. Happy‑melon 17:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

::Muchas gracias. Skomorokh 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

{{tlx|editprotected}}

I modified the existing template and made little improvements. The source code can be found at User:Edene/Sandboxes/05.

There are not much differences other than:

• shorter code? useless div wrappers around the image are gone
• when size is specified and the icon is not increased due to the height limitation, no gap appears
• better padding for text (the space between Spaceflight and the border)
• reduced space between lines
• when align=left, margin-left will be 0 and margin-right will be 0.5em.

Also, I often find italicized texts hard to read. It would be nice to simply bold, but I'm not sure if I can be bold on this matter. Thank you! eDenE 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

:All bold links are hard to read. I don't see anything wrong with the italicized ones, other than that they are bold links. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

::{{done}} You just recached a million pages {{mono|:D}}. Nice work... excellent code! Happy‑melon 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks :D eDenE 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS, shouldn't the word "portal" be lower case, so that the template will read, say, "Visual arts portal" - it looks a bit odd to have "Visual arts Portal". 144.92.234.38 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:I rather agree with this idea, though given the vast number of articles it is used on, I'd prefer additional comments before making such a change. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:: I think I'd agree. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

:::{{done}} Happy‑melon 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

SMPTE color bars is an example of an article with this template. I THINK that this template is the cause of the issue in which the text runs behind/under the first image on the right. This should not occur. Any thoughts or fixes available? TheHYPO (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:The template is probably pulling a float command from somewhere, causing this. I've been trying to locate exactly what "class=tright portal" does, but cannot locate this in any of the site CSS files...odd. In any case, I've relocated the template on the article mentioned to the "See also" section, where it is intended to be in articles. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

{{tlx|editprotected}}

Hi. For the sake of this template's use in e.g. {{tl|template category}}, could the "0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 0"/"0.5em 0 0.5em 0.5em" margin settings be made optional, please? For instance, something like:

...margin:{{#if:{{{margins|}}} |{{{margins}}} |{{#ifeq:{{{left|}}}|yes |0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 0 |0.5em 0 0.5em 0.5em}} }}...

The new parameter margins could then be set to "none" (or a custom string of settings other than the "0.5em...0.5em" options). Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

:File:Yes check.svg Done Happy‑melon 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

:* Thanks. I see it works when margin is set to 0 (zero). Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

{{tl|editprotected}}

Could the following category made a replacement for Wikipedia Portal templates of which it is a subCategory OR at least be added to this template:

{{PAGENAME}}

--Carlaude (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::File:Yes check.svg Done. For the record, cats are added to the documentation page, so you could've done it yourself. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The template page curently lists at the location section: "Within articles, this template is meant to be placed at the bottom of the article in the "See also" section.". Wikipedia:Portal however has been been changed to state that portal links should not go in article pages, but at the top of talk pages (preferable in Wikiproject boxes, like many Wikiprojects already do). A (for the moment) short discussion about this can be found at Wikipedia talk:Portal#Portal links in articles. If there is no opposition or consensus is that this is a good change, I'll also change this template to bring it inline with the portal guideline. I would prefer to have discussion of this change at the Wikipedia:Portal page, since that one is the guideline, and this template is only the application of it. Fram (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since this template is a self-reference to Wikipedia, should it be removed from printable versions, including PDFs and books? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

:Listed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Portal tags: should they be nonprintable for a wider view. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

::Now sandboxed with testcases. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

{{done}} --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion italian version on "Template:Portal" (it:Template:Portale) works better of this, in the sense that a lot of italian portals are more visited that english ones (e.g. [http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/Portal%3ADinosaurs] and [http://stats.grok.se/it/200904/Portale%3ADinosauri]), in despite that english wikipedia have more visitors. So I propose to make english version similar to italian one. Moreover, in italian wikipedia we use bots ("automated users") to insert "Template:Portale" in each page of wikipedia with the script [http://botwiki.sno.cc/wiki/Python:Portale.py]: it improve the portals visibility. --Aushulz (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Template:Portal should be changed to use "float:right" so that it will float alongside a long infobox or right-side image, and allow text to word-wrap beside the portal-box. Formerly, unless a user knew the left-side option, a portal-box below an infobox (or right-side image) would block text-wrapping to stay below the infobox (or image), causing a large text-gap on a page.

Image:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

{{Portal/sandbox|sandbox}}

{{Portal}}

The sandbox version (box at right) demonstrates the "float:right" setting, so that using {Portal/sandbox} can float the box alongside an infobox, even if template {Portal} (below) gets stuck below the infobox (or below a right-side image). This has been a common problem in many such bottom-boxes in Wikipedia articles, such as with {{tl|Commons_category}}, which can also block text from auto-filling beside the box.

Implementation can be done by using a quick outer table, which uses the CSS style="float:right". Tables have 3 types of horizontal alignment: align=right, "float:right" or "clear:right" (which clears all wrapping back to the far-right margin of a page). However, the use of "float:right" has been avoided (with large boxes or tables) because of the danger of overlapping large left/right tables and images on narrow windows.

Use of "float:right" depends on the floated box being small enough to fit without overlapping and eclipsing other boxes, such as the wikitable example, above.

{{clear}}

When a portal-box gets stuck down below an infobox, the separation creates a large, glaring text-gap which could give the impression that Wikipedia cannot properly typeset and format a page in a professional style. It is important to avoid glaring problems on a page, so as to make editing of articles as easy as possible. We don't want our users, who add infoboxes to numerous short articles, to freak and worry with frustration because a portal-box is stuck at the bottom of a page, and forcing a large text-gap above the box. Instead, a portal-box should, automatically, float where it would be expected to be formally typeset.

In the rare event, when an automatically floated portal-box might overlap a left-side table, then users can append Portal option "left=yes" unless that causes other formatting problems (which almost always happens with left-side placement of such small boxes) at the end of an article. Risk: I think there is almost zero risk, as floating a small box would be unlikely to cause more problems.

IMPACT: Problems with a righthand portal-box are fairly common, due to 2 major types of articles: (1) stubs with a tall infobox or right-side images (stacked higher than the left-side text), or (2) numerous large illustrated articles where bottom stacked images push, too much, into the See-also or External-links section (causing a text-gap in those sections). Expect numerous articles to improve when auto-floating the portal-boxes. It will become an instant improvement, as would be expected from the basic concept of a box floating-right.

Analyzing a major article: A major example was article "Aircraft" (as a large article), with photos stacked at the bottom, where {Portal|Aviation} blocked the fill/wrap of text to cause a text-gap under the "See-also" header. When the portal-box was moved "left=yes" (just as bad) then the lefthand box caused awkward wrapping of see-also bullet lines (left-side images or boxes will look crowded in a see-also section). The following shows the left-side result:

{{Portal|left=yes}}

• see-also line 1
• see-also line 2
• see-also line 3

Hence, neither option "right" nor "left" looked professional, and an automatic "float:right" would have been ideal (and automatic). However, lacking the float feature, the {Portal|Aviation} was moved to several different lines, in the see-also list, until it no longer interfered with other text. NOTE: Typesetting of the portal-box was much harder than shifting the photo images left/right in the uppper text of the article "Aircraft". Not only was the portal-box an alignment problem, but also, it was a difficult box to typeset cleanly on the page. Hence, the portal-box had been abandoned (in default position) to cause the text-gap. Well, after years of studying article formats, the best option remains to use "float:right" for a portal-box, to automatically overcome right (or left) alignment issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:00, 23 Nov., revised 01:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• PROBLEM: I see, now, that auto-floating boxes will float to each other, causing a loss of margin control. They will all float across the page, to push the text even lower:

{{Commonscat|xxx}}

: Hence, the option to float, for each link-box, must be chosen within each article, where multiple link-boxes might be displayed; otherwise, the floating link-boxes would fill the width of the page. Instead, a stack of linkboxes could be floated, as a stack, by using a special float-template in some articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Below, in topic #Floatbox can float portal boxes, there is an example for when a stack of linkboxes should be floated. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Because auto-floating of portal boxes could cause a loss of margin control, the new Template:Floatbox can be used, as needed in some articles, when floating a portal box would look better alongside an infobox (or right-side image).

Image:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

{{Floatbox |{{Portal|Animals}}{{Portal|Cats}}}}

The example here uses {Floatbox} to float 2 portal boxes (for Animals & Cats), as follows:

:* {{Floatbox |{{Portal|Animals}}{{Portal|Cats}}}}

The 2 portal-boxes are stacked together, and floated together as a stack, by both being listed in parameter 1 to {Floatbox}. Although the 2 portal-boxes were specified below the Mona Lisa image, because the infobox+image were also stacked together, then the {Floatbox} moved the 2 portal-boxes, even higher, alongside the infobox.
Normally, a portal-box would be stuck below the Mona Lisa image, causing this entire text section to format further below, and causing a large text-gap of empty whitespace to appear near the infobox. There is no limit to the number of portalboxes (or Commonscat boxes) which can be listed within a {Floatbox} call, such as in a stub or an article with many stacked images near the bottom. Using {Floatbox} is extremely efficient, due to being a short template which uses builtin tag <table> to float the boxes. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Our Autism article, and I'm sure several others, has a See also section containing only a {{tl|Portal}} box. I initially started a topic about this here on Talk:Autism.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autism&diff=398499812&oldid=397222738]

Now, here is the problem:

• In FF and GC, {{tl|Portal}} disfigures the Ref section when placed in it or directly above it.[http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/Facezz/WP/project-inline_1.png][http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/Facezz/WP/portal-box_placement_GC.png] In IE, this does not happen.[http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/Facezz/WP/portal-box_placement_IE.png]
• A possible solution for this is to place a {{tl|clear}} underneath the Portal box.[http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/Facezz/WP/project-inline_2.png] This makes the See also even more empty though.
• Another solution is to align the box to the left.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&diff=398628789#See_also] Looks nice, but a bit strange.
• I suggested the use of a portal-inline template a la {{tl|wiktionary-inline}}. A sketch: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Portal-inline][http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/Facezz/WP/project-inline_3.png]. But this feels a bit peculiar, as (unordered) lists in See alsos are usually only used for links to articles.
• One editor claimed that when a See also contains no links to articles, the portal box should go into the next section.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&diff=398658339] Neither WP:LAYOUT nor any other MOS seem to state this, but I could be mistaken. In any case, this does not solve the problem.
• Then, I noticed another user pointing out that Portal boxes are left out in printable versions (see here). If a section would contain only a portal box, this would look kinda odd on paper. To me, this is the definitive argument to justify a change in the Portal box code. (I should note that being printed is one of the possible applications of WP's content)

My conclusion: we should make {{tl|Portal}} look good in all browsers, not just IE. Again, see these situations: [http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/Facezz/WP/project-inline_1.png][http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/Facezz/WP/portal-box_placement_IE.png][http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/Facezz/WP/portal-box_placement_GC.png].

Next problem: how do we do this? Cheers, theFace 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:Just a note: As you have said what i do to solve the overlap problems. I have been adding {{-}} if the portal intrudes into the references (since those of us that use advanced browsers still see the 3 lines for refs - i.e not EI). I have also used :{{Portal|History of Canada}} option when its the only thing in the section.

:{{Portal|History of Canada}}

{{portal|Canada}}

{{-}}

Text and/or references after {{-}} and/or {{clear}} will prevent the overlap. Moxy (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Was wondering y so many Portal image templates are locked? Are we expecting our readers to ask them to be fix (if an old image was deleted or is a better image is now available) here on this talk page? I would guess that not many people actually have the template image on there watchlist. I raise this concerns after asking for an image update on a template talk page (no one ever got back to me) and the fact i had to ask an admin to fix one were an image was deleted leaving the template page useless. Moxy (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

:If you want to change a protected page, use the {{tlx|editprotected}} template (after you gain consensus, if that's necessary, but that doesn't seem to be the case here). That way, admins can easily notice it. The image pages are protected, because they are transcluded to a lot of pages and a vandal could cause quite a lot of damage. Svick (talk) 20:39, 8

::OK thats easy - i see this at Template:Edit protected#General considerations. Question though how or who determines which temple images get locked. Because it seem random. Or is it because people are not aware of all of them (as in they all should be locked just not all done yet)? Should i make a list of ones that need to be locked still?Moxy (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

:::The images I've looked at are protected using Template:Portal/Image lockboxes/Names (see WP:CASCADING if want to know more about how it works), which lists the images that were used the most at one point in time. If you want to protect or unprotect some images, you could contact User:Rich Farmbrough who created the list or post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Svick (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Although the current template has its uses, I generally prefer the French version of this template: [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Portail Modèle:Portail]

I particularly like the first example, which puts all the portals in a box that spans the width of the article. It is used at the end of the article, right before the categories are listed. For example, see the bottom of [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parc_national_de_Marojejy Parc national de Marojejy]. Would it be possible to replicate this template on enWiki? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

: Interesting. It does fix some of the bunching issues. The French Wikipedia solves the edit-link bunching problem (i.e., {{tl|FixBunching}} and {{tl|stack}}), by pushing the "[modifier]" link closer to the section heading, which solves quite a few problems. I don't really have a strong opinion on the portal presentation, but changing the format of this template would be a very large undertaking. It would require moving this box to the end of all articles. Many articles put the portal links up next to the infobox, for example. To make such a change would basically require forking this template and creating a "portal bar" template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

::I thought the bunching problem has already been solved. Svick (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:::You don't necessarily have to "fix" this template. I'd suggest just creating a new one so that people can gradually move over. Also, I'd love to see a similar template for listing books. I feel all categories, portals, and books should all be listed the same way in approximately the same place. I'd make these two templates if I understood how they work, but as simple as they sound, I keep getting lost in the code. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Hell... while I'm mentioning it, it might be wise to even consider making yet another template to display all interWikis, such as {{tl|Commons}}, {{tl|Wikispecies}}, etc. into one organized box at the bottom. Hmmm... I'm guessing this should be posted at village pump (proposals). Anyone agree? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::Something like {{tlx|Sister project links}}? But that's quite off-topic here. Svick (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent|:::::}}I went ahead and tossed up a proposal at the village pump. You can read it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Strips_to_replace_floating_boxes_for_portals.2C_books.2C_and_sister_projects here]. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

:Is anyone willing to take this on? I'd do it, but I'm not sure if I understand the code. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have created sample templates for this, as well as a more general "subject bar". I have posted this at the village pump. I would appreciate any feedback there. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

{{portal|Washington Roads}}I setup Template:Portal/Images/Washington Roads but when I put in my portal box the image does not work. --AdmrBoltz 15:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

::Fixed ---cant have the second word with a cap. Template:Portal/Images/Washington roads .Moxy (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Ahh, cool. Thanks :) --AdmrBoltz 16:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

{{tlx|editrequest}}

Could someone pls protect Template:Portal/Images/Justin bieber .Moxy (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

:{{added}} to Template:Portal/Image lockboxes/Names. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

{{portal|British Empire|military history|Royal Navy|Singapore}}

For Singapore strategy I wanted a ref to five portals (right) but no matter which way I order them, the fourth is always missing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

{{portal box|British Empire|military history|Royal Navy|Singapore}}

:{{done}} - used {{tl|portal box}}.....Moxy (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected|answered=yes}}

The translation in Hebrew is incorrect, Gerda is female, not male as translated. someone needs to edit the translation.

79.180.199.137 (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

:I don't know what page you are referring to, but I'm pretty sure it's not this template. Gerda is indeed a female name in Dutch and I suppose German, though. Ucucha (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The new combined template is now completely coded. It is a solid bar intended for the end of the article, just after "External Links." It supports portals, books, and interWikis. I have put in the main space at {{tl|Subject bar}} for testing and comments. I also made a post about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout). There is a sandbox version for more major edits. Everyone is encouraged to stop by there to learn more and make comments. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

:Pretty job !

:

:--Nnemo (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

The Template:Portal is broken.

I have written four portals :

{{Portal|Geography|Spaceflight|Russia|Soviet Union}}

But I see only three portals. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GLONASS&oldid=454108850#See_also here].

Please fix this template.

Thanks,

--Nnemo (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

:{{done}} It's now fixed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

PNG → SVG Template:Portal/Images/Greater_manchester to :File:England Greater Manchester numbered.svg -- -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 16:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

:{{done}} -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion here about merging the templates for {{tl|Portal}}, {{tl|Portal box}} and potentially a couple others into {{tl|Portal}} so we can just use one standard Portal template for all or most portal related actions. --Kumioko (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

:Update Conversation have moved to the next level ... pls see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Portal box.Moxy (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the merger of {{tl|portal box}} with {{tl|portal}}. The old code for {{tld|portal}} would call {{tld|portal box}} when there was more than one portal in the box. This code also worked for a single portal, so I merged the code by using the code from {{tld|portal box}} but the name {{tld|portal}}. The reason for sticking with the name {{tld|portal}} was that this template had more transclusions, and is more concise. One outcome of the change is that the old {{tld|portal}} code would set the image size to 'x28px' if there was only one portal in the box, and '32x28px' if there was more than one portal in the box. However, the 'portal box' code would always use '32x28px'. Hence, after the merger, we now have a single image size in all cases, namely '32x28px'. This won't be noticed for most portals, but if the portal image is very wide, like the one for {{tld|portal|BBC}}, then the box will appear to be much smaller now. I, or someone else, can restore the old functionality by passing a parameter to the first call to {{tl|portal/core}} which would tell it if there is only one portal in the box. As far as I know, this would only effect portals with wide images, which I don't think is as common as more square aspect ratios. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

:It's also because of the "font-size:85%;" that was in the style of "Portal box" but wasn't in the style of "Portal". I thought the size difference in font alone is negligible -- it doesn't really make a difference. How about just setting the image size to x28px? This would seem to fix the BBC Project portal problem and other images would similarly just sort themselves out. Adding extra parameters to check for the presence of more than one portal wouldn't make a difference for articles like BBC Radio 1 (whose portal box only links to the BBC Project), and it would add extra overhead to the server when the portal template is called. Banaticus (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The template currently sticks {{tl|portal box}}es which use things like height, margin and so on into {{cl|portal box templates using obsolete parameters}}. Is this really necessary? There are >10k affected transclusions, so it's unlikely these are going to get "fixed" by removing them by casual readers, especially when there's zero impact. Can we just silently drop these? If it comes down to it they can be AWBed away in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:I made a change to {{tl|Maths rating}} and the list is a lot shorter now. Doesn't seem worth "fixing" the break & left params though. So if those two were not tracked, there would only be about 30 items left to look at. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

::It would be nice to get a bot to tidy up all templates in content and project namespace and then delete the category. It was always intended to be a temporary category anyway. Tidying up unneeded parameters that have no visible effect may be a bit anal but it may make avoid head-scratching during future edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:::{{done}} Have cleaned up the pages that needed it. Will put the category up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

{{edit protected|answered=yes}}

Sometimes the template is added without a parameter. It will then show as a very small empty square. Can we have code added so that it sticks them in a :Category:Portal templates without a parameter? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

: Unless this is commonplace, I'd rather just {{tl|error}} on not having a {{{1}}}, which would give immediate feedback. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

::I am no expert on template coding but that seems like a good idea. Before it is enabled all of the current problematic ones should be fixed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I've added the tracking cat. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Great! There are no entries in the cat yet. Will it take a while to populate? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There are only about 100 pages that have popped up in the tracking category. It seems that the lack of a parameter is not commonplace so can we do the {{tl|error}} thing on it? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

: {{done}}: the tracking category is still there, as these need fixed, but hopefully once it's emptied it can be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

::Great, but I wasn't expecting the change to be made so quickly!! I am in the process of fixing the contents of the tracking category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)