Purpose of Category:Portals? Alignment with Wikipedia?[edit source]
Check Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Portal for how they handle the description of portals. My strong bias would be to follow the Wikipedia model. (I believe we should simply copy/paste their portal description, with attribution, into Appropedia:Portal, and I'll do that unless I see a serious objection.)
If we take that approach, then I'm a bit unclear about the purpose of a category for an entire namespace. Should we have category:Appropedia for everything in the Appropedia namespace? Category:Original (we're trying to eliminate that actually)? Category:Main? Plus, listing the namespace is always valid and up-to-date, but the category is subject to gaps. On the other hand, if the category is not intended for the entire namespace, then I'm sure categories can add value. --CurtB 07:30, 20 March 2007 (PDT)
- (Curt again, with followup) Based on a conversation with Lonny, I didn't look deeply enough at Wikipedia. Indeed, they do categorize portals. I had the impression that they might have a few dozen portals. My mistake! Looking in the Portal namespace, you can see about 1000 portals per page. My guesstimate is that they have 50,000 pages in the Portal namespace. Yep, you gotta categorize that!
- The other extremely cool thing that I just stumbled upon is the expandable subcategories feature that now appears on the Wikipedia category pages (check Wikipedia:Category:Portals). Maybe it's been there a while and I just missed it, but it allows you to view categories within categories very easily. Looking at Wikipedia:Special:Version, they're running 1.10, but maybe they have other cool extensions somehow...
- Anyway, I support the Portal category stuff. I also believe that the portal description belongs at Appropedia:Portal, and I'll clone the WP page shortly to allow us to diverge shortly if we want to... Unless someone else beats me to it :-) --CurtB 15:37, 20 March 2007 (PDT)
- So can we remove all links to the List of portals.? --16:59, 11 April 2007 (PDT)