Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Religion

Portal:Religion

This nomination appears to meet all featured portal criteria. All items in a recent portal peer review and a to do list have been addressed. Rfrisbie^talk 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support — All issues seem to have been addressed and I don't see any others, Bravo Zulu. — WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All comments have been addressed. Great work! S .D. ¿п? § 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Flawless? Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. as above. -- Jeff3000 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So below. (Religion Portal humor) ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks like a genuine FP. feydey 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are few points which should be considered before getting the portal promoted.

Add purge link.

No change needed. A purge link already exists as "Show new selections." This is a common and accepted element of featured portals. Rfrisbie^talk 13:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I could not find out that one. Where is it? Shyam ^(T/C)

Directly below the introduction, the typical placement for portals using a randomized rotation of selections. Rfrisbie^talk 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is not visible in Mozilla Firefox. Please try to fix the problem. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the div code used to format the purge link (it looked fine in IE). I assume it's visible in Foxfire now. Rfrisbie^talk 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now it is visible in firefox as well. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Firefox expert fixed the apparent cause of the display problem. I restored the original layout as it should now display properly for both Firefox and IE. Rfrisbie^talk 05:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not prefer the tab for the portal. The main objective of the portal to increase collaboration related to portal and which topics cover the portal. They should be included on the portal main page itself. There is no need to use separate tabs.

No change needed. Tabs are used on several large portals. They help break up large pages and serve as a condensed TOC. This is an accepted element of featured portals. Rfrisbie^talk 13:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other portals serve the purpose for other tasks as well when they are used as tabs. I do not seek any purpose to have tabs on this portal. Rather, these tabs seem to me that contributors may be untouched with the collaborations. Portals generally serve the purpose for the ports of other articles, IMO, while using the tabs for topics is not the good idea. Shyam ^(T/C)
This concern appears to be a personal preference (which is fine) rather that a violation of a featured portal criterion. However, one of the top viewed portal pages in the English Wikipedia is Portal:Science/Categories and Main topics, a featured tabbed portal page. Clearly, using tabs in portals is not a problem. Rfrisbie^talk 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related portals have unrelated portals in the section. The portals mentioned at the top need not to be a part of the section. Consider using a shorter image if the portal needs all other portal links.

No change needed. All of the portals listed in this section are related to religion. The first line lists serveral high-level portals on topics that historically have impacted and have been impacted by religion in significant ways. The remaining lines include subportals related to the topic of religion. The images sizes are common elements of featured portals. Rfrisbie^talk 13:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all the portals are really needed to have then please consider shortening the image or remove the image. This section covers about 25% of the portal's main page which is not good for the portal page. Shyam ^(T/C) 16:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be another personal preference, rather than a violation of a featured portal criterion. Religion is a broad, high-level topic with a diversity of world views on how it is regarded and practiced. Highlighting and celebrating this diversity is a strength of the Religion Portal. I have no plans to remove any related portal links or reduce image sizes. Rfrisbie^talk 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam ^(T/C) 08:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jo e I 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a few points to a otherwise brilliant portal. Firstly in the selected Picture, article, quote and scripture the footer reads "...Archive/Nominations" while the Selected religious figure, On this day... and Did you know... have "...Archive/Noms" in the footer. I understand this is due to a space issue but it should follow a uniform style throughout the portal. Hossen27 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll simply say the style is uniform. Full-width and left columns use "...Archive/Nominations" while right columns use "...Archive/Noms". Since the differences are intended to accomodate the maximum possible usability for simultaneously incompatible expectations – complete words vs. proper column displays – I consider this "compromise" solution to be superior to an arbitrary and unnecessary expectation of identical footers. Rfrisbie^talk 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support very good job, embodies the spirit of Featured Portals. ~ Arjun 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support although the electric blue is a bit hard on the eyes. But that's personal opinion, of course :) Full support with regards to all other points. riana_dzasta 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to change the color to a more pleasing shade. Rfrisbie^talk 12:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
#8181F7, slightly faded blue. Is it OK? riana_dzasta 13:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine with me. Rfrisbie^talk 15:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is duplication between the {{browsebar}} and Related portals section. Please remove portals appearing on the {{browsebar}} from Related portals (which should become Subportals), even if they may be considered related. Otherwise, good work in bringing this portal up to standard, and special thanks to riana for altering the colour – the prior blue was a bit harsh.--cj | talk 11:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before to Shyam, I disagree with this. If the portal is not promoted as a result, that's your choice. Rfrisbie 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC) By the way, since this is a wiki, I'm sure someone else will make the change. Rfrisbie 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet objected and my reasoning is different to Shyam's. Duplication is a real issue vis-à-vis the portal's usefulness and ergonomics. I am happy to make the change myself if you are happy to let it stand.--cj | talk 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about duplication. As a highly visual user, my point is the "Related portals" is not a duplication by the fact that it includes images, while the browsebar does not. I keep losing this verbal vs. visual argument on Wikipedia, so I don't expect the outcome here to be any different. I won't reverse any changes to the portal. This is a wiki. I'll just move on. Rfrisbie 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 03:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]