Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Portals

Copyediting

I worked it over a little for clarity, grammar and punctuation, linking, etc. Not very substantive, but the gist of this already appeared substantively correct to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Adopt as a MoS guideline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § To what extent does the MOS apply to portals?

Should this page, formalising the applicability of the MoS to portals (with a few exceptions), be adopted as a Manual of Style guideline? - Evad37 [talk] 02:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer - Evad37 [talk] 02:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is redundant to WP:PORTG, each portal is laid out differently which in my view makes them unique. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There is overlap between the two, but they cover different aspects of portal creation: style guidelines and content guidelines (once they're completed). — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 10:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - While I'm not opposed to providing formal MOS guidance for this area, and even support it, this page is not ready. It appears to be written as if the MOS were full of binding rule. While it is the point of the manual to be prescriptive, that doesn't mean that the rules are mechanical. So I'd support some version of this that was phrased to specify what portions of the manual of style don't make sense for portals, and what specific guidelines are more relevant, but I don't like this legalistic approach. It should be rewritten to something more in line with the general tone of WP:MOS. Tamwin (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Like Tamwin I would support MOS guidance about Portals. However, I don't think this version is that. As someone who doesn't really do anything with Portals, the proposal in the current stage does little to offer me guidance as to what is expected and how to get there which from my experience looking at other elements of the MOS is the norm. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)`

Discussion

Note: I have notified the MoS talk page[1], WikiProject Portals[2], Village pumps (policy[3], proposals[4]), Wikipedia talk:Portal[5], Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines[6] - Evad37 [talk] 03:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Are we sure this is ready for prime time? I thought we were still in the draft phase for this one. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 09:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that this proposal seems rushed, I would kick it back to WP:PUMP for community input before moving any further. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issues raised in the RfC

@Knowledgekid87: This page is not intending to specify layout or content, like WP:PORTG does – layout is explicitly mentioned as an are where the MoS guidelines wouldn't apply. But just because the layout section isn't directly applicable to portals doesn't mean that (most of) the rest of the MoS, like MOS:UNIT, should be ignored by portals. - Evad37 [talk] 02:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tamwin: Regarding full of binding rule[s], mechanical, legalistic – I didn't think anything here was suggesting that this page or any part of the MoS was anything more than a guideline (i.e. should normally be followed, but use common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply). And specify what portions of the manual of style don't make sense for portals, and what specific guidelines are more relevant was certainly my intent – each of the top-level list items in the Exceptions sections are the areas of the MoS that, in full or in part, don't make sense for portals, followed by a subpoint explaining what does make sense for portals. - Evad37 [talk] 02:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: This page is a litte different to the other MoS pages since it's not saying (as a guideline which may have occasional common sense exceptions) "Do this, don't do do that, do this instead", but rather "the MoS applies to portals, except in these areas" – without being too prescriptive, so that portal editors can still create and maintain unique and interesting portal designs, and try innovative new ideas, as is currently the case. - Evad37 [talk] 02:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Evad37: Thanks for that explanation and can see that having some value rereading the page with that lens. However, I stick by my larger point that, as someone who gave mild thought to an abandoned Portal when the RfC came up that this page really offered me next to no guidance in the way I see other MoS pages do. Some Portal help is really more technical and thus probably not appropriate for the MoS (but should be somewhere on this page I'd think) but I think there's gotta be a way to help point to useful styles/practices while still allowing the sense of innovation. But again feel free to disregard everything I'm saying (even more than one is always free to do so on Wikipedia) given my ignorance on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Evad37: First off, thank you for being so responsive. I can see that my commentary was not particularly constructive or helpful, and I apologize for that. Basically, I think that this takes the wrong approach right now, which is largely a matter of phrasing. The reason it seemed "legalistic" is that it appears to be written in a similar matter to many laws I've read. The fact that it begins with a section called "exceptions" means that it feels like "notwithstanding the provisions of rule X, in case Y the editor shall take action Z". I know that's not the intent, and I'm exaggerating, but that's how it feels. The fact that it is entirely composed of a list, with little free flowing text, also doesn't help.

I'd suggest that instead of using the word exception, it should talk about the inapplicability of parts of MOS. So instead of "therefore, they should generally follow the MoS guidelines, apart from certain exceptions detailed on this page" you might try something along the lines of "therefore, most of the ideas of the MOS are still applicable, but some of them need to be altered to fit the different nature of the content, as explained on this page". It's a more casual and less legalistic phrasing. I'm sorry that I'm complaining about such subtle matters of tone, but this just gives the feeling of a bureaucratic rule more than a style guideline, despite having perfectly reasonable content (but see the next paragraph for more comments on content). Somehow the main WP:MOS page better captures that feeling. It uses the word "should" a lot, and the examples give it the feeling of an explanatory guideline, despite it's prescriptive nature. The difference is I suppose the difference in tone between making rules and explaining what the rules are. You want to give the implication of the later, not the former.

I also agree largely with Barkeep49's suggestions on content. I would suggest that the first section of the page should be something like "Purpose of portals" and explain the differences between a content page and a portal (one contains content, the other organizes content), as a form of explanation for the remainder of the guideline. Also, I think our concern is perhaps not that this guideline is doing something that it shouldn't do, but that it isn't doing everything that it should. There are many stylistic elements to be addressed in portals. It's not a subject I know much about, and I know there's a lot more diversity in the portal namespace than the article namespace. Still, there needs to be a guideline explaining what to do and what not to do stylistically. I agree that WP:PORTG is primarily written as a layout guideline, and this doesn't overlap with it (although it should probably be renamed). The master style guideline for portals belongs on this page, but right now this doesn't quite cover everything that needs to be covered. Apart from my stylistic quibbles, what you've done here so far looks like good material. It's just that this page currently doesn't feel like the integral part of the WP:MOS that covers portals, because the tone doesn't quite match up and because it doesn't cover everything it needs to. I would also like to qualify this by saying that I know little about the portal namespace, so please let me know if something I'm said doesn't make sense, or if you have any questions about my comments. I'm busy at the moment, but I'll try to come back here again and see if I can help out with the tone or other editorial matters. Tamwin (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Autocollapsed content

I don't think that the restriction on collapsed content is appropriate to portals. There may be many applications where default display of a list, category tree, table, index or suchlike visually unexciting but helpful content may unduly clutter the portal. Portal development is in a state of flux, and should not be excessively constrained at this stage. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss:

• It is possible to link to the material on another page, but that has the disadvantage of requiring another page (which we are trying to minimise), and having to come back after looking at it. Autocollapsed content is already there on the page, and when transcluded, does not take up much code space. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No-one has commented in a month. Either no-one has noticed, or there is no opposition, so I will make the changes I think appropriate, and take it from there. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)