Forum:Navigation Project

< Index | Site-related discussion

I've started this page to centralise any discussions and plans about categories and the navigation templates. ADK^{...I'll adhere your cubicle!} 20:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nav templates

Issues:

• DPL replacement

Use {{Randomarticles}} where possible to get rid of DPL. Maybe expand it to allow use in stuff like {{Evonav}}, but abstract away the dpl format parameter. For example, in the case of evonav, the replacement extension would look something like this:

{{#pagelist:
category = Evolution
|format=list
|separator= - 
}}

So don't make the randomarticles template accept raw DPL format code. Also, I don't plan to implement the includepage feature, but that's not really needed here. The uses parameter, which selects pages that transclude a certain template, will most likely be available. -- Nx / talk 21:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Would that possibly warrant a second one called {{allarticles}} that lists everything in a category and {{keyarticles}} that lists the key ones? ADK^{...I'll ruminate your noun!} 21:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. But define key articles. Also it would be better to use a "key evolution article" or somesuch category instead of the evokey template thing. -- Nx / talk 21:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's category:evolution and category:evolution (key) it would be a fairly simple switch, wouldn't it? The input to both templates would just be "category". And then just make it hidden. ADK^{...I'll anglicise your pill!} 21:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Or just category:Evolution and category:key article. Both DPL and my replacement can handle logical AND. -- Nx / talk 21:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your genius never ceases to amaze me. ADK^{...I'll murder your zebra!} 21:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Icons

Issues:

• Some still missing
• Not everybody likes the homogenised corporate logo style. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And? ADK^{...I'll confuddle your memo!} 23:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't what users want or don't want an "issue"? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Just responding to the overwhelming negativity in kind. ADK^{...I'll sniff your tuba!} 23:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Overwhelming how? Does it overwhelm you that my aesthetic preferences differ from yours. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Issues:

• That clicking one link takes you to a page that might have a different template

So what? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• When using a mixture of fixed and random articles, some may appear twice

Categories

Issues:

• Which categories need to be meta?
• Are some too broad, too specific or too widely populated
• Are there any clear redundant cats?

Portals

Issues:

• Prone to copy/paste errors when making new ones
• General visual revamp needed?
• Need a few more

I think it's worth talking about what portals are for - or rather, "who". Are they for editors to better organize articles, move about the wiki, see duplicates, redundancies, and missing info? Or are they for users who come to visit. They can be both, of course, but i think if portals are for the average user, so he or she can find new info, we probably should focus on highlighting articles that are not just "well written", but the ones that are really RationalWiki-ish. the ones that help people argue against non-rational positions; the ones that have analysis and insight, etc. But if it's mostly for us, than that kind of focus isn't necessary.--GodotThe Peyote God awaits 22:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratings

Issues:

• Need to more thoroughly define priority
• Introduction of the pre-bronze rating

Project resources

• Category:Sidebar navigation templates
• Category:Portal icons