Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Aviation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Aviation[edit]

Self nom. One of the first portals created, I've had a lot of time to tweak and am happy with the result. The next obvious step was to nominate here. Many great features; auto-changing "Selected" Pics and articles, and my favorite: Today in Aviation. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good, but object until various technical issues are fixed:
    1. All "edit" links should go directly to the correct subpage; the selected picture and anniversary ones merely allow one to edit the template call!
    2. The category list seems pretty incomplete; is this intentional?
    3. The "thumb" attribute on the selected picture seems unnecessary.
    4. Not all the lines in the "Other projects" box fit inside the borders; you may need to subst: the {{sisterlinks}} template and fiddle with it by hand.
    5. Might it be possible to avoid having two narrow boxes stacked at the bottom?
  • Also, the introduction could stand to be slightly longer; this may be just a matter of preference, though. —Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems these items have been addressed by User:TheKMan. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, support from me. —Kirill Lokshin 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments:
    1. Why is trains in the related box? I rather see this space reserved for portals that actually deal with aviation (airliner portal,figher plane portal,ect..).The transport portal link is a nice touch tough.Seeing that there is now a cars portal this space could get crowded with distant related topics.I prefer portals with a direct relation not aviation > transport > trains.
    I've removed the trains Trains link from the related box. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I like how some portals are implementing "topics",these aren't categories,but a box with actual important articles related to the portal organized and with some sub articles (with aviation some obvious articles would be "airliner","airport" and "pilot").The second thing I have seen that seems to be a step in the right direction is a box with a number of important lists.I mostly prefer lists to categories,because they tend to be more user friendly and pleasing.
    Do you have examples of this, I'd like to see it in use. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Portal:War has a small one; Portal:London a much larger one. —Kirill Lokshin 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes london is the best example I think,In my eyes it has an amazing topical overview.--Technosphere83 19:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course these comments are only observations and aren't requirements for a featured portal. :) --Technosphere83 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like this, esp the winged images at the top. Rlevse 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you added a topics box, it's a nice addition Support --Technosphere83 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now how much of an improvement to navigation this box makes. I just started it though, I think there are a lot of important articles to put in it. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellently maintained and beautiful portal. I think this meets all the criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: A potentially very useful portal to an important topic. However, as it stands, I cannot support it for featured status - but it hasn't far to go.
    Firstly, although the wikiwings icon are cute, I really think they must go - they give off a certain amateurism.
    Secondly, the icons present in only a few of the box-headers should be cut - they are inconsistent with the other box-headers, and look unappealing in IE (which still does not support transparent .png's).
    Fixed - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thirdly, and most importantly, the "Today in Aviation" section is not maintained, and shockingly for a feature candidate, is at present a red link. Red links are against the criteria in all areas save contribution-encouraging aspects (which should be limited).
    The other stuff I'll work on later but I just want to note that this section isn't really "not maintained" but is not yet complete. If you look here you'll see that there is a page for almost every day of the year. You just happened to catch one of the ones I didn't get to yet. It's taking a long time to transfer over all the events currently listed at Timeline of aviation and various year pages. If anyone wants to help see:Portal talk:Aviation/Historical anniversaries. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is quite an effort! However, they really need to all be complete, or the box hidden when they're not, to meet the standard.--cj | talk 01:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry its taking me so long to reply but work is killing me these days. Ok, how about if I put in a filler on all the remaining redlinked days. Something along the lines of "No events have been entered on this date yet. You can help by entering them. See Portal talk:Aviation/Historical anniversaries." - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fourthly, the intro and selected article boxes needs to be formatted to account for an IE bug - because the edit link is respositioned in the right of the box-header, the box text needs to immediately follow the </div> mark-up (no spacings, no breaks) where an image is present, else the text will render lower than the image.
    Fifthly, the introduction is rather lacklustre and also self-referential.
    Sixthly, the left column is far greater than the right. This may be a consequence of the neglect of "Today in Aviation", but I suspect it is still longer with that box. Perhaps you might consider ameliorating this alignment by re-arranging the text of "Categories" to be more compact or by other means.
    Lastly, and this is a suggestion not an objection, perhaps you might consider making transparent the white backgrounds of the tables appearing in three of the right-column boxes.
    I've taken a look at this but can't figure out the CSS codes to do that. Can anyone help? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made two transparent, but I can't get topics to become transparent. I wasn't fussed about this; it looks okay either way.--cj | talk 07:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think this portal is greatly useful, but I don't think it is yet featured-standard. I'll happily support it once my points have been satisfactorily addressed. :)--cj | talk 15:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Siva1979Talk to me 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good to me. --Terence Ong 08:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Tobyk777 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks great! Staxringold 13:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if the issues with "Things you can do" are fixed - see talk page. --GW_Simulations 23:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a lot of hard work has obviously gone into this portal. Brisvegas 05:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support I'm happy to support this portal as soon as three things have been taken care of: an expansion of the introduction, the elimination of any red links outside of Things you can do, and the reformat of Categories to make it more compact, but in line with the right column. Thanks, --cj | talk 10:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've stewed over the intro for a while and, not being very literally inclined (see what I mean), every attempt I make to add to it sounds forced. Can anyone help me out? I've added show/hide to the categories section so it's now shorter, but do people find it to still be too long? The redlinks are being worked on. I'm down to the last few years in the anniversaries. Some redlinks were included in those but nothing that can't be fixed. (I'd almost like to leave them in to promote article creation.) - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With my virtually non-existant knowledge of aviation, I've extended the intro by a few sentences (after grabbing some ideas from Wikipédia française). I'm not sure if it makes any sense. The categories section still seems disproportionately large. My suggestion would be to opt for the more compact listings as in other featured portals, and then transfer Aviation Topics from the right coloumn to the bottom at full width. The no red links criterion for showcase sections is because they should be highlighting existing content. Red links are permitted for those sections that acknowledge and encourage contribution to deficiencies.--cj | talk 03:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm obviously no expert, but I was just noting that the Did you Know section hasn't been updated since August of last year, a long gap. Would it be wise to organize updating of such sections like is done on the Wikipedia Main Page? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been thinking about that. I guess I can set up an auto-updating thing like the anniversaries for now, but if people want to see new DYK's they need to start suggesting them. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this portal has gone a long way since the nomination started and it is much better now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Portal:Aviation&oldid=1136716623"