Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log/September 2007

• Nominate: I have tried to address the concerns in earlier peer review and checked the portal against Featured portal criteria. I believe it meets the criteria and is one of the best portals on Wikipedia. Arman Aziz 06:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very informative portal about Bangladesh. Well created and long delayed.--NAHID 20:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not now. Not yet. I am a bit apprehensive about the "well maintained" part. It's been lying around for eons, and, a month of fervent activities, no matter how commendable, doesn't make it well maintained. Sorry, that I have to play the devil's advocate again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The guidelines for opposing a nomination says - "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." I believe the objection above falls into that category. Agree that the portal experienced irregularity in maintenance in the past (beofre July 07) - but there is no way we can change the past now. What we can and should change is the future. So, all considerations evaluating whether or not a portal should be featured MUST BE forward looking. This portal has all selected items already identified for next 2 months - up to Oct 2007. Codes are in place, so that, even if no one touches the portal in next 2 months these items will auto-update. Furthermore, The nomination process for Nov 2007 selected items is currently underway, and even there is a statement of policy specifying what to do in case there are no nominations. The news section has been actively maintained for last 3 months - no reason to doubt why the same should not happen in future. The featured portal criteria says if sections of a portal are not updated in 3 months it may be de-featured. Reversing the rule we can say if there is evidence that the portal items will be regulalrly rolling in next 3 months - there's enough evidence of meeting well maintenance criteria. And this portal can easily defend any forward looking criteria like that. Arman Aziz 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on every single point. Yes, you are. And, you've done tremendous great work with the portal. But, please, notice that almost all the featured portals have large groups of people working to keep them rocking. Not here. On the other hand, even the most active Wikipedians do leave the project, become partially inactive and all that (remember Rama's Arrow, the person who orginally started the drive for featured status for this portal?). One person driving a featured portal can not really be very good idea, not even when empowered by dozens of automated processes. If you are really bent on objections that can be fixed, I'd say - get at least one more person to work regularly on the portal. And, if you can decide not to ignore the comment, I'd say - have a little more patience. There is no harm if it becomes a featured portal next month or the month after. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One small correction. Tarif Ezaz is helping me rejuvinate the portal - although he did not get directly involved in the coding. Nahid also wanted to lend a hand, but probably found that the portal is already in good enough shape. I was always in the impression that other members of WP:BANGLADESH, including yourself, are available anytime to take up the role of doing updates to the portal. If your objection is coming from my suggestion against your proposal of forming a Bangladesh Portal workgroup, then please feel free to start one -but please don't try to discredit the portal for not having enough editors. Never ever, in any place of wikipedia will you see the "number of active editors" is a consideration in any discussion on featured content. Wikipedia components are evaluated based on the quality of the contents not the number/quality of editors - that's one of the vital features of wikipedia. Not withstanding all these, if a featured portal becomes inactive due to departure of a key editor or some other reasons - then there is always the provision of de-featuring the portal.

I don't have any problem with waiting - but I am not convinced how simply waiting for a few more months will improve the quality of the portal from what it has now. Arman Aziz 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for inserting my comment in the middle. It's for the sake of the flow. I guess, I should begin by asking - what has this nomination got anything to do with your suggestion against my proposal? Do you let your Wikipedia judgments be guided by personal grudge over trivial matters? If yes, I have nothing to say. If no, well, I wonder how I seemed like this vengeful idiot to you.

Now, what I have failed to make you see is that a portal should always be a collaborative effort, as opposed to an article or an image. In fact the very idea of Wikipedia stands on the legs of collaboration. Your portal may be the best portal here, but it may remain your portal. And, while you may be the best editor with the best intentions and energy, there always is the possibility of you becoming inactive. Your departure wouldn't mean a departure of a key editor. It would mean the departure of the only editor (invisible editors not counting).

Finally, I guess, I should tell you again that you have done a wonderful job. Yes, the portal fulfills all the requirements of becoming a featured portal, as far as I understand. But, it still is far from "well maintained". It's been lying around for ages, has only recently been resurrected, and even a after a month of fervent work by one editor the number of participants have not grown beyond that. Relying on automated processes and pledges to participate is not enough, as I understand, to earn the status of "well maintained". Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if in spite of all the arguments you continue to say the portal is not well maintained without saying what can be done to improve this, then I guess I should just ignore your comment. But again while repeatedly calling this a "one man show" etc. you are really undermining the efforts of many editors. The point of workgroup came only because I thought it could be the last way to convince you that I am not trying the steal this portal or anything. I am not even creator of this portal. This was done by Ragib. All I have done in last one month is some cosmetic changes, along with creating "only" the "Where in Bangladesh..." section to make the main page look balanced. All other sections have been borrowed from earlier works of Ragib and other editors from the portal, project or article. If I come forward to push a good portal to a featured portal status with some hand in maintenance and formatting, that doesn't make me the owner of the portal. Arman Aziz 00:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep questioning my integrity while I have not raised a single point to question yours? Please, understand that while you may not own the portal, you are its only editor in long time. And, that doesn't make it any more well maintained. And, if you are really bent to flaunt guidelines, please, remind yourself that, by the standard procedures I have never raised an objection so far (an objection must begin with the word - object). Once again, all your work is much appreciated. I really wished you nominated it a bit later when there were more participants working. Well, if the collaborative spirit of portals can be ignored, this portal may well advance to a featured status. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have full respect for you as one of the most valuable editors of WP:BANGLADESH and have no intention to question your integrity. All I have said here was to defend the nomination of Portal:Bangladesh as featured portal. If it have sounded otherwise, please accept my appologies. Arman Aziz 01:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - overall, it's very good - I just have a few layout suggestions. The layout at the top needs some help. If "The BANGLADESH PORTAL" and the date were outside of the main box, that would probably be best. But if they stay where they are, then either a red border needs to be added to the top or the color of that section needs to match the rest of the background ... but right now, it doesn't look right. In "Where in Bangladesh", the picture should be centered and you may want to make the section title "Where in Bangladesh ..." or "Where in Bangladesh?" On the Indices page, the map and national symbols table should both be centered or fully justified. The picture used for national symbols looks very bad. GIF images are limited to 256 colors. It should be redone as a PNG or JPG ... HOWEVER you are using a CC-BY image and a GFDL image as two of your source images. Those licenses are incompatible and the resulting image is a copyvio ... so really you need to just use the separate images. The "International ties of Bangladesh" down at the bottom of that page should also be centered. --B 19:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive criticism. However, I did not get three points. One, why use of CC-by image and GFDL image would be copyvio. I have aknowledged the source images in the image description page. Could someone help me understand what other criteria I need to meet to use these supposedly "free for distribution" images? Second, the portal title is inside the box which encompasses the entire portal - I dodn't see any problem with that. Some of the best portals on wikipedia (e.g. Portal:Australia, Portal:Christianity etc.) also use similar layout. Furthermore what exactly did you mean by color of title background not matching rest of the portal? I can see the background of the title in #E9EFF8F (very light blue) - same as rest of the portal. Do you see anything different? Do you see white? And third, the "where in Bangladesh" image (map) looks centered to me and it's also coded that way.

For the rest of your comments, I'll work right away. - Arman Aziz 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at it in IE and some of the problems don't occur in IE ... only in Firefox. I don't know what our user breakdown is, but a lot of editors use Firefox because you have to use it in order for Twinkle to work. See screenshots:

• 
  Border problem
• 
  Map not centered in Firefox

As for the images, CC and GFDL licenses are not compatible. Any work derived from a GFDL work must also be released under the GFDL. Any work derived from a CC-licensed work must be released under a compatible CC license. But neither of those licenses give you the right to release your derivative work under the other license. In other words, you have no right to distribute someone else's GFDL work under a CC license. Nor do you have a right to release someone else's CC work under a GFDL license. That's just the way the viral nature of the license works. Just because two licenses are free doesn't make them cross-compatible. --B 00:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point about licenses. I'll try to do something about it. Meanwhile could you please check whether Portal:Australia and Portal:Christianity also look odd in firefox. If not I'll try to check what they are doing differently. Arman Aziz 09:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just completed fixing all the problems mentioned by User:B except for the firefox specific problems. Arman Aziz 10:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Australia both look fine. --B 12:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed the header problem in FireFox. Arman Aziz 03:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also managed to center-align the where in Bangladesh map in FireFox. I'm glad to say this completes all the fixes suggested by User:B. Arman Aziz 05:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above, but some of the edit links are appearing outside the boxes. Sahmeditor 14:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To fix the edit links appearing outside the box I have moved the edit link from box-header to box-body. Arman Aziz 00:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Some inspiring works has recently been done regarding Bangladesh related articles and I think this portal can be a great ambassador for that. I worked here before and hope to keep helping. I don't think maintaining would be a problem, even if Arman becomes inactive. Tarif from Bangladesh 17:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: what's the purpose of tabs Main, Indices and Projects? They all show same information when I clicked them. — Indon (reply) — 10:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retract my question. I should scroll down to see the result. Nice work. — Indon (reply) — 10:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - No display problems for me in Firefox. The portal is extremely helpful and well presented. It inspired me to start some Bangladesh articles today. Mattisse 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice work. the three tabs in the beginning is excellent. Please maintain it properly. If need be, don't forget to ask for maintenance support from neighboring portals (India and West Bengal portals). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I forgot to do this, and I should've done this a long time back. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't Support for now. It is just a kind of a WikiProject using portals formatting. Ooops! I was looking at /Projects. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I finally had time to take a look into the portal. Great work. I especially liked the Bangla Calendar dating template ... great!! I had started the portal years ago, but didn't have time to work on it. I congratulate those who has made this portal so nice-looking, and complete. Thanks. --Ragib 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - But 2 minor issues. Firstly, the use of {{shortcut}} doesn't look good. Secondly, Portal:News is a redlink. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. The first issue, the use of {{shortcut}}, is consistent with several other country portals including several featured portals (e.g. Portal:India, Portal:Indonesia). So, I guess for the sake of consistency it should stay. The second issue - the redlink - was recently added by a newbie (IP user). It has been removed already. Arman Aziz 05:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing the Music Portal as a featured portal because it is well-maintained, ergonomically and aesthetically pleasing, and useful, since it provides a wide coverage of all the music-related articles on Wikipedia. Madder 11:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very informative portal, set up well and easy to navigate. Cricket02 13:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I can't help but notice that Christian music isn't listed. There is a Christian music portal that should be listed as a subportal rather than some of the individual band portals (which really should come under their genre rather than directly under music). The genre list should probably include hymn and gospel or possibly the generic Religious music. --B 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added Christian music and moved the band portals as you suggested. The genre list is taken from M:List of articles every Wikipedia should have, so you should ask there about adding religious music/hymn/gospel. Λυδαcιτγ 05:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very nice. One other minor point - the "Connections" area looks a little ragged. The transcluded templates have different fonts/colors/formatting and just look out of place. Maybe the "points of interest" navbox could be moved down to the bottom and {{Music portal}} could be either removed, have its contents copied, or be modified to use parser functions that make the border not show up in portal space. I don't know ... that section just doesn't look crisp. --B 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good suggestion! Fixed. Λυδαcιτγ 02:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Comment Support: The lower section of the potal looks totally messed-up with boxes overlapping each other. Is it my browser, that's playing the trick? Arman Aziz 07:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know - it looks fine to me. Can you post a screenshot and tell us what browser you are using? Λυδαcιτγ 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The screenshot is here. It's how I see the body of the portal when I maximize the screen. The view changes when the screen is not maximized - probably some of the boxes are moving around with the screen while some others are not. I'm using Internet Explorer version 6.0 along with Windows 2000 Professional and my screen resolution is 1024 X 768. - Arman Aziz 03:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what's causing the problem. I would try to debug, but I can't reproduce the symptoms. How about fooling around with the code in my sandbox to see if you can figure out how to solve this? Λυδαcιτγ 05:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the sandbox but couldn't solve. By the way, I tried the portal from another pc but I still have the same problem. Arman Aziz 09:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just tried viewing Portal:Music in Internet Explorer 6. There is no problem whatsoever with Portal:Music being viewed in Internet Explorer 6. Please see: this image for a screenshot of Portal:Music displaying absolutely fine in Internet Explorer 6. Madder 01:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lowest part of the page as shot by User:Madder also looks fine from my PC. But the problem is in the middle section of the page. Here's a new screenshot. I am having the same view from my office and home pc. Arman Aziz 02:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another screenshot of Portal:Music in IE6, this time the middle section: Image:Musicportal-ie6-screenshot2.jpg. As you can see, it displays absolutely fine. I'm looking at your screenshot of Internet Explorer 6 and clearly some changes have been made. For example, in the status bar at the bottom, the letters "ms.ms.ms" have been appended to "Internet". You should check your settings in IE, it looks as if you may have set it to apply another stylesheet to each page in the accessibility settings. Or perhaps you have an addon that is causing the problem. All I can say is that Portal:Music works fine in an unmodified Internet Explorer 6. It works fine on my computer, and unless you have changed some settings in your browser, should work fine on your computer too. Madder 18:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried the portal from a FireFox browser and it looks fine. I'm still having the problem with IE from both my office and my home PC. However, since it appears to be a browser - specific problem, I'm changing my position from oppose to comment. Arman Aziz 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Displays fine in IE7. Λυδαcιτγ 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today I tried the portal from a cyber cafe using Netscape. It still looks all messed up. I don't know why I am only having this problem. Arman Aziz 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just tried viewing Wikipedia in Netscape - see: Image:Wikipedia-netscape4.jpg. In fact Wikipedia in its entirety does not display correctly in Netscape. I'm therefore surprised that you've singled out specifically the Music Portal as looking "messed up" in Netscape - when in fact the whole of Wikipedia doesn't display correctly in Netscape.

I've tested the Music Portal in the following browsers and found them all to display it absolutely fine:

• Internet Explorer 5.5, Internet Explorer 6, Internet Explorer 7
• Firefox (uses Gecko rendering engine, as do Netscape 6, Netscape 7, Netscape 8, Netscape 9)
• Links (Text-based Browser)

I think that's pretty good coverage, especially considering that Wikipedia:Browser notes states: "There is no perfect browser for viewing Wikipedia." Madder 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've tried viewing this in IE 6 (Windows XP) and it's a nightmare -- all the boxes overlap, the graphics are scattered randomly (seas of stars). It's completely unusable. I've never had a problem with any Wikipedia content before, and in particular all portals I've ever looked at display just fine. Espresso Addict 21:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you upload a screenshot? Λυδαcιτγ 03:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked with the portal's layout code a bit. I'd be grateful if you could try viewing it again in IE6 and see if it now works for you. As ever it displays fine for me in IE6. All the best, Madder 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent -- it now works fine, and looks great! Espresso Addict 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it works for me, too! I have changed my position to support. Thanks to Madder for at last taking the comments seriously and fixing it. Great fix indeed. Arman Aziz 01:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A few nitpicks now that I can read the thing at all...
  • The word edit protrudes from the box on the full width boxes (this might be another IE 6.0 problem).
  • The DYK image uses 'thumb' which I believe is not recommended.
  • In the Explore... box, the list of musical instruments seems short compared with other lists. 'More musical instruments' could probably be split over two lines to reduce the column width.
  • There is bias towards content of a particular type in a few places. The DYKs should probably attempt to mix up the genres a bit more; the current set all seem to be broadly speaking 'pop'. The same goes for 'Recently featured' in the Explore... box, perhaps some older featured content in other genres could be retained? Also today's birthdays, although that might just be fluke. On the other hand, the 'Composers and musicians' in that box seems a little classically biased.
  • Otherwise I really like it: informative, interesting, well laid out and pleasing to the eye. Espresso Addict 10:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll go through each point:

• 'Edit' link - I've made more changes to the layout code, it no longer seems to protrude. However, I'm worried the changes might also have reverted the previous layout changes - although it still displays fine for me in IE6, could you check it's still OK in yours?
  • Fixed for me, and the rest is still fine. Espresso Addict 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I will sort out the DYK stuff later today, unless someone else does first
• The Explore... box is derived from the 'list of articles every Wikipedia should have' - see [1] . This is so that people can't randomly add their favourite article to the Explore... box. Instead it has to go through a consensus and be added to this list. Also, it's an attempt to prevent any bias.
• I guess this leads on to your last suggestion. Perhaps we could have a different process for deciding what goes in the Explore... box - I don't know what other users think - but the current list on Wikimedia seems pretty good. As for the 'recently featured', the problem with retaining older featured content is it then stops being 'recent'. I disagree with the point on today's birthdays though, the list is very very thorough, with composers and musicians spanning centuries. However, if there's a way of implementing any changes to make the portal even better, that's great :-) Madder 13:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list you link doesn't look very balanced to me, though I agree you need some way of stopping everyone adding their favourite composer etc. Also for composers/musicians you seem to have left out a few (eg Hendrix, Madonna), which I think may have led to an increase in the classical bias. The birthdays thing may well naturally bias towards modern people whose birth date will be known, as opposed to historical people where it's sometimes not. Espresso Addict 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing this out - it seems the list has changed, so it will have to be synchronised again. As for the birthdays, historical people are there as well, but only people who are alive are shown on the main portal page, because before there was a real problem because the list was far far too long. To see all birthdays, you can click on 'More birthdays...' Madder 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • List synchronized. Espresso addict, I think the bias towards classical and pop is a reflection of the bias of Wikipedia articles - those two genres have more developed articles than do other genres. Λυδαcιτγ 06:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I switched the DYK to use borders instead of thumbs. Λυδαcιτγ 05:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]