Template talk:Portal by year

@Londonjackbooks: I have been playing with Template:Portal by year (resurrecting Adam's earlier work). We have two options for use.

1. Substitute it and allow play with ita sections, tweak and tweak, but disconnected from master, eg. Portal:1903 (refreshed), or
2. let it autogenerate, eg. Portal:1905; not tweakable at individual page level, always at latest design.

I can check for the existence of a category and wrap the whole section inside it Y; so if doesn't exist then hide it or put in a "no works" comment. Note that cannot check for existing categories with zero output (well, I don't think that we we can).

Do you see value in portal pages like these? If yes, but not what displays, what sort of things would you like to see. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: First glance/thoughts:

1. We would need to be more fastidious about categorizing works (at 'genre' level), and strongly recommend in guidance to contributors that 'completed' works be categorized in order for this to be useful and representative of what WS has available.
2. I do not think that there should be a set count value for sections (see Poems section in Portal:1905 in edit mode)
3. Autogenerate would certainly cut down on opportunity for vandalization.

I'll think on it some more, but I am all for something like this, as long as it is truly representative of what we have available—which would require thorough categorization (again, at least at certain genre levels... and what will those be, exactly? Those cat sections listed on the Portal pages would need to be the cats we strongly reccommend Users draw from to categorize 'completed' works.) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Agree about categorisation, and this may help us drive that categorisation.
   • We may wish to look at new works and how we instruct newbies to do that, we haven't to this point. Our "genre"ing possible needs some work anyway as to deep and we have a horror number of little sections. Balance required.
   • This whole set-up, may just be the initial framework and precede what we may be able to do more automagically with Wikidata data.@Samwilson: as a FYI and your more coding brain.
2. Count was previously set at 5, and I think that may have been to balance left and right parts of table. So we if we are having a couple of columns we need to consider whether we balance, or do we just ditch columns to a long list. I don't know, and not sure what the web logic / guidance is currently. It has to be are we sampling or displaying in this space.
3. Yes, though that is not usually an issue for us. More is there more that could be wanted on such a page, in a curatorial sense. There are means to set parameters to build things, or do we just want the generated lists.

I agree that this is tactical approach, and it is reader-focused; and typically I am not a reader. Which is why I am initially reaching out to someone who does that presentation approach. Content-wise there is nothing here is anything to which I am emotionally-tied, and more trying to think outside the box. [I need to get out more!] — billinghurst sDrewth 20:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: On the issue of count-setting due to balance: Balance is good, but for a portal such as this, readers (imo) will want/expect comprehensive lists and not a sampling. If a link could be provided that takes them to a more comprehensive list, then so be it; but I am reminded of being told once that the fewest clicks it takes for someone to reach their goal the better. Attention spans and all, you know... I will think on the other points some more. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: [Read above first if you have missed it] Question: If single poems within a collection are categorized as 'Category:Poems', and the year parameter appears in the header, will those pages appear in the autogenerated section of the Portal? That would seem excessive, as you would only want the collection to appear, correct? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: The query is just working with whatever is in the categories. If it is top level work, or subsidiary pages, if they are in the category and intersect with the second category, they will be in the output. This tool cannot do union joins. I haven't tested however, we may be able to exclude category:subpages though that could also be problematic, cannot say without looking deeper at the consequences. Also to note that {{header}} has capacities around categories and labels, depends what we are looking to achieve, and I am guessing that there is no nirvana here. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok. More questions come to mind, but you are right about seeking first what it is we look to achieve. First things first. I will have to sleep on it. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

What to include?

1. Recent/latest additions
2. Births/deaths
3. Works published (base pages only? not subpages?)
   • Fiction
   • Non-fiction
   • Poetry
   • Other (outside realm of fiction/nf)

The list of genres is so broad (even at top levels) that it might be best to keep works published sections to a minimum of fiction, non-fiction and poetry (or any other genre that falls outside those categories). Columns look pretty on desktop, but are not mobile-friendly. I think the Portal pages should be in list format with TOC of sections appearing at top of page. If a list count is set for sections, I suggest adding a "see more" link at the end of each section to point to a complete list; and if possible, select listed works at random (at Portal page). Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Not sure where you are on this, or whether you've the time, but I just revisited having all but forgotten about it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Gently thinking, not acting. Was looking at something that may have enabled by data extraction from Wikidata, then I ... <hand waving> Oh look, over there, an easier task <eyeroll> — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I am listening to an old record from 1965 of Wordsworth's The Prelude, and have heard many great adverbs that make me recall your "gently thinking". So, I will wait patiently until you have "emphatically", "lustily", "boldly", "earnestly" and "inexorably" (not sure about the use of this one) thought further on the matter. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: RE: Adverbs. If you love adverbs, try Fielding's Tom Jones. I've yet to come across another author who makes such liberal use of a rich store of adverbs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I am always hesitant to post my "nonsense" on Talk pages, but you have just reconfirmed why I find it advantageous... It often leads to such connections—"conversations" :) I will check it out, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks, @EncycloPetey: I have unpinned the count parameter so it is now unrestricted. Portal:1903 is still two columns; Portal:1905 is now single column table. I think that there is/was a tool or a gadget that allowed quick switching between desktop and mobile, let me explore. Makes them big lists. Also some are repeated as we have the recent list which is now a full list. What are we expecting? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

List of 10s? Ideally, provide a further link [ (more...) ] in sections to a full list of results? Not sure if that is technically possible. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)