Military history WikiProject
	This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
TMP	Templates do not require a rating on the quality scale.

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk News Showcase Style guide Announcements and open tasks  → Articles needing attention  → Popular articles  → New articles  → Nominations for deletion talk The Academy talk
Departments Assessment talk  → A-Class FAQ / B-Class FAQ  → Assessment requests Contest talk Logistics talk Review talk  → Review alert box
Special projects Great War Centennial talk Majestic Titan talk
Internal organization Coordinators + talk Members talk  → Active / Inactive  → Banners and userboxes Awards talk Stress hotline talk Portals talk Project banner talk Project category
Templates Infoboxes  → Firearm cartridge talk  → Military award talk  → Military conflict talk  → Military memorial talk  → Military person talk  → Military structure talk  → Military test site talk  → Military unit talk  → National military talk  → War faction talk  → Weapon talk  → Command structure talk  → Operational plan talk  → Service record talk Navigation boxes talk  → Campaignboxes talk Template design style talk
Task forces
General topics Fortifications talk Intelligence talk Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military biography talk Military historiography talk Military land vehicles talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk National militaries talk War films talk Weaponry talk
Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk Baltic states military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Dutch military history talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk Lebanese military history talk Middle Eastern military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Ottoman military history talk Pakistani military history talk Polish military history talk Romanian military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk South American military history talk Southeast Asian military history talk Spanish military history talk Taiwanese military history talk United States military history talk
Periods and conflicts Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Muslim military history talk Crusades talk Early Modern warfare talk American Revolutionary War talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk Cold War talk
edit · changes

These portals should be linked from a related portals section on the respective portals, not in a mock browsebar.--cj | talk 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The format of linking seems like merely semantics here; we can consider this to be an alternative layout for the related portals rather than a true "browsebar", if you prefer. All things considered, formatting the links like this is rather neater, in my view, than the standard huge block of related portals (see, e.g. Portal:War), particularly given the strong interlinking among the ones listed. Kirill Lokshin 12:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps we should just do away with the 'true browsebar', which is long since irrelevant, and use this format in place of related portals sections. Either way, maintaining a 'common look and feel' among portals is important. --cj | talk 12:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we shouldn't go crazy over enforcing an identical layout on every portal; the subtle variations are part of what makes reading them so interesting (and the layout are so fundamentally different in many cases that the browsebars are the least of anyone's concerns). Personally, I think I've come up with a reasonably clever way to position both browsebars on a page without interrupting the flow of the main portal content too much; see Portal:Italian Wars. (Obviously, other portal maintainers may have different layout ideas to better fit with the design of other potals.) Kirill Lokshin 13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that the variations amongst portals that are of interest to users is content, not construction. This isn't about crazy enforcement either; it's about good design. Navigability and usefulness of portals to users is integral to good design, and cannot be achieved without providing familiarity between portals. If there is a problem with established elements, the solution needs to be developed for all portals.--cj | talk 04:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly the content is the primary interest; but I would say that varied visual design is interesting in and of itself. If all the portals looked like the same boilerplate but with different articles pasted in, that would be rather monotonous, no? While certain common elements are basically present everywhere, I don't think we ought to force a rigid layout, with regards to those elements or otherwise.

(On a practical level, there are a large variety of different designs used by portals at the moment—going through the FPs brings up at least a dozen—so trying to enforce a strict common layout at this stage isn't really going to work.) Kirill Lokshin 04:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)