The result of the discussion was: delete . No prejudice against creating properly curated portals that satisfy WP:POG. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Every one of the 83 portals included in this mass nomination is based on a single navbox. That is, their list of selected articles (using {{ Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}} or {{ Transclude linked excerpts as random slideshow}}) is drawn solely from a single navbox. For example, Portal:Limerick is drawn solely from {{ Limerick}}, and Portal:Selena Gomez is drawn only from {{ Selena Gomez}}.
This makes each of these portals merely a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the navbox, with much less utility than the navbox because:
The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes:
I propose deleting all these portals in one go because:
(I selected the pages using tools such as the tracking categories, WP:AWB and Quarry queries ... but I have manually verified that each of 83 pages meets all three criteria.)
All these portals were created by User:Happypillsjr between September 2018 and March 2019. They were not part of any bot-like process and I see no reason at all to doubt that they were created in good faith. However they all use the automated portal technology, and all but three ( Nelly, Halsey and Green Party of the United States) were created with {{ subst:Basic portal start page}}.
I started scrutinising this editor's contributions after examining Portal:Reykjavík at MFD:Portal:Reykjavík. That was one of the very worst microportals I have seen, with only one page in its selected articles list. I have not had time to count "Selected articles" list of more than a small sample of this set, but the few I checked did not include that error.
Some of these portals cover narrow topics which I believe should never have a portal (e.g. Statue of Liberty). Others cover broad topics (e.g. Portal:Politics of the United States) which would be capable of supporting a thoughtfully-designed and properly-curated portal which used a selected article list extending way beyond the navbox, if enough editors were willing to do the sustained the hard work needed to curate and maintain it.
So, I propose that these pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
{{subst:Basic portal start page}}
... so if you or any other wants to commit to building and maintaining a curated portal, you don't need to keep this automated stuff as a starting point. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
14:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
Geography of South America}}
up to {{
Surviving ocean going ships}}
. The existence of a navbox is a poor guide to the breadth of a topic.{{
Madrid}}
which is actually a redirect to {{
Districts of Madrid}}
, but could have embraced also {{
Madrid orchestras}}
, {{
Madrid Metro}}
, {{
Madrid MA}}
(the municipalities of the larger metropolitan area), and the two footy clubs. Is it no longer preferred to improve pages rather than delete them? Has "there is no deadline" been superseded by "you must improve it right now or it goes"? The structure provided by the automated process gives a guide as to extending the scope of a portal; it can be built on by those who would find it difficult to start a portal from scratch.this is best treated with common sense. Thereafter, we can find some explicit statements of what could be common sense in the present situation:
the portal must be maintained and serve a useful purposeat WP:POG#In_general and
Some portals update the selected articles and pictures once a month. Others update them weekly, which is preferredat WP:POG#How_often_to_update?. Your assertion
So any portal is doomed now if there is no username shown as "maintainer"?is top and foremost a logical fallacy (even if, perhaps, slightly inflammatory). Anything is doomed when no sound argument to keep is presented. That is the rule. A simple common sense rule, that can be sustained by large amounts of letter soup. When someone says: this navigation tool should be kept and maintained, this can be parsed as (1) "Je maintiendrai" this one or (2) "You, the murderous deleters, your duty is to do the job I have no intent to do by myself". The first one is an argument to keep, the second is rather perceived as a joke, a logical fallacy, <add other possibilities here>, depending on today's mood. Pldx1 ( talk) 09:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
juggernaut of destruction. There is a prolonged process of deletion debates removing the vast flood of portalspam created by a WikiProject which lost the run of itself.
all very sadthat so much time of so many editors has had to be expended on removing so much crud created with so little care or analysis.
category tree
|
---|
|
-- Happypillsjr ✉ 07:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
plenty of content availablebut an empty set of available people to do the job. The result is an useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing navboxes, and of lower quality. Pldx1 ( talk) 09:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This user lives in, or hails from, New York City. |
en-us -N | This user is a native speaker of American English. |
The result of the discussion was: delete . No prejudice against creating properly curated portals that satisfy WP:POG. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Every one of the 83 portals included in this mass nomination is based on a single navbox. That is, their list of selected articles (using {{ Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}} or {{ Transclude linked excerpts as random slideshow}}) is drawn solely from a single navbox. For example, Portal:Limerick is drawn solely from {{ Limerick}}, and Portal:Selena Gomez is drawn only from {{ Selena Gomez}}.
This makes each of these portals merely a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the navbox, with much less utility than the navbox because:
The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes:
I propose deleting all these portals in one go because:
(I selected the pages using tools such as the tracking categories, WP:AWB and Quarry queries ... but I have manually verified that each of 83 pages meets all three criteria.)
All these portals were created by User:Happypillsjr between September 2018 and March 2019. They were not part of any bot-like process and I see no reason at all to doubt that they were created in good faith. However they all use the automated portal technology, and all but three ( Nelly, Halsey and Green Party of the United States) were created with {{ subst:Basic portal start page}}.
I started scrutinising this editor's contributions after examining Portal:Reykjavík at MFD:Portal:Reykjavík. That was one of the very worst microportals I have seen, with only one page in its selected articles list. I have not had time to count "Selected articles" list of more than a small sample of this set, but the few I checked did not include that error.
Some of these portals cover narrow topics which I believe should never have a portal (e.g. Statue of Liberty). Others cover broad topics (e.g. Portal:Politics of the United States) which would be capable of supporting a thoughtfully-designed and properly-curated portal which used a selected article list extending way beyond the navbox, if enough editors were willing to do the sustained the hard work needed to curate and maintain it.
So, I propose that these pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
{{subst:Basic portal start page}}
... so if you or any other wants to commit to building and maintaining a curated portal, you don't need to keep this automated stuff as a starting point. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
14:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
Geography of South America}}
up to {{
Surviving ocean going ships}}
. The existence of a navbox is a poor guide to the breadth of a topic.{{
Madrid}}
which is actually a redirect to {{
Districts of Madrid}}
, but could have embraced also {{
Madrid orchestras}}
, {{
Madrid Metro}}
, {{
Madrid MA}}
(the municipalities of the larger metropolitan area), and the two footy clubs. Is it no longer preferred to improve pages rather than delete them? Has "there is no deadline" been superseded by "you must improve it right now or it goes"? The structure provided by the automated process gives a guide as to extending the scope of a portal; it can be built on by those who would find it difficult to start a portal from scratch.this is best treated with common sense. Thereafter, we can find some explicit statements of what could be common sense in the present situation:
the portal must be maintained and serve a useful purposeat WP:POG#In_general and
Some portals update the selected articles and pictures once a month. Others update them weekly, which is preferredat WP:POG#How_often_to_update?. Your assertion
So any portal is doomed now if there is no username shown as "maintainer"?is top and foremost a logical fallacy (even if, perhaps, slightly inflammatory). Anything is doomed when no sound argument to keep is presented. That is the rule. A simple common sense rule, that can be sustained by large amounts of letter soup. When someone says: this navigation tool should be kept and maintained, this can be parsed as (1) "Je maintiendrai" this one or (2) "You, the murderous deleters, your duty is to do the job I have no intent to do by myself". The first one is an argument to keep, the second is rather perceived as a joke, a logical fallacy, <add other possibilities here>, depending on today's mood. Pldx1 ( talk) 09:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
juggernaut of destruction. There is a prolonged process of deletion debates removing the vast flood of portalspam created by a WikiProject which lost the run of itself.
all very sadthat so much time of so many editors has had to be expended on removing so much crud created with so little care or analysis.
category tree
|
---|
|
-- Happypillsjr ✉ 07:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
plenty of content availablebut an empty set of available people to do the job. The result is an useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing navboxes, and of lower quality. Pldx1 ( talk) 09:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This user lives in, or hails from, New York City. |
en-us -N | This user is a native speaker of American English. |