The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Disambiguate . In order to preserve the integrity of any incoming links, although no prejudice against someone removing all the incoming links and just G6'ing re-MfD'ing this in the future if it becomes a useless orphan. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Portal:Amphibians and reptiles

Portal:Amphibians and reptiles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant portal. There's a separate portal on amphibians and another on reptiles. See Portal:Amphibians and Portal:Reptiles. It is better to have a separate portal on each of these subjects, as their scope is far more than enough to justify a portal on each.    — The Transhumanist   02:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: I'm for deletion. Disambiguating "Portal:this and that", for which we have a portal on each of "this" and "that" is superfluous and redundant. That would be like having a disambiguation page for "science and philosophy".    — The Transhumanist   22:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment – Redundant in scope. I'm working on Portal:Amphibians and Portal:Reptiles, to bring them up to current standards.    — The Transhumanist   02:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment - In this case, redirection would be inappropriate per WP:XY. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 05:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment There are links to this portal from articles and their talk pages about reptiles and also amphibians. It would be easier to resolve these before any deletion. Are disambiguation portals acceptable? Can a portal provide a "hatnote" pointing to a related one? Thincat ( talk) 06:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
•  Comment: I think Portal:Football was a disambiguation page for a while (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages aren't articles). It may be worth sorting the linked pages into whether they are based on amphibians or reptiles and then using that to change the respective portal link(s) on the page. Wpgbrown ^{talk | contribs} 06:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  Portal:Human and Portal:Macedonia are disambiguation pages. Certes ( talk) 08:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  ... and Portal:Georgia is a set index. Certes ( talk) 11:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. There are pros and cons for either having one portal or two separate ones. I don't really care. It's up to potential long-term maintainers. If no one committed to maintaining both of these show up, then I'm leaning toward keeping just Portal:Amphibians and reptiles for maintenance reasons. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 07:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Portal:Reptiles and Portal:Amphibians have been redesigned for low maintenance, and both use selective transclusion so that the excerpts always remain fresh (the excerpts are pulled directly from live articles at the time of display).    — The Transhumanist   10:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ The Transhumanist: Maybe slightly lower maintenance but a major loss of functionality; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Concerns regarding the one page portal model. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 11:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Those will keep running for years without much need for maintenance. The functionality gained for readers is far greater than the minor loss of functionality (section edit links) for editors (as there are far more readers than editors). And it is the readers we should be focusing on. Navigating through the edit page via search of section titles is easy. Meanwhile, the functionality gained for readers is immense: dozens of pictures in a slideshow, and hundreds of rotating article excerpts. The reader sees different content every time he or she visits the page. That's well worth the cost of editor scrolling, which did not slow me down much at all when I revamped/built Portal:Reptiles and Portal:Amphibians.    — The Transhumanist   11:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment: As they are different groups of animals, it makes sense to have Portal:Amphibians and Portal:Reptiles. However, traditionally they have often being studied together under Herpetology, presumably wny the Wikiproject is Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. I assume that the same people involved in the project would be involved in the portal so it makes sense that they match, either as combined project and portal or seperate projects and portals. As there is a seperate Portal:Dinosaurs it might be better to keep them combined for practical reasons.    Jts1882 |  talk  08:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Portal:Reptiles and Portal:Amphibians each present hundreds of times more (rotating) content than Portal:Amphibians and reptiles, and they both have been upgraded with the latest portal enhancements, including picture slideshows.    — The Transhumanist   09:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Make into a disambiguation page: As per the reasoning above (by others and me), I would want to first relink pages that link to the portal in question to the new portals (or include both) and then make the portal into a disambiguation page. Wpgbrown ^{talk | contribs} 12:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete if the greatest portal booster wants one deleted, burn it down. No DAB no redirect just delete it Legacypac ( talk) 23:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I was just about to be persuaded by the above argument, as my reservation was mostly about who would maintain the portal. However, I now see that there are separate portals for Portal:Salamanders and Portal:Frogs and toads. There is a lot of redundancy here.    Jts1882 |  talk  08:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete I am more inclined towards delete as we already have updated portals on Amphibians and Reptiles thanks to The Transhumanist. But disambiguation would not be a bad idea since there is a WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles and people might search for it. Pratyush ( talk) 05:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete since Portal:Reptiles was kept. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate per Wpgbrown. I wouldn't support a new page title of this kind but since this has been around since 2006, might as well preserve the page history. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 16:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ The Transhumanist, Thincat, Certes, and Jts1882: Just a quick ping in case any of you want to formalize an !vote on whether to disambiguate or delete. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 16:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

No, it's all too complicated for me. Thincat ( talk) 17:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I dislike disambiguation pages of the form This and that may mean this or that, but I agree that the history may be useful and there may be external links. If pressed, I'd cast a very subjective and marginal !vote for Disambiguate. Certes ( talk) 19:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Make into a disambiguation page: Now I see what you are doing with the templates (e.g. {{ Box portal skeleton}}) I favour deletion and leaving a disambiguation page. The new versions are low maintenance but flexible enough that they can be changed if there is sufficient interest from members of the project. This is much better than the often neglected versions.    Jts1882 |  talk  16:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.