- 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: keep . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yet another pointless drive-by micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal: only 29 articles. A set with this low a number of pages is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both: Bee-eater and Template:Bee-eaters. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- PS This is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesome standalone page rather than handily appended to an article. I see nothing in
WP:Portal guidelines#Purposes_of_portals to support this usage of a portal as a fancier navbox. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Purpose #1 on there is "Providing a variety of sample content of subtopics ("topic tasters"), from within each portal's subject, that the reader may find interesting. Kind of like a magazine. Like what Wikipedia's Main Page does in general." And that is what we do, by showing the content of topics belonging to the subject, the titles of which we conveniently find on the corresponding navigation template or elsewhere. Subtopics are wherever you find them. Such as navigation footers, sidebars, lists, books, outlines, indexes, and categories. That last type has the biggest crop of subtopics, but we have yet to figure out how to harvest them. While we harvest titles from wherever, portals have their own format, and constitute a distinct type of navigation page. It really makes the bee-eaters look good. I definitely prefer browsing the bee-eater articles from this portal's slideshows than from the bee-eater navigation footer. I also prefer the image slideshow to scrolling through articles to look at the pictures. I'm sure there are others who appreciate this display interface as well. Our programmers did a really good job on the excerpt transclusion and portal slideshow features. — The Transhumanist 08:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- PS This is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesome standalone page rather than handily appended to an article. I see nothing in
WP:Portal guidelines#Purposes_of_portals to support this usage of a portal as a fancier navbox. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Bee-eater. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Redirect is not warranted. The portal can be easily orphaned and it's not a likely search term. Although not a categorically forbidden cross-namespace redirect, it's highly confusing. When people click on a portal link they expect to find a portal, not an article. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - If there is to be a minimum number of articles within a portal's scope for it to be appropriate (or some other broadness of topic clause), then a guideline should be established to that effect. Handling them individually without established guidance is undesirable and inefficient. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 21:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – this is a very nicely rendered portal, that really does these birds justice, with lots of picture support. A pleasure to browse. Very helpful for topic selection (that is, choosing what you want to read about in more detail). — The Transhumanist 08:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a new portal which currently only utilises the links from the corresponding navbox, but there may be further articles that would be appropriate for inclusion in the portal; besides which, the current number of selected articles is still a decent basis on which to build a portal. As has been discussed at length elsewhere (a discussion that would be pointless to repeat here), a portal is more than a summary of the core subject and a collection of related links; "a head article and a navbox" do not serve the same purpose or provide the same user experience as a portal. Waggers TALK 11:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- There are no established criteria for the existence or deletion of a portal, so this is premature. Get a consensus guideline up for when a portal is appropriate and measure these against that, otherwise it is just an argument about who likes what. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
*Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. –
Davey2010
Talk
01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Godsy et el. – Davey2010 Talk 01:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed.
Certes (
talk)
00:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – the guideline currently in place sets a low end threshold of articles needed of "about 20 articles". See Wikipedia:Portal guidelines#Article selection. — The Transhumanist 19:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Time for some portal creation criteria?. — AfroThundr (
u ·
t ·
c)
16:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: keep . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yet another pointless drive-by micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal: only 29 articles. A set with this low a number of pages is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both: Bee-eater and Template:Bee-eaters. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- PS This is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesome standalone page rather than handily appended to an article. I see nothing in
WP:Portal guidelines#Purposes_of_portals to support this usage of a portal as a fancier navbox. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Purpose #1 on there is "Providing a variety of sample content of subtopics ("topic tasters"), from within each portal's subject, that the reader may find interesting. Kind of like a magazine. Like what Wikipedia's Main Page does in general." And that is what we do, by showing the content of topics belonging to the subject, the titles of which we conveniently find on the corresponding navigation template or elsewhere. Subtopics are wherever you find them. Such as navigation footers, sidebars, lists, books, outlines, indexes, and categories. That last type has the biggest crop of subtopics, but we have yet to figure out how to harvest them. While we harvest titles from wherever, portals have their own format, and constitute a distinct type of navigation page. It really makes the bee-eaters look good. I definitely prefer browsing the bee-eater articles from this portal's slideshows than from the bee-eater navigation footer. I also prefer the image slideshow to scrolling through articles to look at the pictures. I'm sure there are others who appreciate this display interface as well. Our programmers did a really good job on the excerpt transclusion and portal slideshow features. — The Transhumanist 08:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- PS This is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesome standalone page rather than handily appended to an article. I see nothing in
WP:Portal guidelines#Purposes_of_portals to support this usage of a portal as a fancier navbox. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Bee-eater. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Redirect is not warranted. The portal can be easily orphaned and it's not a likely search term. Although not a categorically forbidden cross-namespace redirect, it's highly confusing. When people click on a portal link they expect to find a portal, not an article. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - If there is to be a minimum number of articles within a portal's scope for it to be appropriate (or some other broadness of topic clause), then a guideline should be established to that effect. Handling them individually without established guidance is undesirable and inefficient. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 21:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – this is a very nicely rendered portal, that really does these birds justice, with lots of picture support. A pleasure to browse. Very helpful for topic selection (that is, choosing what you want to read about in more detail). — The Transhumanist 08:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a new portal which currently only utilises the links from the corresponding navbox, but there may be further articles that would be appropriate for inclusion in the portal; besides which, the current number of selected articles is still a decent basis on which to build a portal. As has been discussed at length elsewhere (a discussion that would be pointless to repeat here), a portal is more than a summary of the core subject and a collection of related links; "a head article and a navbox" do not serve the same purpose or provide the same user experience as a portal. Waggers TALK 11:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- There are no established criteria for the existence or deletion of a portal, so this is premature. Get a consensus guideline up for when a portal is appropriate and measure these against that, otherwise it is just an argument about who likes what. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
*Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. –
Davey2010
Talk
01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Godsy et el. – Davey2010 Talk 01:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed.
Certes (
talk)
00:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – the guideline currently in place sets a low end threshold of articles needed of "about 20 articles". See Wikipedia:Portal guidelines#Article selection. — The Transhumanist 19:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Time for some portal creation criteria?. — AfroThundr (
u ·
t ·
c)
16:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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.