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.
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)
02:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
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 (
TALKCONT)21:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a new portal which currently only utilises the links from the corresponding navbox, but there are further articles that would be appropriate for inclusion in the portal (such as places, people or events related to the subject); 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.
WaggersTALK11:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
*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. –
Davey2010Talk01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Maintenance on the portal is automated. The excerpts auto-update, and the selection of articles automatically grow as the selection at the sourcepage expands. — The Transhumanist19:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - I see that there is a group of portal-inclusionists who think that we should permit this proliferation of portals pending resolution of creation and deletion criteria. Given that about half of editors would like to do away with portals, it makes more sense to prevent any continued proliferation of mini-portals until the issues are resolved.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
23:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I would agree, except: if an agreement on what constitutes a "mini-portal" (i.e. inappropriate portal) was reached, then we would basically already have creation and deletion rules. Bar a complete moratorium on new portals, which would be a drastic measure, the discussion needs to happen first. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT)07:44, 30 September 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.
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.
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)
02:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
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 (
TALKCONT)21:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a new portal which currently only utilises the links from the corresponding navbox, but there are further articles that would be appropriate for inclusion in the portal (such as places, people or events related to the subject); 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.
WaggersTALK11:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
*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. –
Davey2010Talk01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Maintenance on the portal is automated. The excerpts auto-update, and the selection of articles automatically grow as the selection at the sourcepage expands. — The Transhumanist19:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - I see that there is a group of portal-inclusionists who think that we should permit this proliferation of portals pending resolution of creation and deletion criteria. Given that about half of editors would like to do away with portals, it makes more sense to prevent any continued proliferation of mini-portals until the issues are resolved.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
23:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I would agree, except: if an agreement on what constitutes a "mini-portal" (i.e. inappropriate portal) was reached, then we would basically already have creation and deletion rules. Bar a complete moratorium on new portals, which would be a drastic measure, the discussion needs to happen first. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT)07:44, 30 September 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.