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 a single game is too narrow scope for a portal, provided no additional navigational functionality over the main article.
Meszzy2 (
talk)
10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Yup, vandalism. TTH and his merry crew did a huge disservice to anyone who thought there was a use for portals
[1] The old version actually highlighted featured content. You might want to have adiscussion with TTH about what he did to your work.
Legacypac (
talk)
12:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
No,
User:Legacypac, No. Read
Yelling Vandalism. Stupid good-faith edits that have a negative effect on the quality of the encyclopedia are not vandalism. They are stupid good-faith edits that have a negative effect on the quality of the encyclopedia. If you have been editing long enough to what
vandalism is, and you have, you have been editing long enough to know
what is not vandalism.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
05:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. This used to be a
featured portal, which means that its scope is wide enough to encompass a significant number of articles. And it's not a single game, it's a whole franchise that has spawned other topics.
feminist (
talk)
11:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
That appears (to me at least) to be more of an argument to delete all but the most viewed portals, rather than keeping them.
feminist (
talk)
10:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Espresso Addict &
feminist, I am v sorry: I screwed up somehow in posting the link at WT:WPPORT. The one I posted gave recent hits, not the Jan–Feb figures I had been viewing. I have fixed the link on WT:WPPORT:
[3]. I chose the Jan–Feb figures, because they were before the views began to be distorted by all the attention from editors at MFD etc.
Comment - Old portal, 73 subpages, created 2015-10-31 03:16:32 by User:Feminist. If you,
User:Feminist, want to replace the actual portal's page by its
before the TTH mess version, then my opinion is: feel free to do that, provided that you (1) keep the {{mfdx|2nd|help=off}} tag, and fill all the {{Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018}} fields. In this case, I will comment as Keep at this time. The "not sufficiently broad scope" concern will remain nevertheless, but we are now and not in a possible future.
Pldx1 (
talk)
14:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep former featured portal. (Looks like the last ever passed by the process.) Should be restored to the featured version. While the topic is relatively limited, if Feminist (or anyone else) is prepared to restore & maintain it, there seems no rationale to delete.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
19:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - By
WP:POG portals should be panes for a vast content. Portals for single game fail in
WP:POG. The vast majority of portals do not receive actual content for years, in this case about four years (See
Portal:Halo/Selected article/14 and
Portal:Halo/DYK/53 Revision history). Fan-created, after abandoned, do not arouse community interest. Single game portals are very distant from the main page according to
Portals tree, 307 pageviews (30 days) for
Portal:Halo compared to 81,813 pageviews (30 days) for
Halo (franchise) also demonstrates that readers do not see sense in exploring a "single game portal" that shows the same content of article.
Guilherme Burn (
talk)
20:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep with the understanding that it may be renominated within 60 days if it has not been returned to its former state before it was broken by the portal platoon. This is also evidence that they should be
topic-banned permanently from modifying or creating portals.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This (in either form) is one of the better maintained portals (it's not showing redlinks, Lua errors etc), but it isn't for a broad topic, (as pointed out above) gets few pageviews compared with the corresponding article and contains things that are, at best, pointless on such a portal (e.g. links to Wikispecies/Wikiversity). Portals should be limited to just broad topics (e.g. video games?) to limit the damage they do to wp - e.g. editor time spent on portals (that few readers will ever look at), noise affecting other editors and the risk of readers seeing poorly-maintained portals. In other words, I think the benefits (if there are any - who might actually use a portal?) of keeping a portal about a topic like this are outweighed by its costs (e.g. encouraging other editors to spend time creating a portal for their favorite VG and quite possibly leaving it a mess). Note re benefits: I've yet to see a convincing explanation of how portals might help readers/editors - just words like "the portal helps you survey additional information on the topic". DexDor(talk)20:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)reply
would obviously produce the required intro. I am surprised that this has not already been done, and that {{Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018}} remains unchanged.
Pldx1 (
talk)
09:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Narrow scope, which fails the
WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one has not been maintained. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep and revert Just because it is a single game franchise doesn't mean it fails
WP:POG. This portal has the content and in its previous version was a better portal. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?12:04, 8 May 2019 (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 a single game is too narrow scope for a portal, provided no additional navigational functionality over the main article.
Meszzy2 (
talk)
10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Yup, vandalism. TTH and his merry crew did a huge disservice to anyone who thought there was a use for portals
[1] The old version actually highlighted featured content. You might want to have adiscussion with TTH about what he did to your work.
Legacypac (
talk)
12:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
No,
User:Legacypac, No. Read
Yelling Vandalism. Stupid good-faith edits that have a negative effect on the quality of the encyclopedia are not vandalism. They are stupid good-faith edits that have a negative effect on the quality of the encyclopedia. If you have been editing long enough to what
vandalism is, and you have, you have been editing long enough to know
what is not vandalism.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
05:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. This used to be a
featured portal, which means that its scope is wide enough to encompass a significant number of articles. And it's not a single game, it's a whole franchise that has spawned other topics.
feminist (
talk)
11:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
That appears (to me at least) to be more of an argument to delete all but the most viewed portals, rather than keeping them.
feminist (
talk)
10:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Espresso Addict &
feminist, I am v sorry: I screwed up somehow in posting the link at WT:WPPORT. The one I posted gave recent hits, not the Jan–Feb figures I had been viewing. I have fixed the link on WT:WPPORT:
[3]. I chose the Jan–Feb figures, because they were before the views began to be distorted by all the attention from editors at MFD etc.
Comment - Old portal, 73 subpages, created 2015-10-31 03:16:32 by User:Feminist. If you,
User:Feminist, want to replace the actual portal's page by its
before the TTH mess version, then my opinion is: feel free to do that, provided that you (1) keep the {{mfdx|2nd|help=off}} tag, and fill all the {{Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018}} fields. In this case, I will comment as Keep at this time. The "not sufficiently broad scope" concern will remain nevertheless, but we are now and not in a possible future.
Pldx1 (
talk)
14:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep former featured portal. (Looks like the last ever passed by the process.) Should be restored to the featured version. While the topic is relatively limited, if Feminist (or anyone else) is prepared to restore & maintain it, there seems no rationale to delete.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
19:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - By
WP:POG portals should be panes for a vast content. Portals for single game fail in
WP:POG. The vast majority of portals do not receive actual content for years, in this case about four years (See
Portal:Halo/Selected article/14 and
Portal:Halo/DYK/53 Revision history). Fan-created, after abandoned, do not arouse community interest. Single game portals are very distant from the main page according to
Portals tree, 307 pageviews (30 days) for
Portal:Halo compared to 81,813 pageviews (30 days) for
Halo (franchise) also demonstrates that readers do not see sense in exploring a "single game portal" that shows the same content of article.
Guilherme Burn (
talk)
20:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep with the understanding that it may be renominated within 60 days if it has not been returned to its former state before it was broken by the portal platoon. This is also evidence that they should be
topic-banned permanently from modifying or creating portals.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This (in either form) is one of the better maintained portals (it's not showing redlinks, Lua errors etc), but it isn't for a broad topic, (as pointed out above) gets few pageviews compared with the corresponding article and contains things that are, at best, pointless on such a portal (e.g. links to Wikispecies/Wikiversity). Portals should be limited to just broad topics (e.g. video games?) to limit the damage they do to wp - e.g. editor time spent on portals (that few readers will ever look at), noise affecting other editors and the risk of readers seeing poorly-maintained portals. In other words, I think the benefits (if there are any - who might actually use a portal?) of keeping a portal about a topic like this are outweighed by its costs (e.g. encouraging other editors to spend time creating a portal for their favorite VG and quite possibly leaving it a mess). Note re benefits: I've yet to see a convincing explanation of how portals might help readers/editors - just words like "the portal helps you survey additional information on the topic". DexDor(talk)20:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)reply
would obviously produce the required intro. I am surprised that this has not already been done, and that {{Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018}} remains unchanged.
Pldx1 (
talk)
09:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Narrow scope, which fails the
WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one has not been maintained. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep and revert Just because it is a single game franchise doesn't mean it fails
WP:POG. This portal has the content and in its previous version was a better portal. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?12:04, 8 May 2019 (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.