The result of the discussion was: No consensus ( non-admin closure) – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Built totally off Template:Cuisine of India and Template:Korean cuisine. Adds nothing to the head article. Just a fork of the template. Not picked up in the bulk deletion noms for some reason but the same issues exactly as a whole series of Country Cuisine pages by TTH. Legacypac ( talk) 10:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
not picked up in the bulk deletion nomsis clear from a very simple examination of the wikicode: neither of them is based on a single navbox.
Adds nothing to the head article. This is not true. In both cases, the head article transcludes neither of the pages on which the portal is built.
a fork of the template. Again that is simply untrue. Each of these portals combines two separate lists.
you need to really look carefully at the code. That is precisely my point: you were working with too much haste and too little care, so you wholly misread the nature of these portals.
*Procedural Close - I am ready to accept the word of
User:BrownHairedGirl that this nomination is flawed rather than trying to research it while the nomination is still in contention. I agree that these portals fail POG, and will note that the portal platoon only cares about POG when they can reasonably claim that it favors them. However, as long as there are valid concerns about the nomination, we have enough nominations for now and can wait on these.
User:Legacypac - Do you really have to behave like the portal platoon in making a very large number of nominations rapidly and then arguing to bypass regular order?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Notes | Percent |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Korean cuisine | 5 | 771 | 154.2 | 0.65% | |
Indian cuisine | 17 | 1,579 | 92.9 | 1.08% |
both topics are sufficiently broad to have portalsseems slightly misleading. This is tweaking " Both topics are sufficiently broad to deserve portals", with what appears as a pretense to assert that Portal:Korean cuisine is a portal instead of should have been a portal. What the reader is faced with is a fake portal, that navigates into nothing. A single example:
Traditional Korean meals are named for the number of side dishes that accompany steam-cooked short-grain rice. What a great sentence! Therefore galbi is the number of side dishes that accompany a 갈비구이, while the reason why number 4 is associated with 탕평채 remains left to the reader as an exercise. <hint> there is a reason for this shameful "named", related to a lack of maintenance </hint>. Why would the keep !voters spent any part of their precious time to maintain an abandoned thing that only attracts five views per day ? Pldx1 ( talk) 10:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: No consensus ( non-admin closure) – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Built totally off Template:Cuisine of India and Template:Korean cuisine. Adds nothing to the head article. Just a fork of the template. Not picked up in the bulk deletion noms for some reason but the same issues exactly as a whole series of Country Cuisine pages by TTH. Legacypac ( talk) 10:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
not picked up in the bulk deletion nomsis clear from a very simple examination of the wikicode: neither of them is based on a single navbox.
Adds nothing to the head article. This is not true. In both cases, the head article transcludes neither of the pages on which the portal is built.
a fork of the template. Again that is simply untrue. Each of these portals combines two separate lists.
you need to really look carefully at the code. That is precisely my point: you were working with too much haste and too little care, so you wholly misread the nature of these portals.
*Procedural Close - I am ready to accept the word of
User:BrownHairedGirl that this nomination is flawed rather than trying to research it while the nomination is still in contention. I agree that these portals fail POG, and will note that the portal platoon only cares about POG when they can reasonably claim that it favors them. However, as long as there are valid concerns about the nomination, we have enough nominations for now and can wait on these.
User:Legacypac - Do you really have to behave like the portal platoon in making a very large number of nominations rapidly and then arguing to bypass regular order?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Notes | Percent |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Korean cuisine | 5 | 771 | 154.2 | 0.65% | |
Indian cuisine | 17 | 1,579 | 92.9 | 1.08% |
both topics are sufficiently broad to have portalsseems slightly misleading. This is tweaking " Both topics are sufficiently broad to deserve portals", with what appears as a pretense to assert that Portal:Korean cuisine is a portal instead of should have been a portal. What the reader is faced with is a fake portal, that navigates into nothing. A single example:
Traditional Korean meals are named for the number of side dishes that accompany steam-cooked short-grain rice. What a great sentence! Therefore galbi is the number of side dishes that accompany a 갈비구이, while the reason why number 4 is associated with 탕평채 remains left to the reader as an exercise. <hint> there is a reason for this shameful "named", related to a lack of maintenance </hint>. Why would the keep !voters spent any part of their precious time to maintain an abandoned thing that only attracts five views per day ? Pldx1 ( talk) 10:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)