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 - An automated portal, created 2018-09-07T09:36:19Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Palace of Versailles.
Pldx1 (
talk)
10:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per
WP:G8. This is appalling. It's built on a single navbox, which would usually be useless duplication of the navbox... but in this case the navbox is not about the portal topic.
It is an appalling illustration of the drive-by disruptiveness of this portalspamming that TTH never checked either the template redirect target or the resulting portal.
But sadly, it's also an indictment of the sloppiness of the nominator, who didn't even notice that the portal's article list and navbox at the bottom are all about a Japanese band, not a palace. That leaves me with no faith that Legacypac is employing any diligence at all in making these nominations.
My nomination was based on scope similar to another recently deleted page as you can read. Lack of scope is the critical unfixable issue, while the wrong nav box is a fixable issue and therefore debatable. I'm not responsible to find every stupid error that is a reason to delete junk that took a minute to create. This illiterates that it is a waste of time to go through these pages one by one - just nuke them all.
Legacypac (
talk)
15:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is a broken portal about a topic that is too narrow to sustain a portal. It is not a G8 speedy deletion candidate though as it's not dependant on a page that has been deleted or has never existed.
Thryduulf (
talk)
12:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
@
BrownHairedGirl: it actually depends on a navbox template for the Japanese band, which does exist. It shouldn't be based on that template, and the one it was intended to be based on doesn't but that's not G8.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - We certainly don't need a portal with a Lua error in place of the main article. I have not finished researching the ugly details. This portal was created during the wave of reckless portal creation. In general, a single historic building does not justify a portal.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
12:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I looked at the lead and the category and knew the Winter Palace just closed delete. I did not go through the nav box real carefully because it looked roughly like the category which has music and film in it. That the nav box is about a band is hilariously inept and no one noticed for months even while people have been looking at these portals since late February. Add that in as another reason to delete.
Legacypac (
talk)
15:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete horribly broken portal, "Selected general articles" just gives you an error and the creator didn't even notice the navbox has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter. I don't think the topic is broad enough for a portal anyway. Hut 8.518:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Clearly a delete based on the fact the portal is generated from an unrelated navbox - and for sure shows how recklessly these portals were created by TTH. While
Legacypac did overlook the navbox, he did still have a reason for nomination as per the Winter Palace portal - so I don't know if I'd say he was being carelessly reckless. It does however show how accustomed we're becoming to these portals being mass created spam - and while we should be ensuring due diligence when it comes to these portal deletions, I think it's an unfortunate reality that its hard not to make mistakes when deleting thousands of portals, trying to weed out which are spam and which are useful. That is not to say that a lack of diligence is acceptable, but that I expect there to be more bumps in the road as we continue to clean up the portal mess.
Meszzy2 (
talk)
19:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Thank-you. I have developed a mental list of common errors to look for. This is the first navbox about some totally different topic to come up. Something new every day.
Legacypac (
talk)
20:10, 11 April 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 - An automated portal, created 2018-09-07T09:36:19Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Palace of Versailles.
Pldx1 (
talk)
10:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per
WP:G8. This is appalling. It's built on a single navbox, which would usually be useless duplication of the navbox... but in this case the navbox is not about the portal topic.
It is an appalling illustration of the drive-by disruptiveness of this portalspamming that TTH never checked either the template redirect target or the resulting portal.
But sadly, it's also an indictment of the sloppiness of the nominator, who didn't even notice that the portal's article list and navbox at the bottom are all about a Japanese band, not a palace. That leaves me with no faith that Legacypac is employing any diligence at all in making these nominations.
My nomination was based on scope similar to another recently deleted page as you can read. Lack of scope is the critical unfixable issue, while the wrong nav box is a fixable issue and therefore debatable. I'm not responsible to find every stupid error that is a reason to delete junk that took a minute to create. This illiterates that it is a waste of time to go through these pages one by one - just nuke them all.
Legacypac (
talk)
15:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is a broken portal about a topic that is too narrow to sustain a portal. It is not a G8 speedy deletion candidate though as it's not dependant on a page that has been deleted or has never existed.
Thryduulf (
talk)
12:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
@
BrownHairedGirl: it actually depends on a navbox template for the Japanese band, which does exist. It shouldn't be based on that template, and the one it was intended to be based on doesn't but that's not G8.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - We certainly don't need a portal with a Lua error in place of the main article. I have not finished researching the ugly details. This portal was created during the wave of reckless portal creation. In general, a single historic building does not justify a portal.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
12:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I looked at the lead and the category and knew the Winter Palace just closed delete. I did not go through the nav box real carefully because it looked roughly like the category which has music and film in it. That the nav box is about a band is hilariously inept and no one noticed for months even while people have been looking at these portals since late February. Add that in as another reason to delete.
Legacypac (
talk)
15:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete horribly broken portal, "Selected general articles" just gives you an error and the creator didn't even notice the navbox has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter. I don't think the topic is broad enough for a portal anyway. Hut 8.518:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Clearly a delete based on the fact the portal is generated from an unrelated navbox - and for sure shows how recklessly these portals were created by TTH. While
Legacypac did overlook the navbox, he did still have a reason for nomination as per the Winter Palace portal - so I don't know if I'd say he was being carelessly reckless. It does however show how accustomed we're becoming to these portals being mass created spam - and while we should be ensuring due diligence when it comes to these portal deletions, I think it's an unfortunate reality that its hard not to make mistakes when deleting thousands of portals, trying to weed out which are spam and which are useful. That is not to say that a lack of diligence is acceptable, but that I expect there to be more bumps in the road as we continue to clean up the portal mess.
Meszzy2 (
talk)
19:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Thank-you. I have developed a mental list of common errors to look for. This is the first navbox about some totally different topic to come up. Something new every day.
Legacypac (
talk)
20:10, 11 April 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.