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, even the suggestion that our readers would be interested, or should be encouraged to take interest in, a special page to explore the ramifications of the (doubtless fascinating) world of prostitution in Canada is absurd.
Fut.Perf.☼13:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - useful topic for the portal treatment. If it's picking up the wrong topics then
fix it. It seems to be picking up Raymond Gravel because someone put him into
Template:Prostitution in Canada (the portal transcludes the navbox in a strange way) which seems to be inappropriate. I'm going to remove it and see what happens.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Actually, Gravel should be there. It says right in the lede of his bio that "he has been open about the fact that he was a sex-trade worker during [his youth]".
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Also, let me say I don't really know all that much about this automatic portal generation thing, nor the topics specifically, but it seems that the prostitution and human trafficking topics in Canada follow the treatment of other countries on Wikipedia of being categorized separately. The topics mentioned in the nomination can be found in
Template:Human trafficking in Canada (that topic does not have a portal), and there is no cross-categorization between the two topics. I don't know if that's the right way to handle it, I'm just saying that seems to be the normal treatment. As such, the prostitution portal not mentioning human trafficking topics is not an inherent failure of the portal system.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, terribly made. One of the selected articles is
Ratanak International, which has connections to Canada and human trafficking, but really shouldn't just appear without an explanation why. No prejudice against construction of a proper portal. —Kusma (
t·
c)
16:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete any page on this topic needs careful writig and context. Applying a type of AI to a sensitive topic is inappropriate. We have an article on this topic with links to related pages including human trafficing topics. That is the way to handle topics and the way Wikipedia has become the go to knowledge site on the internet. Articles, autogenerated portals few look at, is the core of Wikipedia success.
Legacypac (
talk)
16:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep The nominator clearly has no knowledge of the subject. If he had actually read the article
Raymond Gravel, then the link would be obvious. The the remarks about 'real topics' shows a very biased view against prostitution. The 'junk' the portal leads to includes FA articles. --
John B123 (
talk)
17:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Hm, good point, this might be overspecific. We already have
Portal:Prostitution for the general topic, and there is little about the topic within Canada that is unique from prostitution in other places. I'm going to keep my !vote, but food for thought I guess.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree we don't need 200 odd portals on prostitution, but that's not the case, nor is it relevant. By the same logic as above you could argue that as there is a
Portal:Board games, then we don't need portals for individual games and
Portal:Chess should be deleted. --
John B123 (
talk)
18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm not convinced that this is really all that necessary or valuable. The fact that we don't already have 200 "prostitution in country" portals for every individual country on earth isn't really a compelling counterpoint to Robert McClenon's point — what we already do or don't have today isn't nearly as critical to consider here as what we potentially could have if this were taken to its logical conclusion. The end result would not be necessary, however, because there's absolutely no need for every country to have its own standalone prostitution portal — and there's nothing so uniquely important about prostitution in Canada specifically that this would be necessary as a standalone topic that isn't scaled outward to other countries. Legacypac is also entirely correct that it's a sensitive topic which requires much more careful handling than this — a portal that just automatically machine-generates its content by randomly selecting articles with a prostitution angle is just asking for trouble. It's just not adding enough value to be worthwhile.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:57, 7 March 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, even the suggestion that our readers would be interested, or should be encouraged to take interest in, a special page to explore the ramifications of the (doubtless fascinating) world of prostitution in Canada is absurd.
Fut.Perf.☼13:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - useful topic for the portal treatment. If it's picking up the wrong topics then
fix it. It seems to be picking up Raymond Gravel because someone put him into
Template:Prostitution in Canada (the portal transcludes the navbox in a strange way) which seems to be inappropriate. I'm going to remove it and see what happens.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Actually, Gravel should be there. It says right in the lede of his bio that "he has been open about the fact that he was a sex-trade worker during [his youth]".
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Also, let me say I don't really know all that much about this automatic portal generation thing, nor the topics specifically, but it seems that the prostitution and human trafficking topics in Canada follow the treatment of other countries on Wikipedia of being categorized separately. The topics mentioned in the nomination can be found in
Template:Human trafficking in Canada (that topic does not have a portal), and there is no cross-categorization between the two topics. I don't know if that's the right way to handle it, I'm just saying that seems to be the normal treatment. As such, the prostitution portal not mentioning human trafficking topics is not an inherent failure of the portal system.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, terribly made. One of the selected articles is
Ratanak International, which has connections to Canada and human trafficking, but really shouldn't just appear without an explanation why. No prejudice against construction of a proper portal. —Kusma (
t·
c)
16:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete any page on this topic needs careful writig and context. Applying a type of AI to a sensitive topic is inappropriate. We have an article on this topic with links to related pages including human trafficing topics. That is the way to handle topics and the way Wikipedia has become the go to knowledge site on the internet. Articles, autogenerated portals few look at, is the core of Wikipedia success.
Legacypac (
talk)
16:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep The nominator clearly has no knowledge of the subject. If he had actually read the article
Raymond Gravel, then the link would be obvious. The the remarks about 'real topics' shows a very biased view against prostitution. The 'junk' the portal leads to includes FA articles. --
John B123 (
talk)
17:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Hm, good point, this might be overspecific. We already have
Portal:Prostitution for the general topic, and there is little about the topic within Canada that is unique from prostitution in other places. I'm going to keep my !vote, but food for thought I guess.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree we don't need 200 odd portals on prostitution, but that's not the case, nor is it relevant. By the same logic as above you could argue that as there is a
Portal:Board games, then we don't need portals for individual games and
Portal:Chess should be deleted. --
John B123 (
talk)
18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm not convinced that this is really all that necessary or valuable. The fact that we don't already have 200 "prostitution in country" portals for every individual country on earth isn't really a compelling counterpoint to Robert McClenon's point — what we already do or don't have today isn't nearly as critical to consider here as what we potentially could have if this were taken to its logical conclusion. The end result would not be necessary, however, because there's absolutely no need for every country to have its own standalone prostitution portal — and there's nothing so uniquely important about prostitution in Canada specifically that this would be necessary as a standalone topic that isn't scaled outward to other countries. Legacypac is also entirely correct that it's a sensitive topic which requires much more careful handling than this — a portal that just automatically machine-generates its content by randomly selecting articles with a prostitution angle is just asking for trouble. It's just not adding enough value to be worthwhile.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:57, 7 March 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.