Portals | |||||||||||||
|
It's felt such guidelines are necessary due to the number of portals that are getting created, or even half created, and then disregarded. Cleaning out the portal space is becoming a maintenance task and it is hoped that adopting a similar process to the stub sorting project will allow the portal space top grow organically and allow better integration of content and portals. Hiding talk 19:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be also good guideline that if you want to start a portal about some topic, you should check first if the broader topic already has a portal, and if not, you should consider creation of portal about broader topic first. For example, there is a Portal:Prague but no Portal:Czech Republic, which I consider a bit strange. Samohyl Jan 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I've tweaked the proposal to hopefully address concerns. Does that help? Hiding talk 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Can some one start a portal for Sri Lanka? Portal:Sri Lanka-- Mayooresan 05:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I've transcluded this to Wikipedia:Portal to trial it and see how it runs. Hiding talk 07:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[MJJ]I would want a portal completely dedicated to the Fantasy, are been strange that it does not exist
This proposal process has existed for a month and half. In that time, a number of portals were proposed and created anyway without regard for consensus. (e.g. Portal:Sega, Portal:Guitar, ...) I've notice a number of others that didn't even bother to propose (e.g. Portal:Ice hockey, Portal:Punk, Portal:Classical guitar, ...). I hope these all end up being well-maintained portals. But, wonder if it's a waste of my time to weigh in on each proposal. Any ideas on how we can improve this process, and encourage people to work through it? -- Aude ( talk contribs) 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears that editors are now selecting portals for possible deletion on the grounds that a portal has not been given prior approval: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Thinking. Concern has been raised that this portal approval process does not have the wide consensus it appears to claim, and that it runs counter to the principles of Wikipedia - the essence of which is that this is a wiki which enables users to get involved immediately without registration or prior review. Tiresome though it is to tidy up vandalism and to correct mistakes, that is the price we have to pay for having a wiki. This portal approval process appears to be an example of creeping bureaucratic authority. If people feel that editors who are unsure if their portal is a good idea need somewhere to for for advice, perhaps the page could be renamed Wikipedia:Portal/Advice, and it made explicit and clear that there is no need to wait a week for approval. SilkTork 08:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Portal approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims? Discussion opened. SilkTork 08:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This page was the subject of an MfD debate closed on 19 July 2006. The result was Keep, but tag as historical. At the debate, there was a consensus rejecting this page's use. Xoloz 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to propse a new portal, but how can I do it if it won't let me use the page? — M inun Spiderman 11:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Portals | |||||||||||||
|
It's felt such guidelines are necessary due to the number of portals that are getting created, or even half created, and then disregarded. Cleaning out the portal space is becoming a maintenance task and it is hoped that adopting a similar process to the stub sorting project will allow the portal space top grow organically and allow better integration of content and portals. Hiding talk 19:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be also good guideline that if you want to start a portal about some topic, you should check first if the broader topic already has a portal, and if not, you should consider creation of portal about broader topic first. For example, there is a Portal:Prague but no Portal:Czech Republic, which I consider a bit strange. Samohyl Jan 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I've tweaked the proposal to hopefully address concerns. Does that help? Hiding talk 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Can some one start a portal for Sri Lanka? Portal:Sri Lanka-- Mayooresan 05:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I've transcluded this to Wikipedia:Portal to trial it and see how it runs. Hiding talk 07:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[MJJ]I would want a portal completely dedicated to the Fantasy, are been strange that it does not exist
This proposal process has existed for a month and half. In that time, a number of portals were proposed and created anyway without regard for consensus. (e.g. Portal:Sega, Portal:Guitar, ...) I've notice a number of others that didn't even bother to propose (e.g. Portal:Ice hockey, Portal:Punk, Portal:Classical guitar, ...). I hope these all end up being well-maintained portals. But, wonder if it's a waste of my time to weigh in on each proposal. Any ideas on how we can improve this process, and encourage people to work through it? -- Aude ( talk contribs) 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears that editors are now selecting portals for possible deletion on the grounds that a portal has not been given prior approval: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Thinking. Concern has been raised that this portal approval process does not have the wide consensus it appears to claim, and that it runs counter to the principles of Wikipedia - the essence of which is that this is a wiki which enables users to get involved immediately without registration or prior review. Tiresome though it is to tidy up vandalism and to correct mistakes, that is the price we have to pay for having a wiki. This portal approval process appears to be an example of creeping bureaucratic authority. If people feel that editors who are unsure if their portal is a good idea need somewhere to for for advice, perhaps the page could be renamed Wikipedia:Portal/Advice, and it made explicit and clear that there is no need to wait a week for approval. SilkTork 08:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Portal approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims? Discussion opened. SilkTork 08:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This page was the subject of an MfD debate closed on 19 July 2006. The result was Keep, but tag as historical. At the debate, there was a consensus rejecting this page's use. Xoloz 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to propse a new portal, but how can I do it if it won't let me use the page? — M inun Spiderman 11:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)