690:. This is a new portal based mainly or entirely on links from the corresponding navbox, but there are further articles that would be appropriate for inclusion in the portal (such as places, people or events related to the subject); besides which, the current number of selected articles is still a decent basis on which to build a portal. As has been discussed at length elsewhere (a discussion that would be pointless to repeat here), a portal is more than a summary of the core subject and a collection of related links; "a head article and a navbox" do not serve the same purpose or provide the same user experience as a portal.
835:
community that we need portals at all, let alone that we need this portal. There is no evidence that this portal will actually be maintained, when the originator is simply creating a large number of unrelated portals, possibly because creating portals is fun. Rather than keeping yet another portal until we can agree on guidelines, we should delete new portals that are not clearly needed until we can agree on guidelines. The category associated with this portal is empty. This implies that this portal is not likely to be properly maintained in the future either.
379:(In answer to BrownHairedGirl) Chosen not to? I haven't been available to answer immediately upon your every posting. Sometimes, real life interrupts our activities on WP, like the occasional need to sleep. You were not reasonable in your posting immediately above, showing a lack of good faith. How would you know what I have or have not chosen to do? MfDs run for at least 5 days, and so a little more patience on your part would be a nice gesture. I don't think that is too much to expect. BTW, I have written some clarification, at
611:
halting construction, which is simply disruptive: if construction can continue, which you should have assumed good faith on, that would support the fact that there is more than what is contained in the generation template. The template used to construct these only provides a starting point. By its very nature, it doesn't capture everything on a subject. It only catches the things that happen to match its parameters.
879:
337:'s ideas for Portals. I especially like the ideas of portals being auto-filled with content from article ledes, avoid the problem of content forking into Portal content. These portals recently created do not match my understandings of his ambitions. The portals seem narrow and redundant to the articles. --
505:
But you nominated the portal for deletion right after Step 1, not even providing a chance for further work to be done on the portal before demanding an explanation as to why it was created. The whole idea of having a wiki is subsequent edits, by the initial editor, and potentially other editors. It's
606:
When there is too much material to display in a portal for its platform to efficiently present it (for example, shoving 100 or more topics into a single slideshow is counterproductive, as a user will unlikely ever browse to the end of the slideshow), it may be an indication for another portal, or at
411:
you have written a whole paragraph about how busy you are, but I see no attempt by you to engage with my central concern: why deploy this technology for such a tiny set of articles? This is the central issue with all these portals which I have brought to MFD, and as I wrote above it would be helpful
853:
is to keep portals and the portal namespace. That is, that we do need them. They decided in favor of portals by a margin of about 2 to 1. No new consensus is required to create new articles, nor new portals. Based on the very nature of wikis, that is left up to the initiative of individual editors,
610:
The subject (Diplo) is of sufficient scope. That the portal was nominated for deletion during its development is the most relevant topic here. It looks very likely that the portal will require more sections to cover the topic. You contradicted yourself, and revealed that your interest or bias is in
587:
You are twisting words and attempting to speak for me. Play nice, BHG. I didn't say I didn't assess their creatability, or that I didn't have an idea about the portals' scope. Diplo doesn't have a narrow scope. There is plenty displayed, there is much more out there on this guy, and it appears this
483:
Step 2) refine the search strings for In the news and Did you know sections of those portals. This step improves the likelihood of hits in those 2 areas. Those sections appear only when the search strings find material for them (from the news and Did you know departments). So, attempting to improve
554:
The reason for a why-was-this-created nomination early in the life of any page is very simple: if the topic or scope is inappropriate, then everyone saves a lot of time and effort if construction is halted as soon as possible. What possible reason would you have for wanting to invest more of your
487:
Step 3) further populate the image slideshows. A portal's slideshow initially defaults to a single sourcepage, which merely provides a starting set of images. There are loads of images out there on most subjects, which can help build really nice visual surveys of a subject, turning portals into
307:
later G7ed that portal, but has sadly chosen not to participate further in the discussion on my talk. In the MfD discussions, TH has chosen not to address the question of how such narrowly-focused portals can help readers. I get the impression that TH's approach is simply that if a portal can
834:
until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. The originator seems to be creating as many portals as possible because creating portals is fun, and hasn't justified them. This is yet another portal that has been recently created in spite of the lack of consensus in the
646:- If there is to be a minimum number of articles within a portal's scope for it to be appropriate (or some other broadness of topic clause), then a guideline should be established to that effect. Handling them individually without established guidance is undesirable and inefficient.
729:
as per the consensus over at some
Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above.
204:. Redirect is not warranted. The portal can be easily orphaned and it's not a likely search term. Although not a categorically forbidden cross-namespace redirect, it's highly confusing. When people click on a portal link they expect to find a portal, not an article.
509:
As I mentioned earlier, I tend to work on these in batches, and so I do a bunch of Step 1's then a slew of Step 2's and so on. Also, it bears repeating that we leave portal drafts in portal space, because they don't render right in the Draft namespace. Sincerely,
614:
To nominate a portal for deletion at this point in the portal's development is premature, and just looks like you are anti-portal, attempting to not let a new portal stub even get off the ground. Give Diplo a chance. He makes for a very interesting portal.
506:
called wikimagic. But wikimagic takes time. My point is, this portal hasn't been fully created yet. Diplo is a prolific artist, and there is a lot more material on him. You should drop the deletion nomination, and let the portal be completed in due course.
595:
Nor have I said that I agree with your assessment of scope. Narrow scope isn't a problem with this portal's subject coverage on
Knowledge (XXG). And, regarding subjects covered of the narrowest scope, not that this subject is one of them,
488:
windows to the world. As part of this step I also look for banner-shaped pictures to embellish the intro section with (which are easiest to find for geographic portals, but many other portals are starting to sport banner pics as well).
599:
when a subject falls within a portal's technical capacity to show the entire rest of the subject not presented in the root article, it provides a convenient way to browse all of that material and complements the root article very
588:
guy isn't done yet -- the portal's coverage will grow as this artist generates more creative works. In addition, having a portal ready and waiting to automatically display any news that comes into our system on this guy, or
850:
673:– the portal is a stub, ready for further development. Give it a chance to grow. That's what the wiki platform was designed for. The entirety of Knowledge (XXG), and every nook and cranny of it, is a work in progress.
550:
As far as I can see, you are telling MFD that you work in batches to create portals without any prior assessment of whether there is sufficient scope to justify their existence ... i.e. that you are a blind
108:
Yet another pointless micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal: only 16 articles. A set with this low a number of pages is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both:
471:
It's a portal start, still an orphan and not linked anywhere. It's doing no harm while it waits for further development. We leave portal drafts in portal space, because they don't render right in the Draft
463:
282:
where PAGENAME was a mon-existent category. In each case, I also examined them, and nominated them for MFD if they seemed inappropriate. In no case did I seek to find who had created them.
459:
384:
360:
607:
least, another slideshow. Math for example, has many subportals. Slideshows are another browsing tool we provide to readers, providing them an additional browsing option to choose from.
380:
356:
300:
229:. There is no reason to suppress the history, and no reason to have a community discussion about each hopeless portal idea unless there is evidence of disagreement. --
491:
Step 4) is to scour for content (topics), to improve the scope of the excerpt slideshow(s), which transclude article leads. This step includes building additional
176:
547:. That is a truly spectacular piece of illogic. Why on earth do you need to complete the portal before you know the reason why you chose to create it?
562:. It seems that you make no editorial judgement before starting work, and such aversion to editorial judgement is very poor basis for editing. --
577:
431:
323:
165:
132:
889:
355:, thank you for your comment. I appreciate your support. This is a portal start, analogous to an article stub. I explained the approach at
17:
91:
462:, a portal about which you asked what benefits it provides that the navigation box does not. I covered another benefit of portals at
216:
146:
This is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesome standalone page rather than handily appended to an article. I see nothing in
87:
477:
I work on portals in batches, and the general sequence of development goes something like this, but usually much more chaotic:
545:
not even providing a chance for further work to be done on the portal before demanding an explanation as to why it was created
812:
147:
308:
technically be created, there is no reason not to do so ... but it would be helpful if TH would clarify their thinking. --
79:
57:
910:
40:
858:
819:
677:
657:
619:
514:
391:
367:
603:
I would say, that the narrower a portal's subject is, down to the threshhold allowed, the more helpful a portal is.
484:
the matches is done early in the process because these are features not provided on the subject's other page types.
387:, and will respond to the other MfDs in due course, including this one. I'll be back. Thank you for your patience.
840:
573:
427:
319:
292:
161:
128:
851:
Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals#Survey: Ending the system of portals
275:
53:
893:
863:
844:
824:
811:– the guideline currently in place sets a low end threshold of articles needed of "about 20 articles". See
803:
786:
768:
743:
718:
682:
665:
624:
582:
559:
519:
436:
396:
372:
346:
328:
262:
238:
220:
196:
170:
137:
60:
529:
406:
334:
304:
296:
246:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
906:
782:
212:
36:
888:
Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at:
854:
and is how wikis grow. A proposal for a portal approval process was rejected by the community in 2009.
83:
836:
563:
534:
That's a very verbose reply about how you work, which almost entirely evades the central question of
443:
417:
309:
250:
151:
118:
555:
time before the community has an opportunity to decide whether this was a bad idea from the outset?
342:
258:
234:
225:
Why would anyone click on the portal? If there is a reason, keep the portal. Redirect per policy
192:
74:
66:
711:
799:
543:
However, there is a troubling answer near the end of your response, when you complain of my
451:
207:
458:
One MfD at a time. So far, I've presented a long explanation of the benefits of portals at
226:
905:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
495:
sections, if convenient. We are working on ways to automate this, but that is a ways off.
756:
731:
447:
352:
338:
269:
254:
230:
188:
114:
363:, and will be happy to elaborate in future postings, including below. Stay tuned. ;)
691:
890:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject
Portals § Time for some portal creation criteria?
795:
649:
498:
Step 5) is to see if any of the supplemental section types can be batch added.
794:
until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed.
466:. Which brings us to this portal, which is nowhere near complete...
558:
Your bizarre justification raises much wider questions about your
184:
110:
780:– A useful navigational aid for those interested in the subject.
901:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
592:
blurbs, is a good thing. The portal will grow with the subject.
177:
Wikipedia_talk:Portal_guidelines/Archive_6#Portals_are_moribund
882:
464:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alexander Korda
460:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Body piercing
385:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Body piercing
361:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Body piercing
381:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pebble Beach
357:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pebble Beach
301:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pebble Beach
150:
to support this usage of a portal as a fancier navbox. --
249:. Has there been a discussion before nominating them?
245:
These several portals appear to be recent creations by
99:
95:
274:
I have been finding these portals while cleaning up
813:
Knowledge (XXG):Portal guidelines#Article selection
333:I have previously liked what I have understood of
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
913:). No further edits should be made to this page.
293:User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Portal:Pebble_Beach
8:
538:create a portal with such a narrow scope.
480:Step 1) create portals using a template.
148:WP:Portal guidelines#Purposes_of_portals
849:The community consensus established at
18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion
872:Discussion on portal creation criteria
544:
7:
359:, covered some additional issues in
187:. Come to MfD only if opposed. --
48:The result of the discussion was:
24:
877:
291:There has been a discussion at
894:16:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
845:06:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
804:00:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
787:03:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
769:01:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
744:01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
719:11:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
683:23:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
666:21:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
625:23:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
583:14:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
520:14:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
437:12:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
397:06:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
373:06:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
347:04:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
329:04:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
263:03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
239:03:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
221:02:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
197:02:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
171:14:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
138:01:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
1:
864:19:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
825:19:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
303:, which I declined to do.
61:22:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
933:
875:
299:who asked that I withdraw
903:Please do not modify it.
276:Special:WantedCategories
32:Please do not modify it.
335:User:The Transhumanist
305:User:The Transhumanist
297:User:The Transhumanist
247:User:The_Transhumanist
412:if you could explain
251:User:BrownHairedGirl
416:rather than how. --
755:per Godsy et el. –
859:The Transhumanist
820:The Transhumanist
716:
678:The Transhumanist
664:
620:The Transhumanist
581:
530:The Transhumanist
515:The Transhumanist
435:
407:The Transhumanist
392:The Transhumanist
368:The Transhumanist
327:
169:
136:
924:
896:
892:. — AfroThundr
881:
880:
862:
823:
785:
766:
761:
741:
736:
712:
681:
660:
654:
647:
623:
572:
569:
566:
533:
518:
455:
426:
423:
420:
410:
395:
371:
318:
315:
312:
281:
278:. They all had
273:
210:
160:
157:
154:
127:
124:
121:
104:
103:
34:
932:
931:
927:
926:
925:
923:
922:
921:
917:
911:deletion review
897:
887:
885:
878:
874:
855:
837:Robert McClenon
816:
781:
762:
757:
737:
732:
674:
663:
658:
650:
616:
567:
564:
527:
511:
444:BrownHairedGirl
441:
421:
418:
404:
388:
364:
313:
310:
279:
267:
205:
175:As proposed at
155:
152:
122:
119:
77:
73:
70:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
930:
928:
919:
916:
915:
876:
873:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
829:
828:
827:
789:
774:
773:
772:
771:
722:
721:
685:
668:
656:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
612:
608:
604:
593:
556:
552:
548:
540:
539:
507:
503:
501:
500:
499:
496:
489:
485:
481:
475:
473:
469:
467:
456:
377:
376:
375:
286:
285:
284:
283:
243:
242:
241:
199:
173:
115:Template:Diplo
106:
105:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
929:
920:
914:
912:
908:
904:
899:
898:
895:
891:
884:
871:
865:
861:
860:
852:
848:
847:
846:
842:
838:
833:
830:
826:
822:
821:
814:
810:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
793:
790:
788:
784:
783:North America
779:
776:
775:
770:
767:
765:
760:
754:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
742:
740:
735:
728:
720:
717:
715:
710:
709:
706:
703:
700:
697:
694:
689:
686:
684:
680:
679:
672:
669:
667:
661:
655:
653:
645:
642:
641:
626:
622:
621:
613:
609:
605:
602:
601:
594:
591:
586:
585:
584:
579:
575:
571:
561:
560:WP:COMPETENCE
557:
553:
549:
546:
542:
541:
537:
531:
526:
523:
522:
521:
517:
516:
508:
504:
502:
497:
494:
493:Selected item
490:
486:
482:
479:
478:
476:
474:
470:
468:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
440:
439:
438:
433:
429:
425:
415:
408:
403:
400:
399:
398:
394:
393:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
369:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:
330:
325:
321:
317:
306:
302:
298:
295:, started by
294:
290:
289:
288:
287:
277:
271:
266:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
209:
203:
200:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
172:
167:
163:
159:
149:
145:
142:
141:
140:
139:
134:
130:
126:
116:
112:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
918:
902:
900:
857:
831:
818:
808:
791:
777:
763:
758:
752:
738:
733:
726:
724:
723:
713:
707:
704:
701:
698:
695:
692:
687:
676:
670:
651:
643:
618:
598:
597:
590:Did you know
589:
535:
524:
513:
492:
413:
401:
390:
366:
201:
180:
143:
107:
75:Portal:Diplo
67:Portal:Diplo
49:
47:
31:
28:
452:Finnusertop
208:Finnusertop
472:namespace.
907:talk page
448:SmokeyJoe
353:SmokeyJoe
339:SmokeyJoe
270:SmokeyJoe
255:SmokeyJoe
231:SmokeyJoe
189:SmokeyJoe
37:talk page
909:or in a
578:contribs
432:contribs
324:contribs
217:contribs
181:Redirect
166:contribs
133:contribs
39:or in a
809:Comment
450:, and
88:history
832:Delete
796:Certes
574:(talk)
568:Haired
428:(talk)
422:Haired
320:(talk)
314:Haired
227:WP:ATD
202:Delete
162:(talk)
156:Haired
129:(talk)
123:Haired
58:(talk)
759:Davey
734:Davey
652:Godsy
600:well.
565:Brown
419:Brown
402:Reply
351:Dear
311:Brown
185:Diplo
153:Brown
120:Brown
111:Diplo
96:watch
92:links
16:<
841:talk
800:talk
792:Hold
778:Keep
764:2010
753:Keep
739:2010
727:Keep
714:TALK
688:Keep
671:Keep
659:CONT
644:Keep
570:Girl
551:bot.
525:Wow!
424:Girl
383:and
343:talk
316:Girl
259:talk
253:? --
235:talk
213:talk
193:talk
158:Girl
125:Girl
113:and
100:logs
84:talk
80:edit
50:keep
883:FYI
576:• (
536:why
430:• (
414:why
322:• (
183:to
164:• (
131:• (
54:PMC
52:. â™
886:–
856:—
843:)
817:—
815:.
802:)
702:ge
675:—
648:—
617:—
512:—
446:,
389:—
365:—
345:)
261:)
237:)
219:)
215:â‹…
206:–
195:)
179:,
144:PS
117:.
98:|
94:|
90:|
86:|
82:|
56:â™
839:(
798:(
730:–
725:*
708:s
705:r
699:g
696:a
693:W
662:)
580:)
532::
528:@
454::
442:@
434:)
409::
405:@
341:(
326:)
280:]
272::
268:@
257:(
233:(
211:(
191:(
168:)
135:)
102:)
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.