Jump to content

Portal talk:Civil rights movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Attribution statement: This portal page was originally created by User:Coffee, deleted, and then recreated with the same content.

Requested move 14 March 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:

  • Result-checkY Portal was Moved, while ☒N Wikiproject was Not Moved .
  • Rationale (as to Portal)-
    • Whilst a head-count leads to (roughly) equal number of heads on both sides, I fail to see any relevant arguments from the side of the opposers.
    • Whilst, the rationale for move are neither highly impressive enough, they are miles better than the ones from the other side which mainly deals with the finer nuances of whether the general community has a say about specific matters of Wiki-Projects or corresponding portals (which is a yes, at-least over here), misplaced re-litigation of just-closed RMs and whether our naming policies apply to wiki-projects, portals et al., all of which could be safely classified as a subset of I don't like it and wikilawyering tactics.
    • It may be noted, that even while the practice of the guidelines are unclear, as to whether they apply to other-name-space(s); on a per-se basis, Amakuru's arguments could be easily assigned greater weightage w.r.t to the opposers'.
    • And, when there does not exist any slightly foreseeable bane that may result from granting the request, I'm unable to deny it.
  • Rationale (as to Wikiproject)-
    • Frankly, no-body cared enough and it's a no consensus skewed towards oppose.
  • Best, (non-admin closure) by ~ Winged BladesGodric at 12:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note--In quasi-anticipation of a MRV, I'm refraining from using my page-mover flag(s), from executing the move immediately.And, if anybody is dissatisfied, feel free to approach me at my t/p.~ Winged BladesGodric 12:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– There was an RM (which later became an RFC), at what is now Talk:Civil rights movement#Requested move 18 February 2018, which was closed today with a decision to move that article from African-American civil rights movement (1954–1968) to Civil rights movement. During the course of that debate, the two pages mentioned here, the portal and the WikiProject, were created to provide more coverage of this topic. The issue of capitalisation of this term was discussed at length during the debate, and the decision made there (which reaffirmed an earlier decision on capitalisation at Talk:Civil rights movement#Requested move 23 November 2017) was that the term "Civil rights movement" should not be capitalised per WP:NCCAPS. It therefore seems logical to me that these recently created portal and WikiProject pages should be moved so that they are consistent with the case used in the main article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Please provide links to Wikipedia guidelines that explicitly state that WikiProjects and Portals must follow the identical guidelines that apply to article titles. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The portal is part of the public facing spaces of Wikipedia, therefore it's subject to WP:NCCAPS just like any other page in the encyclopedia. The WikiProject may be a toss-up, and if it was a long-standing one I wouldn't bother including it, but since it's recently created, and was created while the previous RM was active, there's no really good reason not to make it consistent with the topic article that it covers. Furthermore, the WikiProject was actually first created as Wikipedia:WikiProject American civil rights movement, before a move to the current title, and the move to the current title was contested, so it's not like the current title is a long-term stable one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your arguments. But, I'm only seeking links to Wikipedia guidelines that explicitly state WikiProject and Portal pages must follow the identical guidelines that apply to article titles. Mitchumch (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's codified in policy, but there is no conceivable reason why we would use a title other than that of the article. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The identical words of the article title is used. If it's not codified in policy, then there is no basis for this proposed rename. The creator of the Portal and WikiProject chose this name. The current name is widely recognized. Mitchumch (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better not to keep poking at this unless it's necessary, especially the WikiProject. There seem to be many WikiProjects that capitalize themselves. Category:Civil Rights Movement could go to WP:CFD, though. Dekimasuよ! 00:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". I'm not sure that the inner mechanics of Wikipedia need to be consistent with the outer face we present to the public readership. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that to suggest that a portal is not "the outer face we present to the public readership"? And on what basis are you suggesting that this would this be "a foolish consistency"? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is to suggest that article pages, more so than any other space, are the public face of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia spaces are as accessible to the public readership as the article space. But, all Wikipedia spaces are not governed by the same guidelines as the article space. Mitchumch (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that the current title of the WikiProject and Portal are somehow very different from the article title is a gross misrepresentation of reality. The words are identical. Without support from one or more Wikipedia policies or guidelines this renaming effort is without merit. I also agree that we need not relitigate the last RM here. Mitchumch (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should relitigate the last RM here, make another RfC over it if need be, per Landless People's Movement, Homeless Workers' Movement, and Landless Workers' Movement. The Civil Rights Movement is the proper noun for the era and the events of the era, as important to the flow of history as World War I and World War II. The portal, under the control of the project, should certainly use the correct name. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchumch: I don't really understand your argument here. Why shouldn't the portal (which, as noted, is a public-facing part of the Wiki) have the same name with the same capitalisation as the article to which it directly refers? Never mind guidelines and policies and suchlike, what is the logical reason for this being capitalised while the article is not? And to be honest even the WikiProject, ditto, what reason is there for it to have a different caps from the article? A WikiProject is not public-facing, but it's on the public internet, and is not owned by any particular individual or individuals (particularly so for this one, which was only very recently created) Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru There is nothing I can say that will satisfy you, because I disagree with you. I first asked for guidelines or policies to see the basis for your position. Since you've presented no guideline or policy, then the only basis for your argument is you don't like it. I think the best move forward for you and I is to accept that we disagree. Mitchumch (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchumch: my reasons for requesting the move are presented clearly in the header of this move request. The rationale is to make the portal name consistent with the name of the article it corresponds to, which to me is WP:COMMONSENSE, if nothing else. I don't know if there is an explicit policy to cover that specific case, but precedence says that portal names follow article naming, and this is usually uncontroversial - see for example [1][2][3] and lots more examples where people have requested portals be moved to match WP:NCCAPS, and admins have gone ahead and done it. I'm happy for you to disagree with me, but I'd like to understand why you disagree, that's all. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In your first example above the move was initially rolled-back to receive WikiProject feedback. Since the WikiProject didn't object, the move was made. The other two moves were made with no objection. The takeaway from your three examples is that the WikiProject chooses the name of the Portal. This WikiProject happens to know that the correct name for the event is a proper noun, the Civil Rights Movement, and that its main article was stably upper-cased for the vast majority of its existence. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru To understand my position, please reread my posts throughout this discussion. In regards to your links, they were as Randy states - uncontested. That is not the case here. WP:NCCAPS applies to article pages. Portals or WikiProjects are not mentioned in that Wikipedia guideline. In regards to the "public face" argument, Google search privileges article pages over all other Wikipedia spaces, including Portals and WikiProjects. As examples, see:
The only article topic with the most visible Portal links are in article infoboxes for Anime and manga related articles:
  • Google search for Anime - here - Wikipedia article is first entry, but Portal and WikiProject not listed up to 10 search pages
  • Google search for Manga - here - Wikipedia article is first entry, but Portal and WikiProject not listed up to 10 search pages
  • Wikipedia article for Anime - Pageview daily averages - 5,209 views
  • Wikipedia article for Manga - Pageview daily averages - 2,830 views
  • Portal:Anime and manga - Pageview daily averages - 135 views
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga - Pageview daily averages - 38 views
The above examples are probably representative of all Portal and WikiProject pages. They are in practice part of the "inner mechanics" of Wikipedia. They are not article pages, Google search does not treat them as article pages, and neither does Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Mitchumch (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, though, Paine Ellsworth, there is no particularly good reason not to move it. The WikiProject was only recently created, it pertains directly to that article and its child topics, and yes, it "belongs" to its members, and to a certain extent members may choose the name of the WikiProject, but members of a WikiProject are not a closed body, particularly for one so newly created, it is open to all Wikipedians. And this debate is linked to from the talk page of the project itself. After the famous New York state debate, the associated WikiProject was moved without any fanfare, so there is precedence for this too. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but I don't see much reason not to rename it along with the portal.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not strongly married to either outcome here, either. The example you give is germane to this RM only in a very general way, since both the article and WikiProject page were merely disambiguated with "(state)". Decapping is as you know a different issue and, in my opinion, if it must be applied, it should only apply to general-reader pages and not to editor pages. WikiProject page titles should be exempt from the "encyclopedic" standards for mainspace, while portalspace titles should not be exempt. Just one editor's opinion, so it may not mean much.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous rationale
  • Support. Was going to close this debate, but both pages appear to be move-protected. So instead I will lend my support. When this issue of upper- vs. lower-cased titles applies to Portal and Project pages, it must be settled by editors since policy and guidelines allow for it. I support this requested move mainly for consistency, and I would reverse that in a hot minute if consensus for such consistency, as outlined by the nom, were to change. Opposers are swimming upriver, because community consensus supports these page moves.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paine Ellsworth, your comment gives a good opportunity. What policies and guidelines allow for all editors to decide on the names, and not just the members of the WikiProject? That seems the point of contention. Mitch asked the nominator to outline policies and guidelines which govern this decision. I'd think a closer would have to clearly outline those policies and guidelines in order to move the chosen project name to lower-case. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policies and guidelines "allow" for editors to get together and work toward consensus whenever they are not specific about the application of the issue, in this case decapping a Portal page title and a WikiProject page title. This happens very frequently in page-move debates. When policies and guidelines are non-specific, then it is left to debate and consensus (or the lack of consensus) to decide how to title article and non-article pages. The nom has been forthcoming about the community decisions that have been made. Those decisions do seem to apply to this requested move. And there is a correct venue to challenge those community decisions and consensuses; however, this RM is not it.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting this RM should become an RfC? Or maybe this RM should be frozen until the question is decided: who gets to name a WikiProject, the members of the project or an RM. The consensus here is to allow the WikiProject to name it, although some non-WikiProject editors want to lower-case the portal. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am not suggesting that "this RM should become an RfC", not at all. Not even sure if that can or should be done. This RM is part of the common practice of renaming pages, and only renaming pages. Your comments above appear to be in direct conflict with an RfC consensus, so if you or any editor disagrees with that community consensus, there is a venue other than this RM in which that should take place. Since this RM has been proposed, then it should run its course as a requested move.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want "consistency", then you can move the article page to upper case and then "consistency" will be achieved. The term is a proper noun and a name for a unique historical event. Why does "both pages appear to be move-protected" stop this RM from being closed? Mitchumch (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that would provide consistency among page titles; however, it would not be consistent with community consensus as found in the above page-move proposal. I was unable to close because I am not an administrator, I am only a page mover. Page movers cannot rename fully-move-protected pages, only admins can do that. So the protection of these pages will not stop this debate from being closed, it just means that only an admin will be able to close this debate and move these pages if that is their decision.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not have closed it as no consensus, because that is not in accord with Wikipedia policy.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. No consensus only applies if good arguments are made on both sides, yet there hasn't actually been any refutation of my nomination arguments here, or explanations as to why consistency between these pages and the article they correspond to would not be a good thing. I've only seen attempts to relitigate the article naming discussion and other claims that naming conventions and RMs don't apply to portals and WikiProjects, despite all precedence saying they do. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Portals are for our readers and so their page titles should conform to the same policies and guidelines as articles in mainspace", then how can these Portals exists?
  • Asking how they can exist might not be the question. If you ask how they can be titled that way, in my opinion the answer is that the editors who created them and titled them decided to IAR for whatever reason. Portal page titles that do not conform to policy should be altered to so conform.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since portalspace is for general readers, then any rule/policy already cited in this RM that applies to mainspace also applies to portalspace. Having stated that as only one editor's opinion (mine), I would say that the best "rule" (not a policy nor a guideline) that applies here is WP:COMMONSENSE. You seem rather deeply attached to this issue. May I ask... why is all this so important to you?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there &n;bsp;16:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your "article space is equal to portal space/main space/public face" argument. However, the policies of MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS are explicitly applicable to one Wikipedia space - "article pages". You, Amakuru, and Dicklyon will need to seek consensus on those respective policies policy pages to make them explicitly apply to Portal and/or WikiProject spaces.
  • The reason those portals I immediately listed above don't adhere to MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, because they don't apply to Portals and/or WikiProjects. That is a decision each Portal and WikiProject must make on their respective pages.
  • WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE are perfectly good policies to follow until someone reverts the edit or opposes such edit. Afterwards, consensus will need to be sought.
  • Thank you, and garnering consensus must begin somewhere. As I have said, since the guidelines and policies do not explicitly apply to portals, and they should apply in my opinion, we agree that there must be consensus before a change can be made. We also agree that the WikiProject, of which you are a member, as well as all WikiProjects, should be exempt from the encyclopedic standards that we apply to articles in mainspace.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To ensure my previous statement is not misunderstood nor misconstrued, I am asserting the proper place to create a site wide change is on policy pages. Any consensus reached for this portal only applies to this portal. Mitchumch (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer Mitchumch's question as nearly as can be done, I think, Wikipedia:Portal guidelines notes that portals are subject to WP:NPOV ("Portals should not be a vehicle for advocacy or advertisement, should not have too many red links, should not be redundant of another portal, should not cover too narrow a scope, and should adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality"). It does not say they must adhere to WP:AT. However, this means that the portals must adhere to WP:POVNAMING, so the directive is not to have a POV title. Whether advocacy of a certain form of capitalization amounts to POV naming is an open question. I am under the impression that Wikipedia:Portal guidelines should be revised to explicitly ask that portals adhere to WP:AT, and that this is a loophole existing because most users don't argue about portal naming (as the edit notice here says, "Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the Help desk for a more prompt response or reviewing the Portal guidelines for quick tips") but like Mitchumch says, that is a discussion for the guideline's talk page. Dekimasuよ! 19:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasu You are claiming the current title of this Portal is a violation of NPOV. Am I understanding you correctly? Please, I only need a "yes" or "no" answer. Mitchumch (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Dekimasuよ! 03:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say, not neutral, as the unnecessary caps are promotional (a "vehicle for advocacy") when used on a phrase that is not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The policy Wikipedia:POVNAMING was designed for words that are biased. Like "massacre" or "scandal". The words of the article and portal are the same words. The terms "the civil rights movement" and "the Civil Rights Movement" are used to denote the same historical event in reliable sources. That policy does not appear to apply here. Mitchumch (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, if you're right that POVNAMING is only about word choice and not other ways of pushing a POV, then it doesn't apply. Still, we need to fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat, the terms "the civil rights movement" and "the Civil Rights Movement" are used to denote the same historical event in reliable sources. It's the same denotation. I see nothing to fix. Mitchumch (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they denote the same thing. And is WP's style, we avoid unnecessary caps, only capping things that sources consistently capitalize. This is not one of those, so caps don't conform to WP style guidelines in this case. So we should fix that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article page. Your opposition for the portal (and wikiproject) has been noted. Mitchumch (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any precedent for this concept that portals can/should/do ignore MOS on text styling such as caps? If some do, is it because they're just never looked at, or has there been any discussion along your lines before? Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to fix, per Mitchumch and lack of guideline direction. Portals are the concern of the WikiProject, and those opposing the present title seem to WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than anything else. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While portals are sometimes the concern of WikiProjects, they are often opened by editors who have no connection to any project. None of that is necessarily relevant, and one could make an equal argument that supporters are just using an argument complementary to IDONTLIKEIT that could be called ILIKEIT. Portals are out in front of general readers of Wikipedia, and since their origins were in mainspace before the Portal: namespace was created, mainspace policies and guidelines should apply. They don't even have to be mentioned in those policies and guidelines, because as they're under the noses of general readers, they are automatically subject to those titling policies and guidelines.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The supporters have pointed out that the guidelines that those that oppose presented don't apply. The supporters followed Wikipedia:Portal guidelines.
  • Portals are not "out in front of general readers of Wikipedia". Portals aren't viewed very often as I demonstrated here, because at best they're links typically located at the bottom of an article page. They are not article pages, Google search does not treat them as article pages, and neither does Wikipedia guidelines or policies.
  • Other portals do not recognize the argument you're advancing as I presented here.
  • They don't need to be changed as I already said, although it wouldn't hurt for them to be more explicit where portals are concerned. So it boils down to one opinion vs. a different opinion. As usual and as expected, it will be up to the closer to decide.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do need to be changed as I already said. Your personal opinion does not constitute community consensus. Those policies do constitute community consensus. Injecting unstated assertions into any Wikipedia guideline or policy and then attempt to impose those unstated assertions onto various areas of Wikipedia as you see fit is not acceptable. No matter how reasonable your opinion may be to you, it is unreasonable to expect other editors to abide by your personal opinion as if it were accepted policy. Mitchumch (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If your position is "common sense", then change the policy pages. No one will revert your edit because it's "common sense". Mitchumch (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and direct links as well. Normally other links out of the mainspace are deprecated, but portal links (perhaps even transclusions, if I remember correctly?) are not. Dekimasuよ! 18:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "direct links"? Mitchumch (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Normal bluelinks. Dekimasuよ! 20:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is so in the weeds that no one even wants to relist it. I suggest that the best move is to let this be marked as a no consensus close. There is clearly not support for moving the WikiProject. The portal has barely been updated since its creation, and portals often just drop off the map. There was a great deal of support last year for simply deprecating the use of portals altogether: Wikipedia talk:Portal#Portals are moribund. I think we are expending a lot of energy here for very little reward. Dekimasuよ! 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But the portal name shows up in article space. If we don't fix the capitalization here, we can fix by not linking the portal, I suppose. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I agree that decapping the portal would be best, but that is a separate question from whether or not there is a consensus in this discussion or whether it makes sense to keep arguing about it. Dekimasuよ! 21:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition to fixing the portal per MOS:CAPS seems pretty minimal, and consists only of people who already lost the argument of how civil rights movement is styled in article space. Any reasonable closer is likely to see that the sitewide consensus applies to all parts of main space, including portals. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other portals do not recognize the argument you're advancing as I presented here. Any reasonable closer will see the other portals and conclude there is nothing different on this portal.
  • MOS:CAPS doesn't apply to portals. The term "portal" doesn't appear in that policy.
  • This portal followed Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. You are inventing guidelines that you want this portal to follow. There is no expectation on Wikipedia that this or any other portal should follow invented guidelines. Mitchumch (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other portals should be titled in accord with MOS:CAPS, too. That guideline does apply to portals. The term "portal" does not have to appear in it. The only thing that must appear in it (and does) is the phrase "common sense", which applies to all parts of this encyclopedia that are placed under the noses of general readers. Since there is little or nothing in portal guidelines that details the titling of portals, and since portals are linked in articles and readily available to general readers, article-titling policy does apply.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COMMONSENSE is a perfectly good policy to follow until someone reverts the edit or opposes such edit. Afterwards, consensus will need to be sought. If your position is "common sense", then change the policy pages. No one will revert your edit because it's "common sense".
  • There are numerous links on article pages. Templates are linked in article pages. Are we going to start applying MOS:CAPS to that as well?
  • Your personal opinion about Wikipedia:Article titles and MOS:CAPS does not constitute community consensus. That's the problem here. You refuse to submit your position to those respective policy pages to seek community consensus. Instead, you want the members of this WikiProject to submit to your invented guidelines.
  • Unless you have real guidelines that explicitly apply to portals, I suggest we agree to disagree. This portal followed Wikipedia:Portal guidelines outlined by community consensus. This portal is doing the same thing that other portals have done years ago. Mitchumch (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relatively few portals have that problem. Portals don't get a ton of attention, usually, so some don't get caught. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we must agree to disagree. It is your personal opinion that is not aligned with community consensus and common sense. You just don't seem to "get" that portals are readily available to general readers and must comply with all policies and guidelines (community consensuses) that are set up for all pages that are available to the general reader. That seems to be where we disagree. Is that about right?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the vast majority of portals do conform to WP:NCCAPS: Portal:Contents/Portals. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose unneeded, and a waste of editor time. This title was the title I made for the project and the article's RM close has no precedent on project space pages. I request this be closed immediately. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why the portal is currently in bad shape

[edit]

Coffee's recently created portal draft is a mess. I worked on fixing it already once, but got reverted. Several problems here:

  • The lead sentence "The Civil Rights Movement ... is a term that encompasses ..." violates MOS:FIRST and WP:WORDSASWORDS.
  • The capitals dress up Civil Rights Movement as a proper name, when the consensus is that it's not one.
  • The caps problem is hard to fix because the use of Template:PAGENAME copies the caps into sentences where they're wrong.

Moving the portal and being able to edit it toward a more normal state without being reverted are the necessary immediate steps. As I said, I care less about the project as it doesn't show up in article space, but there's not good reason not to fix that, too, while we're at it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those policies apply to article pages, not portals.
MOS:FIRST: "This page in a nutshell: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."
WP:WORDSASWORDS: "This page in a nutshell: This page provides guidance on when to format text in articles."
The word "portal" doesn't appear in either policy. Besides, the content of the portal is a copy and paste from the article. Beyond your disagreement over the case form, what "mess" are you referring to? Mitchumch (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article and the portal are separate. And yes, the portal page treats the term as the reliable sources do ... as a proper noun. We will have to agree to disagree. Mitchumch (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FIRST says Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject. For articles that are actually about terms, italicize the term to indicate the use–mention distinction. I'm pretty sure this portal (which is actually an article in the formal sense that this guideline applies to) is not actually about the term civil rights movement, capped or not. Unless you think you want to make the portal be about the capitalized term Civil Rights Movement, in which case I'm pretty sure you'd be way out on a branch on your own. And when you say "as the reliable sources do ... as a proper noun", I can only think that you are circularly defining "reliable" as those that capitalize it, since we've shown clearly that most books do not do so; so yes, I agree we disagree. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I better understand your first point. If the first sentence is rewritten to say "The Civil Rights Movement ... encompasses the strategies, groups, and social movements ...", then would that address your first point? Mitchumch (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the portal was recently created and remains a flaky draft; that lead structure is one problem, the overcapitalization is another, and who knows what else. Needs work to avoid being sorely noncompliant with guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes or no, does the reworded sentence address your first point? Mitchumch (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in a mess because Dick made it a mess. When I created this portal it worked perfectly fine. If Dick wants to clean his mess up and return it to it's original state then by all means he is free to do so, otherwise this discussion is going to go nowhere as this project is not going to be renamed. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status report from the Portals WikiProject

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018.

Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, and design the portals of the future.

As of April 29th, membership is at 56 editors, and growing.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for each component of portals.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject.    — The Transhumanist   03:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Civil_rights_movement&oldid=1229824756"