Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Weather

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was delist because it failed criteria 1(d). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Weather

There hasn't been a selected picture since December 2009, same with a selected article and biography. It looks embarrassing on the right-hand side when it says "On this day", and there is nothing for February 4. It lists Hurricane Emily (1987) as an FAC, but it hasn't been there since August 2009. Finally, the recent and ongoing weather includes links to meteorology in 2008-2009. Clearly the portal hasn't been updated in ages. Therefore, I highly disagree with it being a featured portal. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delist~~: the criteria say "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted" and this is a clear-cut case. However, for some reason, neither of the current FPo Directors seem willing to enforce this, and perhaps the criteria need to be discussed - there's no point in having this threat if no-one enforces it. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have talk pages of users and relevant WikiProjects been notified? -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure who else to comment but the Meteorology WikiProject. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, since nobody seems to be wanting to fix it up, could I have a bit of time to get it cleaned up and back up to FPO standards? Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It seems User:Runningonbrains who was maintaining this portal has gone inactive. I set the featured article, picture, and biography on a permanent selection so there won't be embarrassing red links. It's still a great portal, but until someone else adopts and cares for it again it'll have to be delisted and sit and collect dust. -- œ ^™ 04:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I'm really not interested in upkeeping this portal. (BTW, OlEnglish, I disabled the biography because I wasn't sure how to lock it and I didn't want to either leave a bunch of redlinks or write the biographies.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'M BACK BABY Still going to be quite inactive, but I plan on being around to at least update this every once in a while. I am also going to work on just setting the selected articles and pictures to cycle randomly, so that if I miss a month or two of updates they don't show up as red links. Is this acceptable? Sorry I haven't been around, grad school's a bitch :) -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 10:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. I say all portals should automatically cycle random content. That way none of them will need to be delisted. -- œ ^™ 08:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All reorganization should be done now. Let me know if you see any red links; I may have messed up some of the indexing. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a red link for Portal:Weather/On this day list/May 21 under "This week in weather history..." OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few more red links: Portal:Weather/On this day list/February 4, Portal:Weather/On this day list/March 24, Portal:Weather/On this day list/May 17, Portal:Weather/On this day list/May 26, Portal:Weather/On this day list/June 14, Portal:Weather/On this day list/July 27, Portal:Weather/On this day list/November 18, Portal:Weather/On this day list/December 6, Portal:Weather/On this day list/December 10, Portal:Weather/On this day list/December 13, Portal:Weather/On this day list/December 18, and Portal:Weather/On this day list/December 23. I noticed that a lot of the current entries are US-centric (e.g. February, March, May, June) so I would request (not a demand though) if you can find some non-US stories and fill up the red links above. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying overtime to find events notable enough to have articles on all those days, but I have been unable to as of now. The main problem with making this non-US-centric is that A) Most events which occur in non-English-speaking countries will not have articles due to a dearth of sources, B) of the English-speaking countries, the US has by far the largest area of significant population, and thus human impact from weather disasters, C) The US Government is by far the most open and well-documented about its weather disasters, and D) the US has the worst weather in the world^{[citation needed]}. All these factors add up to there being a large majority of weather-related articles on Wikipedia on US events, and I want each "On this day" item to point to an article. I'd love to get some help on finding events; User:Runningonbrains/Portal needed dates is where I've been keeping track. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still active? I'm not sure how long featured portal reviews are supposed to remain open, but this one's been open for over a year now... Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean, I'm still developing the "On this day", but there are still some dates that just refuse to have a notable weather event (down to like 12 now). I don't plan on making many new selected articles/pictures/whatever in the future, just keeping the current ones in rotation. I'll update the DYK once in a while. That's about it. If that's insufficient for a Featured Portal, go ahead and remove it, I'm not especially needy for recognition. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 01:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been running for 16 months; the length of time that this has been running is a disgrace to the Featured Portals structure and the FPo Directors should be ashamed of themselves for letting this drag on as long as it has. If it meets the current standards, close it as "retain status"; if it doesn't, close it as "delist". Personally I'd suggest using {{#ifexist}} (and a comment like "X June: no notable weather events recorded") to get rid of the odd day that doesn't have a entry and fix it that way; if that's fixed, then I'd say retain but if it's not fixed within the next 7 days I'd say delist. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment could have been phrased a bit more politely, hopefully in the future the commenter will do so in a more kind manner. I hope he noticed I'd already left a note for the user working on this portal, higher up on that user's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you addressing me in the third person, Cirt? Strange. This commentator stands by the content and phrasing of his message. I look forward to hearing you and OhanaUnited explaining why leaving a FPo review open for 16 months is a good idea. (Of course, Cirt, if it's one of your portals that you want to get promoted, you're rather keen to ensure that discussions don't drag on for 16 months, even if it means promoting your own nomination.) And, yes, I had noticed that you left a message for Runningonbrains on 19 May 2012. What you forgot to mention in your reply to me was that Runningonbrains did not respond either on your talk page or his, and since you left that message he has eliminated only one of the remaining redlinks. Tell me, Cirt, is that an acceptable rate of progress for a portal revamp that has taken 13 months already, particularly where the portal could and should have been speedily delisted according to the criteria as soon as it was nominated in February 2011? Is the FPoR process fit for purpose in your opinion, Cirt? Bencherlite ^Talk 19:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that sort of wait of time necessitates this sort of brusque response. I see no reason why you can't be more polite and kind about all this. There's simply no reason to get upset. — Cirt (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, shoot the messenger, ignore the wider problem, that's fine by me. Actually, I'm not upset, just disappointed. I think that portals, and the featured portals process, are good things. I have taken the time and trouble to bring one portal to FPo standards, and I have another not far off. I try to comment on all FPO reviews and FPo candidates to help improve them. I want featured portals and the process that judges them to be as highly respected within Wikipedia as our other featured content and their processes are. But every time we let featured portals rot with redlinks for "selected article" etc for months or years without anyone doing anything about it, we undermine the integrity of the whole FPo system, and devalue the featured star on all the other portals. Similarly with reviews that take well over a year with no edits at all to the review for 10.5 months! What sort of message does that send out to readers and editors about FPo standards? That is why I think that the speedy delisting provision ("Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted") ought to be used, but I cannot see that you or OhanaUnited have ever used this provision when it should have been. I think that you and OhanaUnited need to take better responsibility for moving FPoRs along - Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Houston, the last to be closed, took almost a year as well. The workload is hardly time-consuming and I really don't know why you are letting them drag on so long - a question, Cirt, that you are noticeably not answering. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please consider the option of embracing the messenger, fixing the wider problem, and remaining civil throughout the process. None of these actions are mutually exclusive. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Jesus Christ people, it's not that big of a deal. As I mentioned above, I'm not especially hung up on official recognition for my work. I'm not going to change the standards I set up for "on this day" (event must have an article) just to get some gold star on my profile. 16 months is way too long...this should have been closed 15 1/2 months ago. I appreciate that some have given me time to make improvements, but it's really not a matter of time at this point, it's just a matter of finding significant (notable enough for an article) weather-related events which occurred on these dates. I'm interested in making an interesting portal, that's all. If consensus is that having a few red links makes it not a Featured Portal, then by all means, delist. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Runningonbrains: Okay, will do, thanks for your input, — Cirt (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.