Wikipedia talk:Portal/Proposals

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve portals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortalsWikipedia:WikiProject PortalsTemplate:WikiProject PortalsPortals articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
	See also: List of Portals
	This subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.

This Wikipedia article or category is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you may try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump.

This proposal was rejected by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump.

Discussion of the proposal

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)[reply]

I like the criteria you've proposed.--cj | talk 03:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I can't claim any credit. I pretty much copied them wholesale from WP:WSS. :) It seemed a good starting point to have criteria that already had community consensus. They work there, so it seems a good idea they'll work here. Hiding talk 07:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that most existing portals (at least, those linked from Browse) don't meet them, I'd say they're quite likely not appropriate, unless we intend to change the role of portals. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't quite see that, personally. What are you thinking of? Hiding talk 09:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite nice, but I'm assuming they won't be applied retroactively (in particular the 60 articles bit)? Kirill Lok s hin 13:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all portals have 60 articles of sufficient quality to be showcased? If people could actually quantify specifically their problems it's quite hard to address them. Hiding talk 09:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a portal is only showcasing featured articles, that won't necessarily be true. Portal:War, for example, probably has ~40 different articles to work with, and that includes some that are only tangentially related. Kirill Lok s hin 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. That's the sort of thing that should get discussed when creating a portal. Hiding talk 09:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked

I've tweaked the proposal to hopefully address concerns. Does that help? Hiding talk 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, at least, no longer inconsistent with existing pages like Wikipedia:Featured portals. Most of our existing portals could dig up 30 articles good enough to be showcased, although many of those articles would be quite far from featured status. I have no other complaints to make other than an expectation that this will be a fairly pointless endeavor; I can't see why it is any easier than integrating portals as they are made. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The hope, or my hope, is that it prevents things like Portal:Zelda ot Portal:Internet and Portal:World Wide Web both being created without discussion, which would hopefully point out obvious flaws and or solutions. Hiding talk 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems just as easy to delete those after the fact when they don't pan out, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So we have a discussion at one end or the other of the portal's existence. Yeah, I take the point; having just trawled through the portal space I'm of the opinion it would be nice to have a discussion prior to creation, but for sure, there's a valid argument to the counter. Hiding talk 19:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a portal

Can some one start a portal for Sri Lanka? Portal:Sri Lanka--Mayooresan 05:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trialling

I've transcluded this to Wikipedia:Portal to trial it and see how it runs. Hiding talk 07:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is inappropriate; see Wikipedia talk:Portal. John Reid 17:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Hiding talk 18:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue; do it your way. But you have to allow people to comment on it. John Reid 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your objection. How is it inappropriate? How are people being prevented from commenting?--cj | talk 06:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[MJJ]I would want a portal completely dedicated to the Fantasy, are been strange that it does not exist

Proposal process

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)[reply]

It's not at all obvious that this process exists. Wikipedia encourages people to create articles at random and it is easy to assume that Portals should be created the same way. Ideogram 15:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's part of the directions on Wikipedia:Portal. Hard to mainline it further than that. I dropped notes to a few people who were creating portals without consensus here, but beyond that, I'm not sure what we start doing. Hiding Talk 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Portal process should be a consensus-only process. Proponants should make a proposal including a sampling of articles to be displayed and a discussion of the layout (perhaps a mockup); a policy should be enacted to speedy Portals created out of process (with a notice to the creator informing them how to go about it properly). bd2412 T 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm still unconvinced that we have enough content yet for Portal:Kentucky, I think they are going about this in the right way. They have set up a page where they are drafting a list of articles that could be featured, coming up with some "Did you know" items, and other content, etc. Maybe we could setup a proposal template that can be used to list potential content. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing Aude. I have a bit of insight into what can happen when users go crazy with WikiProject Templates and Portal skeletons and I've been thinking about this for a long time. I have a lot of ideas on this. Please see this and this for my current thinking on the matter. • CQ 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims?

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Portal approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims? Discussion opened. SilkTork 08:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD Result Notice

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)[reply]

What the...

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)[reply]

Since the portal proposals page was held to be not proper, You are now welcome to create as many portals as You wish without pre-approval. feydey 20:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like some feedback on your idea for a portal before you go ahead and set it up, perhaps the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be a valid place to ask.-gadfium 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]