Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Merge Portal:Crabapples to Portal:Apples, which is being kept alongside Portal:Strawberries; delete Portal:Grapes and Portal:Citrus.

To be specific:

  • Portal:Crabapples is probably the most-clear result below. I think it's properly merge to Portal:Apples which accomplishes what nearly everyone wants (that is, Portal:Crabapples will have no content) but is being redirected (because automated content).
  • Portal:Apples is, as implied by the above, a keep, but even separate from that I do find the arguments for keeping this stronger and better-made than the delete !votes.
  • Portal:Strawberries was a later addition that I do not believe people adequately discussed; those that did specifically mention it generally supported keeping it (delete participants generally favored an "all-of-the-above" approach throughout, hence few if any specific mentions). A noted suggestion was to create a Portal:Berries or something and merge the content there. With all that in mind, the result for Portal:Strawberries is somewhere on the spectrum from no consensus to keep, closer to keep as I read it, with a hint of a slight-procedural keep to it.
  • Portal:Citrus and Portal:Grapes are delete. There was some specific call outs to these by the keep participants, but unlike with apples, the clear and specific arguments were much less convincing for these two, given their potential content.

This was a mess, and a good example of a few things:

  • Adding pages to an XfD should typically only be done when the items are similar in topic, style, and origin; we literally just tried to compare apples and oranges
  • Relists can be good, as they can ensure discussions get fresh eyes
  • Going after other participants is never helpful
  • Specific !votes with specific rationales are helpful in determining what is desired
~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit Portals

[edit]
Portal:Crabapples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Apples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Grapes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Citrus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Strawberries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very poor version of Malus (Crabapple is a redirect) that requires scrolling or refreshing to see the photos displayed on the mainspace page. Built off the nav box in about 1 to 2 minutes it provides no new content, just repackages existing content in a less informative way. Kind of a Wikipedia for people that only want a little bit of info they likely already know (crabapples are trees that bear fruit?). This topic has no Wikiproject dedicated to it, it is just a random family of 35 species of trees. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on "very good"? CoolSkittle (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The templates used to build Portal:Grapes are woefully incomplete. Wikipedia has 793 articles under Category:Grape varieties. There are also Malus species with articles that aren't included in the navbox used to build the Crabapple portal. Portal:Crabapples seem to be a blatant case of building a portal just because a navbox exists that can seed it without stopping to think whether a portal is actually useful or necessary. Plantdrew (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a work in progress though. Where's the policy that templates have to be complete? What came first, the chicken or the egg? North America1000 21:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is widespread opposition to using templates for populating portals - something they were not designed for and for which the template creators and editors had no idea the templates would be repurposed for. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Winemaking to discuss these two. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using the date-range chosen below by @Northamerica1000, here's the page views 12/02/2019 – 12/03/2019:
So this portal was used by only 0.45% of those who viewed the head article. That's less than 1 in 200 readers.
As with every other portal I have checked, the stats show that readers overwhelmingly prefer to use the head article for navigation. The usual ratio is, as in this case, more than two orders of magnitude. Or to put it another way, for every 10,000 readers who visited the article, only 45 visited the portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop voting multiple times. I'm bundling in Strawberries as mentioned at AN. Legacypac (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bundling nominations and instead nominate separately. The portals are not all the same. Cheers, North America1000 16:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but there is a purpose. Portals function as a navigational tool for readers. For example, Portal:Apples has received 467 page views between 2/12/2019 and 3/12/2019. Enabling Wikipedia's readers to access content is the purpose. Also, are we going to start pinging users that have been for deletion of other portals in other discussions to the new discussions, as has occurred directly above? Comes across as a bit WP:CANVASSy, imo. North America1000 22:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea turning to statistics, NorthA. Tho not good for your position.
The head article Apple received 96,674 pageviews in the same period. So this portal was used by only 0.48% of those who viewed the head article. That's less than 1 in 200 readers.
Nearly every time a portal is discussed, someone pops up like @Northamerica1000 to parrot something to the effect of "navigation!!! non-zero pageviews!!! your opinion only!!!". And every time the stats show that readers overwhelmingly prefer to use the head article for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And so my concerns about potential canvassing above may now be coming into fruition. North America1000 23:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding, "every time the stats show that readers overwhelmingly prefer to use the head article for navigation", under this rationale, every navigational template on Wikipedia would also then qualify for deletion upon this narrow premise. Absurd. North America1000 23:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having been pinged, I have not cast a !vote, and will not cast a !vote.
But I sure will point out the folly of your statistics, and leave other editors to draw their own conclusions about how to !vote.
And your comparison with navigational templates is utter nonsense. Since a navigational templates is transcluded into every page to which it links, its pageviews are equal to the sum of the pageviews of those pages. The only absurd thing in that point is your failure to understand how navigational templates work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, navigation templates are not transcluded into every page to which they link, as evidenced by the many additions I have made to articles through the years that had the article linked in the template, but lacked the template in the article. Also, I have created many templates, know all about transclusion, etc., so your assumption regarding my knowledge is quite erroneous, and unnecessary. But nevermind my folly, you're the expert, right? North America1000 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, navigation templates are not transcluded into every page to which they link ... Um, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (part of a guideline). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, um, but does not mean that editors always follow instructions at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, as per my comment above. North America1000 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged BHG because I quoted her and I habitually ping people when I quote them (some people don't like to be mentioned without being notified of being mentioned, so I got into the habit of doing it to everyone). I mistakenly thought she'd already commented in this discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Northamerica1000, I don't claim to be an expert on it. I asserted basic understanding on on navigational templates work, and where they are suppose to be transcluded. If you have created many templates, know all about transclusion, etc. then why did you make spurious claims about the pageviews of a navbox?
And I note that when challenged, you didn't disagree with my basic point that a navbox is designed to be loaded with every page it links to, so there is no point counting standalone pageviews 'cos that's not how its contents are viewed. By contrast, portals are viewable only by navigating to a separate page ... and as the stats show, less than 0.5% of readers do so.
That's now twice in this one subthread that you have posted a factually misleading claim, and each time you have reply with bluster and deflection. That's not the way to build consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation templates are used to link to articles that are related or interrelated to a main topic. Your logic asserts that readers prefer to navigate from main articles, and implies that portals are inferior based upon page view percentages. It could be interpreted that your implication therefore extends to other alternate means of navigation, such as templates. I made no mention of page views of templates, you did. My comment was regarding templates that are existent in articles, not page views to the template pages. Some readers go through a succession of articles using the links in navigation templates, and some of the more obscure related topic pages listed within a template may not receive as many page views as the main article, yet the use of the template on those lesser-viewed pages still serves a functional purpose. As such, lesser-viewed pages can serve a functional purpose, just as portals, while receiving lesser views than main articles, can also serve a functional purpose. Also, portals will always receive less page views than main articles, in part because they serve to complement the main article, not exist as the main article. Anyway, hope that clarifies my commentary for you, and have a nice day. North America1000 00:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes are a componant to the articles they serve and not meant to be viewed alone. Portals based on nav boxes are folly - the base was never designed for the structure above it. We don't build factories an house foundations and we don't build navboxes only to discover someone has abused their purpose. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree:
From WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia."
From WP:PORTAL: "Aiding navigation - portals are one of Wikipedia's navigation subsystems, designed to help users find their way around the vast amount of knowledge on Wikipedia to material within a particular subject."
In some ways, the purposes are both templates and portals are virtually identical. Such close complementary purposes, and per this, using templates to populate portals, is hardly a "folly". It actually makes quite a bit of sense. North America1000 00:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we must have portals (e.g. to give readers an alternative to mainpage) then they should be for (really) broad subject areas (e.g. maybe Food). Even Northamerica1000 admits it serves virtually identical purpose to navboxes (which are much more useful, accepted etc). DexDor (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using bolded votes 4 times in the same discussion is against some rule I presume. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. !voting multiple times for the same page is not allowed. Your nomination consists of five separate pages. As such, multiple !votes are allowed. Seriously, if only one !vote were allowed, I wouldn't be able to suggest the merge above that I have suggested for the Crabapples portal. Please consider stopping the wikilawyering. North America1000 16:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also: WP:TRAINWRECK and WP:MULTIAFD, where it states, "For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following one or two other editors' comments, particularly (but not only) where those comments are "per nom", by single purpose accounts, the article creator, or were clearly in bad faith." North America1000 19:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.:Put all your votes in one paragraph. Don't make silly distictions between apples and oranges Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any "silly distinctions", I'm making it explicitly what my reconsiderations are for these very disparate portals. I cannot see any evidence that anyone has made multiple recommendations for the same page - remember also that this is a discussion not a vote. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that another user above has !voted for deletion multiple times, yet, for whatever reason, they are not badgered for doing so. Why is that? North America1000 00:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you take Portals to ArbComm expect to have your own behavior examined too. There is no obvious keep when every portal brought for deletion in 2019 has been deleted. The most prolific creator has been topic banned from making more at VPR and WP:X3 has a lot of support and may yet pass. Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"every portal brought for deletion in 2019 has been deleted." That's simply not true though, even if you restrict the set to those discussions that have been closed, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals was closed as keep. While you are arguing at DRV that they should be counted as withdrawn for technical reasons, you clearly accepted that Portal:Anime and Manga should not be deleted and withdrew it from the nomination early. The various portals nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Horses have not attracted as single delete recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I typed what I typed the statement was true as all closed MfDs were deleted. Coming along after one nomination closed otherwise and calling me a liar is very bad faith. Legacypac (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the date on your comment as 24 (not 23) March, apologies for that. It is though the case that there are multiple open discussions where a consensus to delete is not assured. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Crabapples&oldid=892006965"