Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Umayyad Caliphate

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: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Umayyad Caliphate[edit]

Portal:Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A fully-automated navbox-based portal, with no curated version to revert to.

Created[1] on 26 November 2018‎ by Cplakidas (talk · contribs), it has always drawn its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox {{Umayyad Caliphate topics}}. That makes it merely a bloated and redundant fork of the navbox. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

The Umayyad Caliphate was the second of the four major caliphates established after the death of Muhammad, so it may in theory be a broad enough topic to meet the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

Maybe some day, someone with specialist knowledge of will build and maintain a portal on this topic which actually tries to meet the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But until then, there is a clear community consensus to delete portals forked from a navbox.

So I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:
      • This is an automated portal, and automated portals are golems.
      • Probably better to have one portal from 632CE-1258CE rather than treating the Umayyads in a vacuum.
      • Without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is notable and broad enough to warrant a portal, that at least is not in dispute. The current iteration of the portal was indeed built using the automated tools because that does indeed make portal creation much easier, but I intend to improve on it, just as I am doing for Portal:Fatimid Caliphate and have long done for Portal:Byzantine Empire. This is gradual work, particularly since there are not many editors active on the topic of the early caliphates, and quality content is limited. Regarding the portal being a "fork for the navbox", actually it is the other way around: the navbox {{Umayyad Caliphate topics}} was created because the portal generation mechanism required it; the articles included in the navbox are essentially a curated collection of notable articles that I could have simply added in a list at the portal, but did not, because, just as with the portal, this is a topic where a "topics" navbox was long overdue. I have been following the portal imbroglio form the sidelines, and agree that the notion of automatically generating portals for any conceivable subject is flawed, but this is a case where the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Constantine ✍ 06:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, the fact remains that the portal is redundant to the navbox. We have been here before with other portals, e.g. at MFD:Portal:Weasels, MFD:Portal:Stonehenge, MFD:Portal:Michael Faraday. In each of those cases the portal was converted to a navbox, which offers much better navigation because it is included on all pages in the set.
Remember that per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", so to justify its existence a portal needs to add value for the reader.
Two newish features of Wikipedia have raised that bar quite high, rendering many portals redundant:
  1. mouseover: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, mouseover on any of the linked list items shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links
  2. automatic imagery galleries: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, clinking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page.  ::It's full-screen, so it's actually better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
If you haven't tried these features yet, then just right-click on Umayyad Caliphate, select "open in private window" or "open in incognito window", and explore as an ordinary reader would.
As you can see, the automated portal adds almost nothing to what is already available through the default Wikimedia software. IF you feel that you can add value, then I'd support userfying the portal so that you can work on it until it really does add to value what is available by default. But in the meantime it's not helpful to readers to lure them to a portal which adds nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrownHairedGirl, I appreciate the feedback. I know of these features, and agree that the fully automatic portals don't really offer much more. However, I do think that portals can offer some features that can not be easily included in the mainspace. A good example, the way I see it, is the Portal:Byzantine Empire/Weblinks section. A portal is not simply about giving an "enhanced overview" in width (a moderately good main article does that already) but also provide some depth and variety of assistance and, perhaps, serve as a point of reference not only for readers, but for editors involved in a topic as well (TODO lists, links for assistance and tools, etc), something like a mainspace WikiProject. I definitely do intend to gradually userify Portal:Umayyad Caliphate, just as I've begun doing at Portal:Fatimid Caliphate (and eventually create a Portal:Abbasid Caliphate). The fact that this has not yet happened is due to both WP and RL priorities. I can however give it a shot over the next weekend. Constantine ✍ 15:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-11-26 20:18:55 by User:Cplakidas. Indeed, the navbox was a good thing and is seen by readers circa 2000 times a day (in the article) as stated at [wmflabs]. On the contrary, the portal itself has only FIVE views a day. No reason to divert readers to this tool, only redundant to the existing navbox, and of lower quality: Portal:Umayyad Caliphate. Pldx1 (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: depending on the result of the conversation above, please feel free to ping me back if relisting. SITH (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not add anything to what is already available in the article, navbox and category tree, and too narrow to meet the WP:POG guideline. Suggest that the interested editors rejuvenate the much broader Portal:History of the Middle East instead. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cplakidas: I never suggested a merge; only that time may be better spent somewhere besides a portal that no one will ever look at. Ever. wmflabs shows 4 pageviews a day on average. 4. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UnitedStatesian:} The low number of views has more to do with the fact that it is relatively recent and not well linked from other mainspace articles, than any other reason. It will pick up, and anyway, that argument is fallacious, IMO; lots of articles get far less than that, but we don't delete them. If any content is read by and can inform even one person per month, that is all we should need to keep it. There is no maintenance effort involved here, apart from the time I invest in it. Constantine ✍ 07:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Captures the core problem of portals. This portal is the main article plus the navbox fleshed-out out with a few randomly selected images, a few dyks, and a sub-categories section (which is a cut of the navbox). However, the main article is well tagged for referencing issues. Why would a reader trust our portal, when the main article is tagged? We just don't have the resourcing to maintain these types of portals, and the integrity of the core article is suffering. I enjoy trying to save articles at AfD, but I cannot see any long-term (or medium-term) future for portals like this unless our community expands dramatically. I respect the good intentions of editors who try and keep these portals, but if they are not deleted now, they soon will be. Britishfinance (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As to whether this is a "broad subject area", I am more inclined to agree with User:Cplakidas than with User:UnitedStatesian. The empire was the largest that the world had ever seen. The only question is not whether to fold it into the overly broad area of History of the Middle East but whether to combine it with its grand successor, the Abbasid Caliphate, which had the same extent and lasted longer and left even more of a mark on human history. See my essay on former empires. However, it does not appear that the portal will offer any advantage over the navbox. I am changing my !vote from a Delete to a Weak Delete and am suggesting at least one Relist to get a better idea of what is planned for this portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and a Relist to see what the originator is planning. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the portal is deleted in the next 48 h, I intend to work on it during this weekend. @Robert McClenon: at the beginning, I considered making a portal for the early Islamic world (Muhammad, Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, possibly also Fatimid caliphates and the various minor dynasties) but AFAIK there is no definite consensus about a timeframe (at a minimum 7th-9th centuries, but it can be interpreted as lasting into the 11th or even 12th century, or even up to the arrival of the Mongols). Before opening that can of worms, I decided to stick to a clearly defined topic. I do regret this now, though. Constantine ✍ 07:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to do so. Again, Islamic Golden Age is a term that applies to the 9th-11th centuries, but not really to the 7th or 8th centuries. The French Wiki has a Portail:Monde arabo-musulman, but I fear that this would be an invitation for ethnic POV-warriors. If I were to choose a title like Portal:Early Muslim world, I would restrict the coverage to the period 620-1050, in line with Hugh Kennedy's landmark The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, and the periodization adopted in the New Cambridge History of Islam. This also makes sense from a political and cultural perspective, as after 1050, first the arrival of the Seljuks and then the Crusades, completely shattered even the notional unity of the Muslim world. That means, however, that both the Fatimid and the Abbasid caliphates are not covered in full. Constantine ✍ 11:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, any work by an editor to improve WP is very welcome, however, I would ask if it is not a better use of editing effort to first improve and bring the main Umayyad Caliphate article up to untagged status (and even beyond to GA; the topic would merit it). If you have a skill and passion in this area, surely this would be a great first step to do (plus making sure the navbox is completely up to date and links to all relevant articles in this area). Not only would this materially improve the integrity of WP in this area in the eyes of our readers (and make them more amenable to your portal), but it would also ensure that any additions/improvements you then made to the portal are substantive and would build further on a well maintained main topic main article+navbox; which is I think an important point that BHG is making in all these portal discussions. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been spending a few years improving Umayyad-related content, but to be frank, this is a process where I learn by researching and writing. A wholesale rewrite of the main article itself is beyond my knowledge level for now. I know enough about the political history, but not nearly enough about culture, society, religion, etc. Low-hanging fruit first et cetera... Anyhow, I think that given the discussion above, the effort I would invest in the portal would be unlikely, given the present state of things, to significantly alter opinion. I therefore will not contest this deletion any longer, but may in the future start a broader Portal:Early Muslim world or analogous. Constantine ✍ 12:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The portal currently has an average of 2 pageviews daily, as opposed to 1983 for the head article. This isn't the sort of portal view rate that makes one optimistic about whether the portal can be made popular. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 18 May 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:Umayyad_Caliphate&oldid=897910381"