Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Watercraft

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Watercraft

[edit]
Portal:Watercraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-automated microportal with tiny article list.

This portals is one of about 40 which build use an embedded list, i.e. they have a list of topics in the portal page. In this case, the list is pathetically short, only 4 items:

All of those links are replicated in the first sentence of the lede of the head article Watercraft. It's simply daft to have a portal for only 4 links.

This microportal also includes an "in the news" section which is almost entirely about maritime issues in international relations, rather than about actual watercraft. It also has a DYK section which a bit more successful, but still haphazard.

I think that the intended purpose of this portal was to serve as a parent for six more specific portals (Boats, Fishing vessels, Merchant ships, Ships, Submarines and Warships). However, 3 of the 6 have already been deleted, and a further two are at MFD ... so there is almost nothing left to parent

The head article is poor, but it's still a vastly better navigational hub than this microportal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Shouldn't you construct/write your nomination before you nominate a page for deletion, and not after? It has been nearly two hours and it still states "nomination under construction. Please wait before commenting". MarkZusab (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I do write beforehand. But sometime this way is more convenient, and the delay is usually only minutes. I hope that the two-hour delay on this occasion has not hugely incovenienced you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:MarkZusab. Be assured that this page is followed by a large series of people, and that any attempt to deprive you of the benefits of the 'seven days rule' would be fought against with utmost energy. Therefore you have until 02:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC) to prepare and post a well constructed/written contribution. Be ensured, etc. Pldx1 (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not inconvenienced, but merely curious on why someone would create an MfD page before writing their nomination. I was under the impression that the nomination was generally written, and then the MfD page was created. I'm still not sure how doing the other way around can be more convenient, if anyone wants to elaborate. I'm also grateful of your commitment to the 'seven days rule', but I have no desire to argue about whether any portal on Wikipedia should be kept or deleted. MarkZusab (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A) don't comment on my votes as you continue to troll me B) X3 had better than 2:1 support after a month of discussion. The close was a clear !super-vote by User:GoldenRing who has wasted a massive amount of community time. They have also done absolutely nothing on the the cleanup so thank-you so much GoldenRing! C) WP:X3 has been implemented the very slow way via MfD given we have deleted every Portal they made that has been brought here. X3 is good shorthand for a now busted or will be auto busted with no notice portal. If a portal can be created with 14 characters and a title I'm entitled to vote with a few characters too. I've put thousands of edits into cleaning up this mess. Legacypac (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Legacypac - No, no, no. User:BrownHairedGirl is not trolling you, and if you insult those who are mostly on the same side as you are, you don't need enemies because you will make them needlessly. User:GoldenRing - Since you said that there was consensus that a better way could be found to delete the thousands of portals created by TTH, what is it? But BHG is not trolling LP, and is simply being precise and accurate, which is essential to getting this portal mess cleaned up. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any close stands until it is withdrawn or overturned. Editors may not agree with a close, but they are not entitled to pretend that it was closed differently to how as it was actually closed ... and per WP:MULTI, discussion should be centralised. Dragging a disagreement abut a closure around lots of other discussions is a clearly disruptive breach of WP:MULTI. Legacypac has edited for long enough to be well aware of all that, and should stop the WP:TE -- there was even an ANI thread about Legacypac's bogus invocations of X3, so they are well aware of why it is unacceptable. Legacypac is also well aware that a closer has no obligation to devise alternatives to a rejected proposal.
Meanwhile, the key point is that since Legacypac's !vote is based on a rejected proposal, the closer is obliged to discount it. If that's what Legacypac wants, so be it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 20 April 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:Watercraft&oldid=894176766"