Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Keep but tag as historical. There is consensus here that this proposal is rejected by the community. Xoloz 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals[edit]

As per the prerequisites presented in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Prerequisites this "proposed policy" page meets the requirements for deletion because it disrupts Wikipedia by interfering with Wikipedia's oldest operational procedure, that of spontaneous page creation. Spontaneous page creation without approval is a central element of the whole wiki-concept, and it should not be allowed to be changed without a Wikipedia-wide discussion and vote. The portal approval policy proposal was implemented as an operational procedure and instruction page after very little discussion, without concensus, and in the face of strong vocal opposition. It should be reintroduced as a proposed policy and should be required to reach a wide consensus prior to implementation. In the meantime, the portal approval process page should be deleted. Transhumanist 02:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMPERATIVE DELETE (or deactivate and tag {{historical}}) for the reasons stated above, and for the following reasons as well:

Requiring approval on page creation of any kind sets a BAD PRECEDENT. How long will it be before new articles must be preapproved? I created Portal:Thinking without going through any approval process, as a spur of the moment project, because I had a few hours to burn. I don't know if my enthusiasm nor time availability would still have been the same if I was forced to wait a week. Luckily, I didn't know about the approval process and so created the portal on the fly, but I was shocked when someone nominated the portal for deletion on the grounds that it was not preapproved, without a word about the quality of the portal itself. A page should stand or fall based on its own merits or lack thereof, not due to failure to observe some arbitrary bureaucratic procedure. The portal approval page absolutely goes against the central nature of Wikipedia, and is a prime example of creeping bureaucracy, also known as "hardening of the communication arteries."

One of the problems with preapproval is that it gives the opportunity to kill an idea even before that idea has been tested in practice. One of the nicest things about spontaneous page creation is that you actually get to see the page, which leaves no question about what the page is going to look and feel like -- it's right there before your eyes! A proposal or mere description of a page may not be able to capture the essense of the idea and its value like the real page would. A real page is its own best proposal, and all pages on Wikipedia must meet the approval of its readers or face deletion nomination. Preapproval mirrors the deletion process, doubles the administrative overhead for a page, and is a choke point that Wikipedia does not need.

Another advantage of spontaneous page creation is that it takes advantage of available editor resources much more efficiently. If a page is created and left incomplete, other editors interested in the topic may come along and pick up where the previous editor left off. The previous editor wasn't blocked from putting in some time and effort because he didn't commit to creating the entire thing to an approval committee's specifications. Pages should be allowed to come into existence and grow organically, which is the model which has allowed Wikipedia to grow so rapidly, and for me is one of the greatest incentives to participate. If I have to stand in line to create an article, you can bet I'll be spending my valuable free time on another website where I could actually make a difference. For now, Wikipedia is that website. Let's not dowse the creative spark.

If a page is killed even before it is created, this will happen in a tiny nook of Wikipedia which may not get a good cross-section of readers who may seek out and find a particular page as they would once it has actually been created. By requiring an AfD notice on a page, all persons who frequent the page or who are watching the page have the opportunity to speak out concerning the nomination. But if preapproval is required, then there are no readers, and no watchers, because the page being proposed hasn't gotten any exposure yet. The go button won't take you there, because it's not there yet, and it may never be there for the go button to work on it, because it can be killed in a back room of the wiki by a handful of people who may have no interest in the topic, or who have a bias against it. The readers of an article yet to be won't be available to decide the fate of the article, because an article that doesn't exist has no readers. Reader support can only happen if a page is allowed to acquire readers in the first place.
--Transhumanist 02:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. While acknowledging that the portal proposal process is broken, the problem that this process was created to help address remains: the proliferation of poorly/unmaintained portals. A portal requires continued maintenance to regularly update the featured articles/pictures, the news (if the portal has that), and other aspects of the portal. Discussion about new portals helps determine if there is sufficient good/featured content to keep the portal supplied with updates, and that the topic isn't redundant or overlapping too much with an existing portal. I think that some process is needed and suggest we keep this page. Though I'm open to other suggestions and ideas for dealing with the problem of unmaintained portals. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the portal proposal process isn't just broken, it is a crack in Wikipedia itself, and puts us one step closer to Wikipedia-wide preapproval. It kills spontaneity, and is deletion flipped upsidedown, where a page can get deleted even before it is created! A portal approval page provides no guarantee that a portal will continue to be maintained after it is created. And a process already exists for poorly designed or unmaintained portals: Miscellany for Deletion. What is needed is a portal maintenace fix-up project and/or task list entry in the corresponding sections of the Communtiy Portal, to focus ongoing attention upon the need for their maintenance. --Transhumanist 03:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging the page with {{historical}} works for me. The page needs to be kept, to keep record that this idea was tried. --Aude (talk contribs) 04:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag {{historical}}, as it was (however briefly and unsuccessfully) used. Next time, we should come up with something less likely to be used by a handful of people in an attempt to impose their own view of portal-space. Kirill Lokshin 04:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mend it, don't end it. Portals are not articles; they should only be created where it can be demonstrated that they will be brought up to a high quality and maintained there. bd2412 T 04:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Considering that the discussion on the page is (a) almost universally ignored and (b) usually degenerates into incivility, mudslinging, and pseudo-authoritarian nonsense, wouldn't it just be better to start from scratch? Kirill Lokshin 04:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Portals are articles, comprised mostly of lists, with some articles transcluded. I've found it is easier to construct a portal than it is to write a new article. The high quality/maintenance issue is a Wikipedia-wide concern which relates to all page-types, not just portals. We already have systems to deal with these issues, and for some reason they have not yet been applied to portals. Preapproval is simply the wrong way to go, and would be a nail in Wikipedia's coffin. I'm not ready to bury Wikipedia in bureaucratic nonsense, nor stifle its members' creativity with approval processes and waiting periods, and I sure hope most Wikipedians feel the same way. --Transhumanist 05:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediate Delete A waste of everyones time, and even if a portal is created and is unmaintained someone can always come along and update it like articles or if it was a silly idea all the pages from that portal nominated for detion. LC@RSDATA 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If someone wants to create a proposal, then let them create a proposal. But if they just want to create a portal, then let them do that too. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I did create a portal Portal:Thinking, and it got nominated for MfD because it didn't go through the proposal page's approval process. If the proposal page is kept active, it should be renamed to "advice" and made very clear that it is not a mandatory procedure. By the way, the MfD of Portal:Thinking is going on right now. --Transhumanist 14:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or deactivate and tag or rename Portal/Advice and use the energy and goodwill of those involved in constructive non-beaurocratic help, advice, encouragement and support for Portals. The current process, however well intentioned, is against the very wiki nature of Wikipedia. The peer-review process of Portal/Proposals is the very reason that Nupedia failed. It is the wiki nature of Wikipedia that has allowed it to flourish. SilkTork 08:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reject. Long-standing procedure is that all policy proposals and the like are archived. Agree with Kirill. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Portals are not articles. Slambo (Speak) 10:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they are pages. Pages on a wiki. Bureaucracy is anti-wiki, anti-creative, and anti-cool. Going through an approval process and waiting to create a page is just no fun. And that participating in Wikipedia is fun is one of its best features. We should keep the editing process, including page creation, as unencroached and as enjoyable as possible, to optimize the incentive to work on Wikipedia and to nurture the creativity of Wikipedians. --Transhumanist 14:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should look into other ways to increase the maintenance of portals, as the proposal page appears to censor portal subject coverage rather than provide maintenance. Reading its posts indicates that portal creation is being blocked based upon the theme chosen by the hopeful author of each portal. That's censorship! See Wikipedia is not censored.--Transhumanist 14:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious to read there was strong vocal opposition to the implementation of the proposal system. I advertised the proposal left right and centre, and I think only one negative voice showed up. Yes it needs more voices, but keep. I think the actions of one user in listing a portal for deletion for not going through the process do not necessitate this tit for tat listing. Were it not for my involvement in creating the procedure, I'd close this debate as WP:POINT and WP:DICK. Hiding Talk 15:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of which apply here for one specific reason: I intend to create more portals which I feel should not be subject to preapproval. I genuinely disagree with the portal approval page, and with the way it was implemented into policy without consensus. You just threw the instructions up without getting the policy approved first. --Transhumanist 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the first point, if that's how you feel you go ahead. If other people want to list them for mfd or merge them with other similar portals, that's up to them...and that path is where edit wars are born. Your second point bears no resemblance to the facts. Hiding Talk 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was advertised—and meant to be, as I understood it—a way to prevent poor-quality portals from being created. Instead, it's become a way for certain people to bludgeon portal creators if they dare to make a portal for something those people don't feel is "worthy" of one. Hence, the appearance of opposition. Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't disagree. But that is what makes this a WP:POINT. Something went wrong and needs fixing. But people stating they are going to ignore whatever people say and go ahead and do what they want anyway is just as worrying. Hiding Talk 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like a process to help minimize creation of poorly/unmaintained portals. To be effective, we need some policy (building on the Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines) that outlines basic requirements for a portal. The requirements should emphasize how often the portal needs to be updated, and much less emphasis on what a portal should have (this should be flexible and allow people to think outside the box). Maybe a portal proposal process would work better if people had to answer some basic questions (like RFA) that address how/who will maintain the portal (2) what features might the portal include (3) specifically list the good/featured quality articles relevant to the portal topic. WikiProject Kentucky has a portal outline/workspace where they are doing this. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that the Kentucky proposal has been sitting in limbo for a month despite its obviousness is part of the problem with this system, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good point. I'm less concerned with the "broadness" of a topic, and interested more in proposals demonstrating feasibility (enough articles/content to feature, demonstrated interest in working on the portal. Proposers should also be aware of existing, related portals and understand how the new portal would fit within the structure of existing portals (e.g. Kentucky would be a subportal of Portal:United States, with the other states listed as related portals). And, one would need to be a registered user to propose a portal (anons can't create pages). --Aude (talk contribs) 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - portals are a very different thing to articles. They represent mini-main pages for broad topic areas. If we want to avoid having thousands of never-read, unmaintained portals we need an approval mechanism. I do not think the nominator understands what censorship is - portal approval certainly isn't it. Worldtraveller 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've had this debate before, haven't we? Not everyone agrees with the interpretation of "broad topic areas" you're trying to apply here. Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well it's not like I get a veto. We discuss, we find out what the consensus is for each portal suggested. Worldtraveller 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at the page one can observe that after some discussion some portals have been found to be overlapping with other existing portals in the same area/subject (like Portal:Comedy with Portal:Humor). Also several narrow subject portals, that contain mainly fair use images, were rejected (like Portal:South Park and Portal:Twin Peaks). I think if portals were allowed to be created at will, then the MfD page would be having daily discussions on them. A week long discussion gives the nominator/maintainer time to see if the portal is viable and also get attention (and perhaps others to maintain it) to a perhaps neglected subject (see Portal:Poetry nom.). The Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals/Archive page also helps future nominators to see if a certain subject has been nominated earlier or why it was rejected. The nominator says: "It should be reintroduced as a proposed policy and should be required to reach a wide consensus prior to implementation" — I'd say the portal nomination process is not really broken and a MfD on the Thinking Portal doesn't make a case for this MfD, as there really is no policy for deleting portals that haven't gone through the portal proposals page (the nominators sole reason for deletion) - as did multiple users also note there.
The con side of the Proposals page surely is its stance against spontaneous page creation. Since Wikipedia Portals are a window for our visitors for a look into the wikipedia world, I'd say that the creation of possibly thousands of red-linked, empty, un-maintained portals on un-supportable subjects (and constantly sending them to MfD or waiting months until someone starts improving and maintaining them) is not Our goal. By having this short week-long proposal process we see what portals are good and which not. The nominator says:"But if preapproval is required, then there are no readers, and no watchers, because the page being proposed hasn't gotten any exposure yet. The go button won't take you there, because it's not there yet, and it may never be there for the go button to work on it, because it can be killed in a back room of the wiki by a handful of people who may have no interest in the topic, or who have a bias against it." Nothing forbids the nominating User to create a sample page to their subpage and as for the "back room of the wiki" comment - wikipedia is full of places where important decisions are done by a handful of people who may have no interest in the topic, so we cannot expect all (unbiased) wikipedians to participate in the Portal Proposal discussions either. Also pre-approval isn't a new thing, stubs and their categories go through similar process since 2005.
P.S. As an idea I'd start the talks on creating a policy on Portals. For example it could include something like a simple policy allowing portals only be created through the Portal Proposals page, but also having the newly created Portals, that haven't gone through it, be sent to either MfD or for evaluation on the Portal Proposal page. This way anyone can still create a page by spontaneous page creation OR do it with the support of the community (the Portal Proposal page).
My humble (and long) opinion, feydey 16:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, the original discussion about the creation of the portal proposal process did not reach consensus. Here is that discussion, which was buried in a talk page archive:

Proposals process
I've made a start to Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals in an attempt to set up a proposals process similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Help in developing this would be much appreciated as such a mechanism is so dearly needed to halt the multitude of pointless portals created each week.--cj | talk 04:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I rm the transclusion of this proposal to the main project page. This is inappropriate:
  • No consensus has formed behind the proposal; and
  • The main project page is purely informational and well-established (since 2005 February 5). The proposal is just that: a new proposal for a new policy. The two are incompatible.
I should like to be able to support the proposal but, like most new proposals, it will require much work. Meanwhile, transcluding in-formation policy to an existing policy page would be wrong enough; this operation represents an alteration in function as well (from informational to policy) akin to a cross-namespace operation. Whatever the merits of the proposal I must resist this on grounds that it sets a bad precedent: We do not wish to see new proposals shoehorned into the project under the guise of let's-try-this. John Reid 17:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
John, the precedent has already been set by various other trialled proposals, WP:PROD, the semi protection and the barring of anons from creating pages being examples I can think of off the top of my head. The transcluding happens enough as well, but if you're not happy with that I'll just copy the whole thing in, policy pages have had sections with proposed tags on them before. It's not a cross-name space transclusion, since the page transcluded is a sub-page of this page. So I've restored the transcluded section, which is in use, and I would point out I think it's poor form to remove something which is being used without discussing it first. Hiding talk 19:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Hiding, but I think it's very poor form to start using something without discussing it first. You'd rather use it right away and force others to be the bad guy. I've tried to talk this over with you but you'd rather just go straight ahead. Well, as I've said before: If I'm right and it's important, then sooner or later some other editor will come along and fix it; I don't need to participate in a transclusion revert war. But I'm sorry to say you have lost any possibility of my support. John Reid 02:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair play. Mind, it was discussed and no serious objections came forward. If it trials and people use it and it helps wikipedia, I don't see a problem. If it trials, people don't use it and it disrupts wikipedia, it ends trial. I'm forcing nothing. If you don't like it, state why, I'm more interested in the merits of the proposal than any other argument, and you haven't as yet addressed those. Hiding The wikipedian meme 07:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't use it, and it disrupted Wikipedia for me -- the portal I created got nominated for MfD (Miscellany for Deletion) because it didn't go through the approval process. But since you speedy saved Portal:Thinking from Miscellany for Deletion, on the grounds that process should never be placed above content, this raises the issue of the title of the Proposals page being incongruent with its purpose. Since it is starting to appear that going through the portal proposals page is entirely voluntary and optional, the implication that it is required should be removed from the page. That would simply be a matter of renaming the page, and illuminating the process in the lead section as an optional one. This would also make the page appear less draconian, and would more accurately present the page as a help desk for portal creation. Portal Help Desk, or "Portal Assistance", or "Portal Advice" would all remove the implication that "Portal Proposals" presents. --Transhumanist 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • <edit conflict> I don't agree with your conclusion. One mistake doesn't make the process flawed otherwise we may as well give up on Wikipedia, since we've had many mistakes here. I'm not convinced that the portal creation procedure should be voluntary, but I do accept concerns that it isn't working as it should be. As people have stated, the goal is to protect against poorly thought out portals. But yes, it appears this may well not be the answer. I spent a lot of time and effort trawling Portal space and cleaning up the messes people had left in there, and didn't want to wish that on anyone. This was my attempt at a solution, it has worked well with the stubs, but maybe John was right. People ignored the process of listing their portals before creating them, one mistake, and second mistake, when perfectly good portals were created through ignoring that process they were deemed to be unsuited on that basis. I don't think it is fair to blame this procedure, however, since you never went through it. The procedure wasn't at fault, just two users acting in what they thought were the Wikipedia's best interests. I was hoping to help avoid these sort of messes. However, in retrospect, maybe it was wasted effort. Hiding Talk 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The procedure has the appearance of being policy, and because of that someone tried to enforce it. --Transhumanist 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And because of that you wish it deleted. Fair play. Hiding Talk 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re-think what it means to be a portal. A portal is a polished interface created to make it easy to discover pertinent information you didn't know existed. Many also include catchy photos and news updates, and thus require some weekly attention. From my perspective, portals need more public awareness and attention. Why not allow instant creation and set the deletion criteria on whether the portal has been abandoned? Also, perhaps link boxes that link articles to their parent portal, such as Template:commonscat? GChriss 19:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abandonment is arbitrary if the portal still provides a good gateway to the subject. If it is abandonned perhaps the update-needing features should be removed, while the more stable elements remain in place. --Transhumanist 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abandonment might indicate a larger problem, something that worthwhile portals shouldn't have to worry about. Stable portals need attention too, such as occasional we-still-care edits. GChriss 20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found one example of a portal that was created and presented whole to the approval board, failed to be approved, but remained in place on Wikipedia nonetheless. So the proposal page wasn't getting enforced even though it appeared mandatory. I've looked over the portal and found it informative and entertaining, and that it provides a good gateway to the material on Wikipedia about the subject. It is Portal:Cannabis. --Transhumanist 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In large part, it's because the process got off on the wrong foot when it started trying to retroactively kill portals rather than merely approving new ones, and thus lost a lot of support among the people who actually do portal work. Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought all the prior portals felt sub-standard were brought here? Did I miss something? Hiding Talk 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The case I'm referring to is this one. Despite not actually effecting any change, it generated inordinate amounts of ill feeling on all sides of the issue. Kirill Lokshin 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Crikey, when did all the templates and official closing of debates come in? That was never part of the setup. I really took my eye off the ball there. They aren't discussing creations, they're discussing mergers and the like. Ack. Good grief. Ah well, it's a learning experience. Hiding Talk 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete and as for my cannabis portal, it survived the deletion pole and kept. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 23:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to amend my vote to Deprecate. It certainly isn't doing what it was set up to do, and if it is causing problems, so let's move it out. Let the portals get created, and if people have concerns, either merge them or fix them or bring them here. Hiding Talk 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather deal with them on the front end - we're beginning to develop a community of editors with experience in starting and running Portals, and the project would benefit from their being aware of new Portals being proposed or getting underway. We simply can not have 'stub' Portals, nor those on narrow topics with few articles, which are ill-suited to a mechanism intended to tie together broad swaths of well-developed information. Absent approval, nothing prevents a user from creating a Portal:Real Personal Trooper Type-2, Portal:Council of the Republic of Belarus, Portal:Pandeism or Portal:Biamax, none of which reasonably require portal coverage. Furthermore, we see creations such as Portal:Humour, which may be legitimate Portal topics, but get no participation and lay stagnant, half-made for months on end. The proposal process helps to determine whether a sufficient community of interest exists to finish the portal, keep it updated, add in fresh content, etc. Let's keep it and lay down some rules regarding the time it takes (I suggest five days) and the consensus required (as it should not be a supermajority thing) to get a Portal approved and off the ground. bd2412 T 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think either the time or the consensus required are the issue so much as the general unpleasantness of the discussion. So long as the manner of discourse tends towards the insulting ("This is stupid and cult like. NOT wikiPortal material. WikiPortals are NOT fan sites.", to pick one comment on a recent proposal), the "community of editors with experience in starting and running Portals" is going to avoid that page like the plague. Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Same could be said about AfD and RfA, on occasion. We need to lift the debate, not squelch it. bd2412 T 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, but AFD and RFA are both established processes. "Oh boy, let's create a new place for otherwise productive editors to sling mud at each other!" isn't really a very inviting proposal ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "let's create a new place for experienced and knowledgeable editors to keep this organizational superstructure from falling into redundancy and disrepair"? Look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for an example, good editors making good articles into the best articles, exactly what we need for Portals in my view. bd2412 T 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    Sort of like Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates, right? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but all Portals should be at or near featured status, as they are intended to be front doors into entire subject areas of substantial interest. bd2412 T 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    Come on bd2412, if we put our heads together, we can come up with something better. Let's get rid of this page and create a new one that will approach the problem in a more constructive way. The Portal Help Desk, the Portal Workshop, better guidelines, a Portal Maintenance Fix Up Project listed on the Community portal. An Portal section to the bot-maintained task list on the Community Portal. There are many alternatives we could try. Also, if a portal is in really sad shape, the fastest remedy is to delink it - that is, remove it from Portal:Browse and from wherever it is linked to from. Then only the people who specifically search for it will get there. Most people have their search set for main namespace only, and not portals, so they'll probably never find it once it is delinked. The only likely persons to find it would be those who are checking up on it, or those who try to create a new one of the same name. --Transhumanist 09:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of it. I can't keep track of all the ways people have proposed to get rid of this policy, but the essentials are that this should not be policy. I don't care if it is tagged historical or what, but I feel this policy is poorly advertised, poorly understood, and a venue for people to argue their own ideas about what portals should be. Everything else in Wikipedia can be created on a whim; people assume the same is true for Portals, and it should be. --Ideogram 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who had an idea (now at Wikipedia:Presenting_Wikipedia) for a portal shot down / renamed by the process, I should say : there's nothing wrong with having this page, for advice (which is mainly what I was asking for, and didn't get much of)... but should not be a prerequisite, and not passing through this process shouldn't be grounds for deletion here on MfD. +sj + 19:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete Before I saw this, I didn't even know there was a portal aproval process. After seeing some portal approval discussions, I am now amazed at how stupid they are. First of all, most portals are created without approval since no one even knows the aproval process exsists. Secondly the whole discussion system is based on 3 or 4 admins who dominate the entire thing. In almost every discussion that was not approved, it was because the same 3 or 4 admins shot it down because they thought the topic was too narrow. I thought that many of those topics were certainly broad enough. The decision of whats allowed and whats not shouldn't be an oligarchy of admins who desguise their rulings as a proper discussion, especialy since they tend to have a narrow view of "what is broad enough". Also, Wikipedia currently has a huge lack of portals. Having limits on portal creation only exzacerbates the problem. Lastly, how can we vote to delete a page before it's even made? No one has even seen it yet, and we vote to delete it, before even seeing the pages potential. This is a stupid, page that makes no logical sense, which no one knows about. Very Stong Agreement with Transhumansit on all points and Very Strong Delete! Tobyk777 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to shout with the bolding, and try and avoid using inflammatory language, please. It's quite impossible for 4 people to determine anything in a concensus based process - no-one has ever prevented anyone from having a say. By the look of it we have widely differing understandings of what portals are for, and a process like this allows us to discuss the matter and reach a consensus. How can that be a bad thing? Worldtraveller 00:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not shouting with bolding, i'm highlighting my most important statment. It can be a bad thing since no one knows about it, and since many portals circumvent it. If you want to make a portal, just as if you want to make an article, you should be bold and make it. You should not ask permission, and then get denied by someone who thinks your idea is bad. It underminds the whole spirit of wikipedia. Perhaps a system where portal makers can ask for assitence would be good. However a system where they are told they can not contribute discurages editors from helping wikipedia. The great thing here is that anyone can help contribute on anything. If they have to ask permission, the growth rate, and development of wikipedia will severly diminish. That's why it is a bad thing. Now as you said, if someone has a widely diffrent understanding on what a portal should be used for, the should modify it or disuss it, not deny it's existence. Tobyk777 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Worldtraveller, you've just ignored everything Tobyk said. To paraphrase Tobyk, the so-called consensus reached is the defacto agenda of a handful of self-selected judges. Any small group is bound to have a skewed view of what passes muster, which wouldn't be so bad if the members of the group were randomized every time. But when the panel of judges is a small group that has chosen the portal page as their hang out, their skew becomes the defacto standard applied to all of the portal namespace! And in my opinion, it's better to just let the portals sprout up on Wikipedia where the general public can find them, and then everyone who comes across a particular portal has a say in whether it passes muster and how it should evolve. If you build it, they will come. --Transhumanist 04:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree on all acounts Tobyk777 05:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The thing is that the general public cannot find portals like they find articles, for example Portal:Thinking - if one would search "Thinking" the results do not display it, also since no other relating portals have references to it, the general public (also wikipedians) are unable to find it via other portals. The only way the gen. pub. finds it is to type exactly "Portal:Thinking" into the search field and press Go. feydey 09:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag as historical per above comments; I disagree with having an approval process, even if it was only for portals. After all, this is Wikipedia and not Nupedia.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find humor in having to delete a page which tries to control page creation. Extending the logic behind the page itself, it should never have been created without preapproval on another page. Saying it applies only to Portal pages is a blind; this kind of bureaucracy always creeps to cover larger and larger areas. Calling its abrupt insertion into a process page "trialling" is nothing but inventing a cute word to cover self-will run riot.
At the time I first saw this page, I rm it from its pretense to policy -- its transclusion onto the main Portal project page. I'd have been content to see the page rust in situ so long as it held no potential for harm. It was immediately re-transcluded. My rule is don't be a dick and I don't engage in revert wars, so I let it stand -- reluctantly.
Now, I have to say my comment is first to delete it entirely; second to deprecate and protect with loud, annoying colored box.
I have more to say on the subject but since my further comments are of a more general nature, I'm putting them in the form of an essay. John Reid 23:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to thank John for respecting the consensus that existed within the discussions behind creating this, and for avoiding comments of an "I told you so" nature. Thankfully, on Wikipedia few things are binding, and if that, in retrospect limited consenus is trumped here, that's the wiki way; but a note to the closing admin: As John states in his essay, XFD discussions are for implementing policy; therefore this page should be tagged {{rejected}} or {{historical}} rather than deleted. That's what we do with proposals, guidelines and policy. I take John's point about the creeping of bureaucracy, this was after all, an attempt to extend existing systems from the barnstar and stub areas of Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 12:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tag {{rejected}} because we don't delete any attempt to create policy unless it's in bad faith. --ais523 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, tag {{rejected}} Noisy | Talk 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It saddens me that a process that was established with good intentions has deteriorated so severely in my absence, though I must accept some responsibility for this circumstance (and must admit the downfall began before my Wikibreak). However, it is inappropriate to use MFD to opine on the matter. The deletion processes are not used to shoot or hail pages such as this. Moreover, I feel that the nomination is contrary to WP:POINT.--cj | talk 06:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I think this page is very important —M inun Spiderman 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deactivate and tag {{historical}}) Record the fact of its presence but leave no impression that one must abide by it. --Ancheta Wis 22:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but immasculate it At wikiproject architecture we received a recent suggestion to create a new wikiproject called Urban Studies and planning. I was keen to do this because in my view, architecture on wikipedia is currently an enormously wide umbrella covering matters from engineering to town planning to environmental design. With the new wikiproject created and, at the time, 3 people signed up to it the natural suggestion arose to create a Portal. We went through the process, examined our subject for FA's and Good articles and discovered we didn't really have enough good material to showcase. Assuming that this is what portals are for (becuase presumably wikiprojects are for improving subject categories) the process was useful in checking us and making us think a bit before we committed time and effort in creating a portal (which we'd have to maintain) that would ultimately have little of quality to show. I think the portal proposal page should stay, but in very big pink neon flashing writing across the top should be a clear note explaining that the process is not mandatory but is there to help improve the content and organisation of portals. On another matter, if Portals don't require approval, why do stubs? --Mcginnly 10:16, 19 July 2006 (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/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals&oldid=1145634853"