– Hola a todos. Como esta discusión se ha vuelto tan extensa (más de 400.000 bytes), la he movido a una subpágina de la bomba del pueblo para que sea más accesible. Pido disculpas si esto ha causado alguna confusión. Mz7 ( discusión ) 01:54 18 abr 2018 (UTC)[ responder ]
(El RFC comenzó originalmente con: esta entrada en WP:PROPS -- Ｔｏｍ ( discusión ) 16:03, 20 de abril de 2018 (UTC) )[ responder ]
RfC: Poner fin al sistema de portales
La siguiente discusión es un registro archivado de una solicitud de comentarios . No la modifique. No se deben realizar más modificaciones a esta discusión. A continuación se incluye un resumen de las conclusiones a las que se llegó.
Existe un fuerte consenso en contra de eliminar o incluso desestimar portales en este momento.— CYBERPOWER ( Chat ) 23:43, 12 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Se debería poner fin al sistema de portales ? Esto incluiría la eliminación de todas las páginas del portal y la eliminación del espacio de nombres del portal. 14:23, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC)
Encuesta: Fin del sistema de portales
8 de abril de 2018
Español: Apoyo Echando un vistazo a un ejemplo de Portal:Cricket : contiene un resumen de la dirección de Cricket , que está desactualizado (ahora hay doce miembros de pleno derecho); artículos oscuros al azar que son simplemente algo que alguien se tomó el esfuerzo de hacer bien - como el asunto de la capitanía de Yorkshire de 1927 ; noticias desactualizadas, aniversarios aleatorios y otras cosas aleatorias por el estilo. Los lectores no buscan cosas aleatorias relacionadas con el cricket - está claro, por las visitas a la página extremadamente bajas, que a los lectores no les importan los portales. Los portales más vistos son puramente por aparecer en la página principal; pero, por ejemplo, Portal:Science obtiene solo 8 de cada 100000 visitas a la página principal, unos pocos cientos de personas al día, y es probable que sean de clics aleatorios, no de personas interesadas; lo que probablemente explicaría también la mayoría de las visitas a otros portales. Ha habido sugerencias de sistemas automatizados para ayudar a desarrollar portales, que incluso si se desarrollaran no ayudarían, porque los portales no son útiles de ninguna manera. Personalmente, nunca he sentido el deseo de leer, digamos, un artículo científico al azar, que es en lo que consisten los portales (la mayoría de los portales, de hecho, tienen contenido seleccionado literalmente al azar de una lista).
En esencia, los portales intentan abarcar tanto lo que está al alcance del lector como lo que está al alcance del editor, pero son terribles en ambas cosas. En realidad no son parte de la enciclopedia; ni ayudan en el backend; no benefician a la enciclopedia de ninguna manera (la página principal, que podría llamarse un portal de todo, en contraste, alienta a la gente a mejorar los artículos). Cualquier propósito de navegación, con el que no creo que los portales ayuden en absoluto, se cumple mejor a través de esquemas. Los artículos destacados y otras cosas en un tema son más atendidos por los wikiproyectos, que generalmente ya los enlazan. La implementación podría hacerse con bastante facilidad, ya que casi todos, creo, los enlaces del portal en el espacio principal y en todas las páginas se hacen a través de plantillas como {{ portal }} (en todas las páginas, estimo que el 99% de los enlaces provienen de enlaces en banners de wikiproyectos), que se pueden borrar para eliminar los enlaces; una vez que los enlaces desaparecen del espacio principal, las páginas del portal se pueden eliminar. Galobtter ( pingó mió ) 14:29, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
@ Galobtter : Tomas un ejemplo para eliminar un espacio de nombres completo, algunos portales funcionan y no hay necesidad de eliminar el trabajo de cientos de personas. -- Sinuhe20 ( discusión ) 07:55, 15 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo , en los viejos tiempos, engañado por la publicidad, incluso creé Portal:Lituania . Estoy de acuerdo en que los portales no reciben mantenimiento y deberían desactivarse. Puede que haya uno o dos portales que tengan cosas útiles que valga la pena rescatar, pero el 99% de los 1500 portales deberían eliminarse. Como mínimo, el {{ Portal }} de los artículos debería eliminarse. Renata ( discusión ) 16:01 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte , nunca entendí para qué servían los portales. Siempre me parecieron una idea completamente obsoleta, y los que vi casi siempre estaban mal mantenidos, eran imanes para la edición en primera persona o eran completamente inútiles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo hablando por mí mismo. Solo he realizado una edición del portal (una reversión) y desde entonces, hace 9 años, no he tenido ganas de editar ninguna más. No parecen tener ningún beneficio neto para el lado enciclopédico de las cosas y casi nadie parece mantenerlas o mirarlas, así que no me importa que las hayan eliminado. Aiken D 16:11, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo , según varios comentarios anteriores, pero en particular el de FPaS. - Sitush ( discusión ) 16:27 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Nunca ha habido suficiente interés de lectores o editores para mantener los portales. Yo estaría abierto a algún día presentar portales de próxima generación que, sin ninguna intervención humana, presenten el contenido de Wikimedia en una categoría de una manera legible para humanos, tal vez clasificados por importancia y calidad del artículo. No quisiera que nuevos editores vieran el sistema del portal y usaran su trabajo para desarrollar este contenido cuando es un proyecto fallido. Los portales son una carga por permanecer obsoletos y abandonados. No quisiera que ningún lector encuentre aquí contenido de baja calidad. Si se cierran los portales, creo que debería suceder en un cronograma de aproximadamente 1 año para darle tiempo a todos a recopilar la información que contienen para su reintegración, si hay algo que salvar. Creo que, por lo general, no habrá nada que salvar, pero al mismo tiempo, el proyecto del portal reclutó miles de horas de editores y no quisiera que eso se desestimara a la ligera y sin tiempo para que la gente respondiera. El plan de cierre podría ser de 3 meses de comentarios, luego 3 meses de eliminación de enlaces que apuntan a portales, 3 meses para sacar los portales del portal: espacio con etiquetas "obsoletas", luego a los 12 meses realmente eliminarlas o marcarlas para que no aparezcan en los motores de búsqueda. Blue Rasberry (discusión) 16:45 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente : muchas personas, incluido yo mismo, han invertido muchas horas en mejorar y mantener los portales. Son útiles para navegar. Propongo que se mantengan todos los portales que se crearon. -- Broter ( discusión ) 17:15 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Este es un ejemplo de la falacia del costo hundido . Entiendo que muchas personas han hecho un esfuerzo admirable para mantener el sistema del portal en funcionamiento, pero esto no invalida el razonamiento bien pensado para que se vuelvan obsoletos. Muchos otros elementos de Wikipedia han quedado desvalorizados a pesar del arduo trabajo que los usuarios dedican a ellos. Usuario:Axisixa [t] [c] 23:23, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Veo este comentario de un editor preocupado, que apoya sus ediciones... Es degradante por reducción decir "este es un ejemplo de falacia"... cuando es su punto de vista legítimo y su trabajo voluntario. Una falacia lógica no es adecuada para responder aquí, en mi opinión. — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por 2600:1702:2770:9D0:C4A:68DE:2888:598F (discusión) 18:20 22 abr 2018 (UTC)[ responder ]
Sí, es un poco estúpido etiquetar fríamente la preocupación legítima y no maliciosa de alguien como una falacia... 71.15.110.98 ( discusión ) 01:10 27 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte El primer elemento en la parte superior derecha de la página principal está ocupado por Portal:Arts, que no ha sido actualizado seriamente en años. Se supone que es un portal destacado. Está "respaldado" por un proyecto cuya página no ha tenido actividad desde 2016. Es vergonzoso. Vexations ( discusión ) 17:24 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, lo que resulta realmente vergonzoso es que algunos editores que votaron a favor de la eliminación no aprecian que el contenido del Portal se suele crear a través de otras plantillas, que se actualizan en cantidades variables. El portal que forma la página principal de Wikipedia no ha sido editado en absoluto este año todavía. Nick Moyes ( discusión ) 13:33 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad, Portal:Arts , que no había visitado durante años, todavía parece funcionar bien. Las secciones tienen una rotación automática de listas decentes de artículos, los aniversarios son para abril. Es como una de esas naves espaciales de Alien y otras películas que siguen en movimiento mientras la tripulación está en animación suspendida... No es un área muy sensible al tiempo, y el lector sigue estando bien servido, en mi opinión, para varias visitas. Johnbod ( discusión ) 16:16 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte a pesar de agregar estas cosas durante años y crear muchas ver aquí ... está claro que estas han fallado y no cumplen su función como está previsto. -- Moxy ( discusión ) 17:36 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Están desactualizados y su actualización quita tiempo valioso que podría emplearse en la elaboración de artículos de "esquema". Estos son mucho mejores y evitan el contenido duplicado y desactualizado en los portales. Considero que la mayoría de las personas tampoco utilizan portales, sino que utilizan la función de búsqueda o los propios artículos principales que pueden actuar como portales. Por ejemplo, si quisiera saber sobre economía, iría al artículo de Economía en lugar del desactualizado Portal:Economía – Craig Davison ( discusión ) 17:40, 8 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte En gran parte sin uso y sin mantenimiento. Una idea obsoleta que la comunidad claramente no quiere seguir apoyando. Beeblebrox ( discusión ) 18:04 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyar Eliminar mínimamente el spam interno de cada artículo dirigiendo al lector a los portales relacionados. -- RAN ( discusión ) 18:11 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo condicional - Apoyar el fin del sistema de portales tal como lo entendemos actualmente; oponerse a la eliminación de los portales por defecto - Hace poco tuve una conversación sobre portales con un grupo de personas que estaban aprendiendo a contribuir. Un par de ellos se toparon con los portales y les encantó la idea. Efectivamente, cuando miré los portales particulares que mencionaron, no habían sido actualizados en años. ( Portal: Speculative fiction fue uno de ellos que recuerdo de pasada). Hablando un poco más sobre lo que les gustaba de los portales, tres cosas se destacaron: (1) tiene mucho contenido relacionado reunido para un tema en particular, (2) fue útil para encontrar artículos en los que trabajar y tener una mejor idea del estado de la cobertura de Wikipedia de ese tema, y (3) fue mucho más atractivo/atrayente/útil visualmente que una página de WikiProject. En otras palabras, los portales les sirvieron principalmente como editores , no como lectores , y esa no es la forma en que actualmente entendemos/usamos los portales. Por esa razón, estoy apoyando. Sin embargo, es un apoyo parcial porque me opongo a la eliminación de los portales por defecto: deberían ser trasladados a subpáginas relevantes de WikiProject por defecto, y MfDed selectivamente donde WikiProject no desee conservarlos. Me encantaría ver el sistema de portales replanteado como una forma de hacer que WikiProjects sea más atractivo para los nuevos editores (o cualquier editor), tal vez incluso pensando en usar la página principal de WikiProject como una especie de portal a un tema. Por supuesto, nada de esto quiere decir que el resultado de esta RfC deba obligar de alguna manera a cualquier WikiProject a hacer algo diferente.Las rododendritas hablan\\ 18:10, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si se eliminan todos los portales, sería bueno que se notificara a los Wikiproyectos con un mensaje como "Atención: los siguientes portales están a punto de desaparecer. Siéntete libre de moverlos a subpáginas de tu Wikiproyecto antes de que eso suceda". -- Guy Macon ( discusión ) 18:21 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Guy Macon : Lo siento, pero eso no es muy lógico. Los portales deberían estar etiquetados con {{ historical }} para preservar el historial de sus páginas. ToThAc ( discusión ) 18:08 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué parte de " Si se eliminan todos los portales" no entiendes? -- Guy Macon ( discusión ) 21:45 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte obsoleto con respecto a los artículos principales en su tema. No los elimine, sino que márquelos como históricos, bloquéelos (protección total) y fuerce la desvinculación de los espacios de nombres de contenido. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:15, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo : los esfuerzos deben dirigirse a otras áreas, donde sean más útiles. Tazerdadog ( discusión ) 18:16 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte – pero mover páginas del portal a Wikipedia/espacio de usuario automáticamente o a pedido. Saludos, Kevin ( alias L235 · t · c ) 18:22, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo fuerte : considero que los portales son casi totalmente inútiles. Eliminar como tal. Beyond My Ken ( discusión ) 18:24 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Dado que aquí hay gente que aparentemente no tiene ni una pizca de sentido común, supongo que debería ser explícito en cuanto a que eximiría el portal de Actualidad y, por mucho que me guste desdeñar la Página principal, también eximiría la Página principal . Dios mío, a veces la gente puede ser tan condenadamente literal. Beyond My Ken ( discusión ) 02:47 18 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición : nunca he editado el espacio de nombres Portal y encuentro que muchos de los ejemplos vinculados son profundamente inútiles. Sin embargo, no creo que eliminar características no dañinas beneficie al proyecto. Con una propuesta clara de migrar algunas de ellas para que formen parte de las páginas de WikiProject, sería neutral con respecto a esta propuesta. Sin una propuesta de este tipo, debo oponerme. power~enwiki ( π , ν ) 18:30, 8 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
[EC] Creo que eliminar funciones que no son dañinas pero que son inútiles beneficia al proyecto. Mientras revisaba los portales de tecnología, me encontré con una crítica furtiva desde el punto de vista de Al Gore que se publicó allí cuando se postulaba para presidente. Debido a que los editores casi nunca los leen, pero algunos usuarios sí, los portales son un excelente lugar para ocultar spam, violaciones de BLP, etc. -- Guy Macon ( discusión ) 18:36, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué sucedería si el Portal A se redirigiera al Esquema de A? Este era el nombre de la función que aún dirige a los lectores a una descripción general/índice de un tema. -- Moxy ( discusión ) 18:33 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No hay problema con eso si [1] el Esquema de A existe y no está abandonado y [2] el Portal A está viendo más tráfico del que esperaríamos de bots y clics erróneos. -- Guy Macon ( discusión ) 22:40 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición - Puede que sea necesaria una reforma (algo que me encantaría discutir más adelante si esta discusión cambia y no se aprueba), pero no creo que la abolición sea el camino a seguir. — Godsy ( CONVERSACIÓN ) 18:43, 8 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me interesaría saber cómo reformaríamos una zona que está más o menos abandonada. La comunidad y los lectores parecen haber dejado claro que no les parecen especialmente útiles, no podemos obligar a nadie a mirarlas o a mantenerlas. Beeblebrox ( discusión ) 23:59 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Armas. Necesitamos escuadrones de matones fuertemente armados que derriben las puertas de los editores de Wikipedia que no estén trabajando en lo que queremos que trabajen y les apunten con una pistola a la cabeza hasta que cumplan. ¿No es una solución práctica, dices? ¿Cómo explicas la inmensa popularidad mundial de sistemas similares ? :( -- Guy Macon ( discusión ) 22:46 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo — Para temas polémicos con puntos de vista políticos fuertes, puede ser un verdadero problema mantener un equilibrio político. Tomemos como ejemplo Portal:Genocidio; un nombre de portal mucho mejor es Portal:Derechos humanos, pero los guerreros del punto de vista prefieren etiquetar los "crímenes contra la humanidad" como genocidio por varias razones que incluyen el estilo (un nombre más corto y contundente), el juego de culpas y el legalismo (el genocidio así se define por tratado, los crímenes contra la humanidad están en parte definidos por la costumbre). Dados los problemas de visión y mantenimiento, es demasiado fácil para los temas polémicos en los portales evitar el tipo de escrutinio que reciben los artículos principales sobre un tema; véase por ejemplo Portal:Terrorismo, que sufre de los males a los que se refiere Galobtter . -- PBS ( discusión ) 19:38, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte condicional Borrarlos directamente no está bien. En general, estoy de acuerdo en que los portales están mal mantenidos y no se usan a menudo. Sin embargo, algunos están bien mantenidos, son útiles para algunos y los editores trabajaron muy duro en ellos. Deberían ser modificados para usuarios o moverse como una subpágina de un WikiProject. Como mínimo, cada WikiProject necesita ser notificado de que su portal relacionado está condenado y dejar que ellos decidan qué hacer con él. Por favor, no los borren todos a ciegas. — MusikAnimal talk 19:39, 8 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : Siempre he pensado que los portales son redundantes e incluso confusos en ocasiones. Suelen parecer archivos históricos debido a la información obsoleta, y algunos tienen información que data de hace más de una década. Además, suelen duplicar las páginas de WikiProjects, que son más dinámicas y están mejor mantenidas. Soy neutral en cuanto a eliminar, fusionar, mover o lo que sea, pero creo que es hora de que los "portales" desaparezcan. – Ammarpad ( discusión ) 19:51, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los portales de soporte rara vez se usan o se mantienen, y no encajan con la interfaz ni con la forma en que la mayoría de los lectores/editores navegan. Los lectores quieren hacer clic directamente para acceder al contenido. Los artículos de esquema y los enlaces dentro de artículos estándar ofrecen esto y hacen que los portales queden obsoletos. Cesdeva ( discusión ) 20:06, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Son en gran medida inútiles y no están bien mantenidos. Natureium ( discusión ) 20:14 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : son redundantes con otros medios de navegación, en su mayoría mal mantenidos y en algunas áreas brindan una visión de la estructura del tema subyacente que no es neutral y, por la naturaleza de los portales, no tiene fuentes. Peter coxhead ( discusión ) 20:27 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo porque normalmente son poco vistos y son un imán para la promoción de puntos de vista y la locura. Tuve un momento terrible con un portal sobre ISIL porque no había una buena manera de evitar que se convirtiera en publicidad casi terrorista. Finalmente logré redirigirlo. La única razón por la que los portales seleccionados obtienen un tráfico significativo es porque están vinculados de manera prominente. NUNCA Google me ha dirigido a un portal de Wikipedia y debes hacer clic en un cuadro de búsqueda para encontrar portales en la búsqueda interna. Los portales son cosa de hace 15 años, Internet avanzó hace mucho tiempo. Legacypac ( discusión ) 20:40, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : Mal mantenido, rara vez útil, pocas visitas excepto los ocho portales en la página principal , no vale la pena utilizar recursos del editor. "Información de la página" en "Herramientas" muestra las visitas a la página en los últimos 30 días. Comparé algunos portales aleatorios con su artículo principal, por ejemplo Portal:Los Simpsons 527 visitas versus Los Simpsons 235,536 visitas. La página principal del portal obtiene el 0.2% de las visitas de un solo artículo cubierto. Mis otros ejemplos: Portal:Cricket 1.527/185.133 = 0,8%, Portal:Tennis = 943/64.213 = 1,5%, Portal:Cars 2.213/91.460 = 2,4%, Portal:Greece 963/223.193 = 0,4%, Portal:Dance, 1.421/60.807 = 2,3%, Portal:King Arthur 373/166.466 = 0,2%, Portal:Microsoft 2.646/230.201 = 1,1%. PrimeHunter ( discusión ) 21:18 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyamos su desuso. Son totalmente inútiles y, como muchas ideas sin futuro de los primeros tiempos, se convierten cada vez más en una carga de mantenimiento a medida que pasa el tiempo. A continuación, eliminemos las barras laterales, los esquemas y las bibliografías.
Sin embargo, no creo que la eliminación masiva vaya a funcionar (raramente lo hace). En lugar de eso, sugeriría actualizar las pautas relevantes para indicar que están obsoletas y luego introducir un criterio de eliminación rápida en la línea de "páginas en el espacio de nombres del portal que ya no se mantienen activamente". – Joe ( discusión ) 21:37, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es muy difícil conseguir la aprobación de un nuevo CSD, pero con un resultado claro de RFC sería un buen mecanismo para eliminarlos sistemáticamente. ¿Quizás X3? Deberíamos empezar eliminándolos de la parte superior de la página principal, el espacio más importante para el espacio de nombres menos importante del proyecto. Eso reducirá mucho el tráfico en los portales. Legacypac ( discusión ) 21:44, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte - Por más triste que sea, parece que ya nadie se preocupa por los portales. Ayudé a que P:MDRD alcanzara el estado de Portal destacado (un proceso que se ha cerrado debido a la inactividad) y también mantuve P:USRD todos los meses durante los últimos años. Si bien valoro el tiempo que dedico a mantener los portales actualizados todos los meses, desafortunadamente no hay muchos otros editores que se preocupen lo suficiente como para contribuir con ellos. Hace varios años, muchos editores contribuían con P:USRD y ofrecían sugerencias para artículos seleccionados, imágenes y ganchos ¿Sabías que?, lo que hacía que el portal fuera fácil de actualizar todos los meses. En los últimos años, hay muy pocas sugerencias de contenido, lo que generalmente me lleva a tener que buscar cosas todos los meses. Tal vez podríamos reducir el mantenimiento de los portales y hacer que simplemente generen contenido al azar y cambien cada vez que se actualicen; P:MDRD hace esto para imágenes seleccionadas y ganchos ¿Sabías que?. Si a nadie le importa lo suficiente como para mantener los portales actualizados, entonces tal vez sea hora de deshacerse de ellos. Sin embargo, no quisiera eliminar todo el espacio de nombres del portal, sino que preferiría marcar todas las páginas del espacio de nombres del portal como históricas y eliminar los enlaces a ellas desde el espacio de artículos. Al hacer esto, podríamos seguir manteniendo la atribución del historial del espacio de nombres del portal en lugar de eliminar una gran parte del historial de Wikipedia. Dough 4872 21:41, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo a lo anterior. En gran medida inútil, con dudoso valor para los lectores. - F ASTILY 21:45, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo condicional Considero que los portales resultan en tiempo de mantenimiento adicional que probablemente se podría invertir mejor en otras partes del proyecto. Sin embargo, a los editores interesados se les debe dar la oportunidad de migrar el contenido a otra parte, y los portales no deberían eliminarse directamente de inmediato. -- Rs chen 7754 22:39, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No hay ninguna razón de peso para oponerse a ello y sería más complicado de implementar que de valor. El espacio de nombres del portal no es tan útil, pero considero que esta propuesta es más o menos igual de útil que el espacio de nombres en su conjunto (es decir, no mucho...). Cuando las dos opciones son iguales, no hay razón para cambiar. Cambiar por cambiar no tiene sentido. TonyBallioni ( discusión ) 22:42 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Alternativa : ¿Por qué no alentamos a los editores a que desvinculen los portales que no reciben mantenimiento cuando los encuentren? Entonces, si a alguien le importa, eso lo incitará a realizar algún mantenimiento. Dicklyon ( discusión ) 22:57 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Porque los editores bien intencionados pero no informados los revertirán y seguirán agregando enlaces al portal sin darse cuenta del perjuicio que están haciendo. Legacypac ( discusión ) 00:07 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo No hay razón para permitir que esta parte en gran medida inútil de la enciclopedia continúe existiendo y solo genere problemas para los lectores y editores. Dicho esto, estaría abierto a migrar parte del contenido a las páginas del wikiproyecto (caso por caso) si los editores encuentran una necesidad. — Spaceman Spiff 23:34, 8 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los portales de soporte están obsoletos, incluso el que ayudé a crear y traté de mantener durante bastante tiempo se ha convertido en un montón de cosas arbitrarias, irrelevantes y mohosas. Roger (Dodger67) ( discusión ) 23:52 8 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente : los portales son una forma útil para que las personas encuentren información rápidamente y no deberían usarse. IQ125 ( discusión ) 12:30 8 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
9 de abril de 2018
Lamentablemente , no son una parte bien mantenida de la enciclopedia y las actualizaciones de la mayoría de los portales se realizan con muy poca frecuencia. La gran mayoría de las visitas a las páginas son a los artículos principales, como se describió anteriormente, y los portales son una ocurrencia posterior. El proceso de portales destacados se eliminó recientemente por una razón similar. Sin embargo, creo que estos portales deberían archivarse, ya sea como páginas de proyecto de Wikipedia o en algún otro formato. epicgenius ( discusión ) 01:58, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse Aunque definitivamente están obsoletos, no me gusta tener que deshacerme de una parte de nuestra historia. De todos modos, el espacio de nombres generalmente no es visto ni utilizado por el público. Sugiero que usemos Template:Historical en su lugar. Cree un trabajo de bot para colocarlo en todas las páginas "Portal:" y, si así lo desea, también en todas las páginas "Portal talk:". — Gestrid ( discusión ) 02:01, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte - Wikipedia está perdiendo editores, por lo que no tiene sentido dedicar esfuerzos a una parte de la enciclopedia que apenas se utiliza y cuya función ya se cumple mejor en otras páginas. Usuario:Axisixa [t] [c] 02:15, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
EspañolApoya , pero no elimines ninguna página relevante (simplemente márcala como histórica) - Los portales han dejado de ser útiles. Fueron una gran idea en el pasado, pero a medida que Wikipedia e Internet han evolucionado, se han vuelto moribundos. Es cierto que muchos han sido el resultado de un trabajo duro, pero tal vez esa energía podría dedicarse mejor a nuestros propios artículos. Se ha sugerido que los portales podrían ser más activos si en cambio fueran operados por bots, pero eso no resolvería el otro problema principal (que nadie los usa). Dicho esto, estoy en contra de la eliminación masiva de portales ya que tenían algún valor histórico: en cambio, podrían simplemente marcarse como históricos. En cuanto a los portales de la página principal, simplemente podrían trasladarse al espacio de nombres de Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 03:18, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo la eliminación según lo mencionado anteriormente. No me importaría archivarlos en el espacio de nombres de Wikipedia y marcarlos como históricos, pero no me siento muy seguro al respecto, así que tampoco me importaría que se eliminaran por completo. Double sharp ( discusión ) 04:00, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo : estos han dejado de tener valor hace mucho tiempo. Neutralidad 04:27, 9 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : la mayoría ya no reciben mantenimiento y deberíamos concentrar nuestro trabajo donde realmente importa, en las páginas de artículos. Kaldari ( discusión ) 04:29 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte , nunca fueron muy populares y ya es hora de que se desaproben formalmente. Reducir las funciones inútiles o no utilizadas es esencial para controlar la sobrecarga y mantener bajo el "costo" de mantenimiento. Lankiveil ( háblame ) 04:31, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC). [ responder ]
Soporte . Los portales deberían ser redirigidos al índice o esquema del tema original, si es posible, en lugar de eliminarlos, pero definitivamente deberían ser descontinuados. ♠ PMC ♠ (discusión) 06:08 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Opuesto Acabo de probar algunos portales y todos parecían razonablemente bien construidos y útiles para la navegación. Borrar tanto trabajo duro no alentaría la actividad en otro lugar. Según WP:BITE , una acción tan hostil tendería a desalentar el esfuerzo voluntario al mostrar que un flash mob puede borrar ese trabajo duro de manera casual por capricho. No veo ningún beneficio o necesidad en esto. Andrew D. ( discusión ) 06:22, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entiendo este argumento, pero el problema es que los portales suelen ser construidos por uno o dos editores entusiastas que luego pasan a otras actividades o abandonan Wikipedia. Una vez que no reciben mantenimiento, su utilidad tiende a disminuir rápidamente. No deberíamos alentar a los editores a crear material que a largo plazo no es útil para los lectores. Peter coxhead ( discusión ) 06:48, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pensemos en los artículos creados por Coxhead, como James Eustace Bagnall . Estos reciben poco mantenimiento ahora y, en cualquier caso, tienen pocos lectores, tal vez uno o dos al día. Cuando su entusiasta creador se vaya, ¿deberíamos eliminarlos también por motivos similares? ¿Wikipedia es solo para páginas de alto tráfico y alto mantenimiento como Kim Kardashian ? Todas esas otras cosas oscuras solo estorban, ¿no? ¿Por qué no eliminar todo lo que no es vital y concentrarse en hacerlo bien antes de permitir que alguien comience algo más? Andrew D. ( discusión ) 13:17, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Una página de destino con poco tráfico difícilmente requiere tanto mantenimiento como un portal (al que intentamos canalizar de forma intencionada a los lectores en masa). Cesdeva ( discusión ) 15:05 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Andrew Davidson : no elegiste un buen ejemplo con James Eustace Bagnall ; murió hace mucho tiempo y la información del artículo no va a cambiar. Puedo darte mejores ejemplos para tu argumento, por ejemplo, Ponerorchis cucullata , donde hay una investigación activa en curso y la ubicación genérica ha cambiado recientemente y podría cambiar nuevamente, lo que requiere que el artículo se mueva y actualice. Pero los portales son diferentes, como dice Cesdeva . Dado que deliberadamente conectan varios artículos, necesariamente necesitan un mantenimiento regular, ya que aparecen artículos relevantes, se mueven, se promueven o se degradan, etc. Peter coxhead ( discusión ) 16:00, 9 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los portales para temas bien establecidos como las matemáticas no necesitan cambiar mucho. Wikipedia es una enciclopedia, no un periódico, y no se requiere una actividad frenética para esas páginas. El punto es que una vez que empiezas a afirmar que podemos descartar páginas porque parecen ser un lugar atrasado, entonces pones en riesgo la mayor parte de nuestro contenido. Y Wikipedia aún está lejos de estar terminada. La gente todavía está desarrollando y discutiendo sobre aspectos estructurales como los infoboxes y Wikidata. Es demasiado pronto para decir que todo está resuelto y que podemos descartar páginas que actualmente no son de uso corriente. Andrew D. ( discusión ) 16:12, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, tendremos que aceptar que no estamos de acuerdo, pero el argumento no es que los portales sean un lugar atrasado, sino que, a diferencia de los artículos, la naturaleza de la mayoría de los portales significa que no funcionan bien si son lugares atrasados. Peter coxhead ( discusión ) 16:26 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, el argumento parece ser que, como algunos portales no funcionan bien, deberíamos destruirlos todos para asegurarnos de que ninguno de ellos funcione en absoluto. El principal beneficio parece ser que entonces tendremos un espacio en blanco donde solían estar los portales. Es de suponer que la gente que no usaba portales seguirá como antes, mientras que la gente a la que le gustaban y los usaba se enfurecerá y abandonará Wikipedia. Yo creo que el siguiente paso debería ser derribar también la bomba de agua del pueblo antes de que se nos ocurran más ideas brillantes como esta. Andrew D. ( discusión ) 20:17 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No se trata de "algunos", sino de TODOS. Los portales de tráfico de temas son un fracaso rotundo según nuestros lectores, considerando que tienen los enlaces de mayor visibilidad en el proyecto. Los lectores rechazaron esta idea fallida hace mucho tiempo. Solo necesitamos apagar las luces. Legacypac ( discusión ) 02:01 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, es un hecho falso, superficial y falso. A continuación se enumeran algunas estadísticas reales para refutarlo. Andrew D. ( discusión ) 23:25 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tienes una definición curiosa de "falso" y "refutar". Algo enlazado en la página principal y en miles de páginas y páginas de discusión recibe menos clics que la palabra "gratis" en "Bienvenido a Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre que cualquiera puede editar" y tu conclusión es que esto demuestra que los lectores están interesados en ella. ¿Se te ocurre algo -lo que sea- que pueda servir como explicación alternativa? Sólo digo. -- Guy Macon ( discusión ) 23:09 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
La lista de estadísticas de la página principal que aparece a continuación muestra que el enlace gratuito obtuvo más de 100 000 visitas y que la mayoría de los portales obtuvieron incluso más tráfico. Esto es una buena prueba de un uso significativo. QED . Andrew D. ( discusión ) 07:22 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, no lo es. Es una prueba de que tiene un enlace desde una de las páginas más visitadas de Internet. Ponga un enlace a https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ o http://www.patience-is-a-virtue.org/ en el mismo lugar y esas páginas obtendrán más de 100.000 visitas. -- Guy Macon ( discusión ) 20:50 17 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Prácticamente inútil ahora, según todos los comentarios anteriores. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:08, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte selectivo : el enlace prominente de la página principal a un conjunto de recursos fragmentados y a menudo obsoletos es inapropiado y debería eliminarse. Apoyaría que se marcaran las páginas de cada portal con Template:Historical , pero que se notificara a cualquier Wikiproyecto que enlace a ese portal para que puedan eliminar la plantilla si su consenso es que el portal está activo. Cualquier portal que los proyectos consideren tan pobre como para merecer su eliminación puede solicitarse, presumiblemente a través de WP:MFD . En 12-18 meses, se puede verificar el volumen de uso de todos los portales históricos "huérfanos" y considerar su eliminación. AllyD ( discusión ) 07:44, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener algunos portales, incluidos, entre otros, los ocho que se encuentran vinculados desde la página principal, continuar manteniéndolos y eliminar el resto. Creo que todavía tiene algún mérito mantener algunos portales sobre temas más básicos, y varios portales destacados aún reciben una cantidad saludable de visitas a la página, por lo que la gente todavía los usa. Los portales son más bonitos que los esquemas y aún cumplen una función limitada, en mi opinión. Disminuir la cantidad de portales mantenidos puede ser una forma de avanzar para ellos. feminist ( discusión ) 08:15, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . En el pasado lejano trabajé mucho en dos portales ( Portal:Belgium , 29 visitas al día, y Portal:Comics , 47 visitas al día) y, en retrospectiva, fue demasiado esfuerzo para un efecto muy pequeño en comparación con la creación y el mantenimiento de artículos. Ya no veo ningún beneficio en tener portales en enwiki. Fram ( discusión ) 08:26, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pero eso sigue siendo 10.585 y 17.155 personas al año respectivamente que tienen la oportunidad de descubrir, si así lo desean, nuevos temas y probar información enciclopédica seleccionada de una manera diferente a la habitual, sin tener que leer un artículo largo y tal vez aburrido. Sí, los números son bajos en el esquema de las cosas, pero hay innumerables artículos destacados como este y este que reciben menos tráfico. ¿Deberíamos eliminar todas las páginas de poco tráfico a continuación porque no atraen a suficiente gente? La lógica no tiene sentido. Eliminar una página basura porque tiene fallas y no se puede arreglar, sin duda. Pero los 1500 portales (suponiendo que solo 50 visitantes al día cada uno) aún suman 27,6 millones de personas al año que no tienen la oportunidad de ver o descubrir una amplia muestra de artículos relevantes para un tema, generalmente de una manera brillante y sencilla, y posiblemente estar lo suficientemente entusiasmados como para aprender y estudiar ese tema de una manera que incluso podría cambiar el rumbo de su vida. ¿Por qué quitar eso? Nick Moyes ( discusión ) 03:02 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a ver y editar dos portales, Portal:Alemania y Portal:Opera , ambos portales destacados y actualizados, ¿por qué cambiar? -- Gerda Arendt ( discusión ) 09:46 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mientras se mantengan los portales, puede que haya algún sentido. Pero el problema es que los portales no se siguen manteniendo, como se ha señalado repetidamente anteriormente. Observe también que el portal de Alemania recibe menos del 1% del número de visitas que recibe Alemania . Por lo tanto, el valor para los lectores en relación con el trabajo requerido por los editores es enormemente desproporcionado. Peter coxhead ( discusión ) 10:20, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No soy la única, me lleva 3 minutos mantenerme al día en los días en los que no sé qué hacer con Alemania. A otra persona le lleva 3 minutos actualizar las noticias. ¿Por qué no? Comparar portales y países es como comparar peras y manzanas: ¿en qué parte del artículo sobre un país un lector puede obtener noticias y saber qué hacer? Unos cientos de búsquedas al día, suficientes para que yo invierta 3 minutos de vez en cuando. -- Gerda Arendt ( discusión ) 12:30, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Están muertos (en su totalidad). Hagamos los honores. Aunque no lloraría a mares al ver su eliminación, me parecería irrespetuoso que los eliminaran -- marcar como{{historical}} . ¡hablar con ! dave 10:45, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte no actualizado, antiguo, poco visto y no es una parte central de nuestra misión. -- Tom (LT) ( discusión ) 11:00 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a lo escrito, pero apoyaría una purga de algunos portales pobres. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:15, 9 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a Oponerse firmemente - aunque muchos argumentos de apoyo parecen tener una argumentación bastante racional - es un poco como algunos que no pueden lidiar con tener proyectos en páginas de discusión - las etiquetas de proyecto ayudan al proceso de evaluación - la naturaleza vinculada de las cosas parece perderse en la mayoría de los casos anteriores. Los portales pueden tener contenido y apariencia moribundos, pero son enlaces excelentes a un proceso más complejo - donde los nombres latinos de fenómenos tienen páginas de categorías sin ningún intento de explicar si son rocas, plantas o animales - los enlaces de portales son útiles para aclarar el contexto de muchas páginas en árboles de categorías complejos que de otro modo son demasiado laberínticos para el usuario promedio. Los portales son útiles, pero por alguna razón, quienes los visitan parecen pensar lo contrario, un pequeño problema con el desmantelamiento de partes de una estructura, ¿qué se sugiere a continuación? Tenga cuidado con tal sugerencia, sugeriría que el umbral de este argumento debe considerarse con mucho cuidado. JarrahTree 13:38, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Puedes darme un ejemplo de una página de categorías de nombres en latín y cómo un lector podría llegar a ella sin saber si se trata de rocas, plantas o animales? Como editor (al solucionar problemas de categorización), no confiaría en que el enlace del portal sea correcto. DexDor (discusión) 21:03 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Responder a DexDor : después de haber revisado el tema de los pájaros y otras categorías, creo que algunas indicaciones en la página de categorías reducen la posibilidad de confusión, ya que algunas frases latinas binomiales podrían ser una planta o un pájaro. No he encontrado errores de etiquetado deliberados o accidentales en los proyectos. JarrahTree 09:11, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Todavía no entiendo cómo crees que la gente puede acabar en una página de categoría sin saber si se trata de una planta o de un pájaro. "Etiquetado incorrecto de proyectos" presumiblemente se refiere al etiquetado por parte de wikiproyectos en las páginas de discusión, lo que es algo diferente a poner enlaces de portales en páginas de artículos o categorías. DexDor (discusión) 20:43 22 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Creo que los esfuerzos que se hacen para mantenerlos se pueden utilizar mejor en otras áreas. S aga C ity ( discusión ) 16:25 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición Si la propuesta aquí es la eliminación generalizada de todo, eso puede y solo terminará en un desastre (ver esto, seguido de esto, seguido de esto esto) - una eliminación extensiva de una sola vez, eliminando múltiples páginas simplemente es malo para el proyecto, y lo hacemos mal. Algunos pedófilos han expresado interés en algunas de estas cosas incluso en esta discusión (durante muchos años) - así que apoyo a esos pedófilos - también podría apoyar cosas como la eliminación de enlaces de la Página Principal, etc. pero no puedo apoyar esto. Alanscottwalker ( discusión ) 18:26 14 abr 2018 (UTC)Agregando, estoy de acuerdo con Usuario:Kmhkmh, a continuación, no borramos páginas que no reciben muchas vistas, no borramos páginas que no reciben muchas ediciones (además, aquí una vez que la página está configurada, hay muchas que no necesitan un montón de ediciones - una vez que una página está completa, está completa) y especialmente no borramos páginas, porque 'alguien más trabaja en ellas pero yo no'. Alanscottwalker ( discusión ) 13:52 11 abr 2018 (UTC)Ver, WP:NEGLECT , WP:NOBODYREADSIT y WP:IDONTLIKEIT , mostrando la invalidez de los argumentos de eliminación - agregando, que nunca en la historia de Wikipedia ha habido una eliminación masiva como esta porque va en contra de Wikipedia:Política de edición . -- Alanscottwalker ( discusión ) 10:41 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los artículos de esquema de soporte son más eficientes. No me opondría a algún método de archivo para portales que se han mantenido hasta al menos el último mes y al archivo con desactivación para aquellos que se mantuvieron hasta hace un año, pero definitivamente a la eliminación para aquellos que no se han mantenido en más de un año. Ian.thomson ( discusión ) 17:26, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) Editar: Broter ha proporcionado (quizás sin darse cuenta) buena evidencia de que la acción selectiva (eliminar algunos pero no otros) daría como resultado un mayor sesgo en el área del portal. Cualquier acción que se tome (ya sea eliminación o archivo) debe ser unilateral y afectar a todos los portales de manera idéntica. Ian.thomson ( discusión ) 20:14, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte , están obsoletos y la mayoría no reciben mantenimiento. Las barras laterales y las barras de extremo brindan un servicio similar y lo hacen mejor. Kierzek ( discusión ) 17:58 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Los portales en su mayoría no son vistos ni mantenidos. Creo que deberían marcarse como históricos en lugar de eliminarse por completo (aunque la eliminación debería ser una opción en algunos casos). Plantdrew ( discusión ) 19:08, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte por Axisixa. Los portales (que funcionan como páginas principales temáticas) tienen sentido cuando tienes un grupo de editores (como un WikiProject) que los curan activamente. Los portales (como la Página principal) no están configurados para ser estáticos. Por eso, su utilidad se degrada con el tiempo y la eliminación tiene sentido cuando no se actualizan. Tal vez si la WMF hubiera hecho más para retener a nuestros editores del "salvaje oeste" de 2005 a 2008, no tendríamos poco personal y no estaríamos desactualizando cosas ahora. Chris Troutman ( discusión ) 20:24, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición No deberíamos eliminar páginas porque (i) no reciben muchas visitas o (ii) no han sido bien mantenidas. ¿Cómo se benefician los lectores con esta propuesta? Algunos lectores deben encontrar útiles los portales, y esta propuesta parece ser la solución incorrecta para problemas específicos. PaleCloudedWhite ( discusión ) 20:51 9 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
PaleCloudedWhite , ¿en qué te basas para creer que son útiles para algunos lectores? (El mero hecho de que a veces la gente haga clic en ellos no es suficiente, ya que haces clic antes de saber si la página te resultará útil). ¿Hay algún tipo de lector en particular al que creas que serán más útiles? WhatamIdoing ( discusión ) 05:05 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Y en qué se basan las personas para afirmar que no son de ninguna utilidad para los lectores? ¿Acaso los mismos editores hacen afirmaciones similares sobre artículos específicos y que, por lo tanto, también deberían eliminarse? PaleCloudedWhite ( discusión ) 06:41 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
El increíblemente bajo número de lectores de los portales (incluso los 8 enlaces que se encuentran en la parte superior de la página principal) demuestra que no son útiles para los lectores que votan con sus clics. Además, cada persona que vota aquí también es un lector y aún no he visto a nadie decir realmente que usa portales. Las objeciones tienen que ver con preservar la historia o algunas partes útiles o no ofender a los creadores. Legacypac ( discusión ) 06:51, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Portal:Christianity ha recibido un promedio de 139 páginas vistas por día durante los últimos 90 días. ¿Es esa una cifra increíblemente baja? De todos los artículos que he creado, el más leído es Dark Hedges , que durante el mismo período ha recibido un promedio de 119 páginas vistas por día. [1] Obviamente Dark Hedges también es inútil para los lectores y debería eliminarse, junto con todos los demás artículos que he creado, ya que tienen incluso menos lectores. Recuerdo el comentario de David Attenborough sobre la radiodifusión de servicio público , que dijo que debería "atender la gama más amplia posible de intereses, tanto populares como menos populares, una red que mide su éxito no solo por el tamaño de su audiencia sino por la variedad de su programación". PaleCloudedWhite ( discusión ) 07:05 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por la comparación, ya que debería ayudarte a entender mi punto y podría hacerte cambiar tu voto. 119 páginas al día por página con 16 enlaces wiki entrantes sobre una hilera de árboles es impresionante (y un artículo impresionante). No necesitamos eliminar Dark Hedges porque está satisfaciendo una necesidad. 139 visitas al día en Portal:Christianity es de hecho increíblemente bajo dado que es un tema extremadamente importante de interés global donde el portal tiene enlaces wiki desde una ENORME cantidad de páginas (dejé de contar cuando tenía alrededor de 30.000 páginas). Hay tantas formas de llegar a Portal:Christianity que 139 visitas al día podrían ser en su mayoría bots y clics accidentales. Legacypac ( discusión ) 07:43, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Y mi punto es que no deberíamos eliminar páginas en función de las visitas a la página, ni usar las visitas a la página como base para determinar cuán útil es una página (a menos que, tal vez, siempre reciba cero). PaleCloudedWhite ( discusión ) 07:58, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
PaleCloudedWhite , dijiste que "algunos lectores deben encontrar útiles los portales". Por lo tanto, te pregunto: ¿Utilizas portales? ¿Conoces a alguien que los utilice? ¿Puedes pensar en un escenario hipotético en el que un portal sería particularmente útil para algún lector? ¿Quizás una situación en la que tú personalmente pasarías por alto otras alternativas (búsqueda, cuadros de navegación, ver también, enlaces, etc.) y te dirigirías directamente al portal? Sé por qué los críticos piensan que los portales no son útiles (los críticos observan las pocas visitas a la página y concluyen que si los portales con decenas de miles de enlaces en cientos de artículos están atrayendo tan poco interés, entonces, siendo realistas, algunas personas los están mirando pero nadie los encuentra lo suficientemente útiles como para buscarlos). Los críticos pueden no estar en lo cierto, pero es una creencia razonable. Quiero saber por qué crees que "algunos lectores deben encontrar útiles los portales". Digamos, argumentando, que tienes toda la razón. Digamos que realmente hay algunos lectores que los utilizan, y digamos que los portales realmente son útiles para esos lectores. Ahora bien, ¿qué lectores los están utilizando y qué utilidad les ofrecen los portales? Si podemos identificar un escenario plausible, algún tipo de historia de usuario , entonces eso podría hacer que la gente cambie de opinión acerca de eliminarlos. De lo contrario, creo que este tipo de afirmación será rechazada como pensamiento motivado (por ejemplo, "Pasé cien horas en los portales, así que no puede ser un esfuerzo desperdiciado. ¡Simplemente no puede serlo!"). WhatamIdoing ( discusión ) 15:26 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Su último punto no se aplica a mí porque no he invertido tiempo en editar portales. Hice la declaración sobre que algunos lectores encuentran útiles los portales en respuesta a declaraciones más arriba en la página que afirman que son inútiles. La gente no puede hacer tales declaraciones; no hay una base fáctica. La WMF, hasta donde yo sé, no ha realizado una investigación de mercado exhaustiva sobre cómo los lectores pueden o no usar los portales, pero tenemos visitas a la página que muestran que algunos se leen al menos tanto como muchos artículos. Eso no cuantifica hasta qué punto son útiles, ni de qué manera, pero sí establece que se usan. En realidad, es una forma bastante limitada de ver algo para decir, como algunos han hecho aquí, " no los he leído ni editado mucho, por lo tanto, deshazte de ellos". No veo los portales como ayudas para la navegación, sino que los veo más como la función de artículos aleatorios, que muestra a los lectores algo que no estaban necesariamente buscando, pero de una manera más orientada a un tema. Si no funcionan tan bien como deberían, tal vez se debería pensar en cómo mejorarlos o darles una mejor funcionalidad. Pasar directamente a la eliminación parece ser la forma totalmente incorrecta de abordar este problema. PaleCloudedWhite ( discusión ) 19:49 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, entiendo que tú personalmente no los utilizas ni conoces a nadie que los utilice, yo no los utilizo ni conozco a nadie que los utilice y nadie en esta discusión parece utilizarlos ni conocer a nadie que los utilice. También sabemos que los portales obtienen muy pocas visitas por enlace. Portal:Food , por ejemplo, está enlazado en más de 8.000 artículos y recibe apenas 400 visitas por día. El artículo sobre Food , por el contrario, está enlazado en sólo un tercio de los artículos, pero recibe aproximadamente siete veces más visitas. En términos de visitas por enlace, el artículo de la enciclopedia es 20 veces más deseado por los lectores que el portal. Esa popularidad limitada sugiere que los portales en realidad no son "útiles para los lectores". Tal vez podrían serlo – yo personalmente estaría feliz de encontrar algo que funcionara para los lectores, y mw:Extension:RelatedArticles podría ser una opción a considerar – pero la falta de uso a largo plazo, frente a tanta “publicidad” en los artículos, sugiere que los portales (tal como existen actualmente) no parecen ser útiles para los lectores (incluso para la utilidad de entretenimiento). WhatamIdoing ( discusión ) 15:14, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tenemos páginas vistas que muestran que la gente visita portales: esa es la única información concreta que tenemos. Todo lo demás son suposiciones no demostrables, que no son una base adecuada para eliminar una sección de la enciclopedia. ¿Y qué pasa si Portal:Food recibe menos visitas que Food ? No recibe cero visitas. Los editores podrían tener una discusión razonable sobre por qué una página puede recibir menos visitas que otra, pero es imprudente usar tales comparaciones como base para la eliminación. PaleCloudedWhite ( discusión ) 08:02 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Uso con frecuencia el Portal:Current_events y me encanta . Lo encuentro bien mantenido y es una fuente de noticias muy útil que me vincula a los artículos relevantes sobre temas de actualidad. Sisksyr (discusión) 15:21 6 may 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición La mayor parte de Wikipedia no ha recibido un buen mantenimiento. No veo cómo la eliminación masiva de contenido beneficia al proyecto. Hawkeye7 (discutir) 21:00, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parece que cualquier colección de páginas estará sujeta a eliminación. Hawkeye7 (discutir) 07:35, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Hawkeye7 : ¿Hay alguna otra razón aparte de la eliminación masiva por la que te opongas? Muchos de los otros editores aquí (incluido yo) solo apoyan la desestimación de los portales, no la eliminación total, por lo que te pido cortésmente que cambies o justifiques tu voto. ToThAc ( discusión ) 18:15 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ese no es el consenso. Y son las personas que no han estado aquí durante más de diez años y no han hecho ningún trabajo en los portales, pero aún así publican votos de apoyo superficiales, quienes deben justificar por qué sus comentarios no deberían ser eliminados. Hawkeye7 (discutir) 23:51, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Existe un mecanismo para la eliminación de portales, que es WP:MfD . Se trata de un intento deliberado de eludir nuestros procesos, y por una razón: ninguno de los argumentos presentados aquí sería aceptable en MfD, es decir, WP:NEGLECT , WP:NOBODYREADSIT y WP:IDONTLIKEIT . ¿Los portales podrían beneficiarse de una mayor automatización? Por supuesto. ¿Es esa una razón para eliminar algo? No.
La propuesta viola nuestro primer pilar, que es que Wikipedia es una enciclopedia. No basta con que la información esté listada, sino que también tiene que estar organizada. Por eso tenemos portales y, menos útiles, categorías.
Al escribir artículos, los creadores de contenido suelen centrarse en una serie completa de artículos sobre un área temática en particular. Los portales y los temas suelen ser el centro o el objetivo de dichos esfuerzos. Hawkeye7 (discutir) 05:35, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Puedes aclarar qué quieres decir con "eliminación masiva de contenido"? Los portales en su mayoría consisten en una copia (posiblemente desactualizada y copiada sin atribución) del encabezado de un artículo rodeado de un bonito formato y enlaces. Por lo tanto, eliminar un portal no elimina el contenido de la enciclopedia (hechos que son de utilidad o interés para los lectores). DexDor (discusión) 20:02 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso no es verdad. La atribución al artículo original es clara, tal como lo es en TFA. La atribución es obligatoria cuando se copia un bloque de texto de un artículo a otro. Los portales son contenido enciclopédico, hay mucho más involucrado de lo que uno piensa, y las razones dadas, es decir, poco tráfico y falta de mantenimiento, se aplican a la mayoría de las enciclopedias y no son motivos válidos para la eliminación masiva de contenido. ¿Qué valor tiene contribuir con artículos bajo un régimen así? Hawkeye7 (discutir) 23:51, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo . Parece que los mejores sistemas para guiar a los usuarios se han convertido en la norma y, al caer en desuso, se han estancado. Incluso si analizamos Portal:Arts, el portal con más tráfico (debido a un enlace en la página principal), parece que casi no tiene actividad de edición (se editó dos veces en 5 meses). Yo apoyaría la eliminación de todos los enlaces del espacio principal y la adición de una plantilla histórica a todas las páginas del portal como un buen compromiso (opción preferida). — Insertcleverphrasehere ( o aquí ) 21:33, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : revisé mi gráfico circular de edición y, en mis 12 años en la 'pedia', solo hice 5 ediciones (2 en la página principal, 3 en la sección de discusión) en los portales. Básicamente, están obsoletos y deben convertirse en históricos. GoodDay ( discusión ) 21:49, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición : el sistema de portales se beneficiaría enormemente de algún tipo de integración con el espacio principal de artículos para atraer más la atención de los lectores y editores. Tal vez, cada artículo vinculado desde una página del Portal debería tener un enlace al Portal que se muestre automáticamente. También deberíamos mover Main_Page al espacio de nombres Portal:. Es difícil convencer a la gente de usar Portals cuando una página de portal tan visible aún no se ha movido allí. -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 9 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyar una transición hacia la obsolescencia. No eliminar nada, son parte del historial del proyecto, puede haber valor en el historial. En cambio, para cada Wikiproyecto moribundo, redirigir al artículo principal . Exactamente como argumento en Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Portals_are_moribund . En resumen, son casi inútiles, están desactualizados y son engañosos para las personas que los encuentran, y son pérdidas de tiempo casi inútiles para un editor que siente el deseo de actualizarlos. No fusionar con WikiProject, la mayoría de los WikiProjects apenas están activos. A User:Abyssal y User:The Transhumanist les gustaría crear un sistema de indexación/esquema y resumen generado automáticamente; eso sería genial, pero no es una razón para no desactualizar la forma actual de los portales. -- SmokeyJoe ( discusión ) 22:59, 9 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
La depreciación y el marcado como histórico permitirían que cualquier cosa de valor fuera recolectada por Wikiproyectos activos, o por otros fuera de Wikipedia que podrían inspirarse para crear algo mejor, etc. Además, hay elementos de diseño en estos que puede ser útil conocer. Y el marcado y formato wiki pueden ser útiles para algunos. Yo me inicié en el formato de páginas en portales. — The Transhumanist 12:43, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
10 de abril de 2018
Fusionar con WikiProjects en lugar de eliminar . Por qué : Hay contenido útil en Portals para organizadores de contenido y para lectores, y los contenidos en Portals a menudo pueden unir a los dos grupos. Por ejemplo, Portal:Matemáticas contiene algún contenido/estructura que no se refleja ni en Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics ni en Mathematics ni en Template:Areas of mathematics . Cómo: Tal vez podríamos tener una fecha límite para la descontinuación de portales, con avisos destacados que indiquen que todo el contenido debe fusionarse antes de la fecha . Después de esa fecha, el espacio de nombres del portal podría ser redirigido y congelado, o marcado como {{ historical }} de una manera única. Me opongo a la eliminación de los portales y sus páginas de discusión. Apoyo la eliminación de los 8 grandes de la página principal, y apoyo redirigir la energía del editor hacia la revitalización de las páginas de WikiProject en lugar de construir/mantener Portals. Quiddity ( discusión ) 00:13, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quiddity , ¿puedo suponer que esto sucedería solo después de preguntar a los Wikiproyectos y obtener una respuesta positiva? Algunos Wikiproyectos se enfadan un poco cuando alguien se mete con su espacio, y muchos otros Wikiproyectos están completamente abandonados y no tienen a nadie que les dé permiso o que plantee una objeción. -- Guy Macon ( discusión ) 21:54 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo . Me gusta la idea de los portales, pero su ejecución deja algo que desear. Mi proyecto principal tiene un portal que pasó por el proceso FPo hace unos años ( P:USRD ) y ahora solo hay un editor que lo mantiene de manera regular. Estoy de acuerdo con algunos de los otros en que el contenido debería fusionarse con los WikiProjects y no eliminarse por completo. – Fredddie ™ 00:20, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo : me alegra que alguien haya hecho esta RFC. Estuve pensando durante un tiempo y mencionando a los editores fuera de la página mi opinión sobre lo obsoleto que estaba el concepto de Portales. Yo mismo solía mantener dos, incluso tengo un portal destacado. Sin embargo, en estos tiempos, soy más de los que quieren que se queden, pero que se marquen como históricos. Fueron una buena idea hace 10 años, pero en realidad, la gente puede encontrar artículos de una forma u otra sin un portal. Mitch 32 ( Mi ambición es llegar a .400 y hablar 1.000 ) . 00:59, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Como alguien que incursionó algunas veces en la creación de portales que no parecieron funcionar, creo que sería mejor fusionar contenido útil en páginas de proyectos y no dejar que se pudra en un espacio de nombres olvidado. Sounder Bruce 01:03, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a la revisión técnica. En concreto, me gustaría ver un sistema de portal con:
La producción automática de sinopsis de artículos de la longitud adecuada cuando se aceptan artículos relevantes al tema del portal y la capacidad de editar estas sinopsis si necesitan mejoras.
La adición automática de estas sinopsis al grupo del cual el portal extrae sus selecciones de contenido.
La capacidad de ordenar o filtrar las sinopsis de los artículos en la página "más artículos" (o "más imágenes", "más DYKs").
Los criterios que utilizan los portales para seleccionar contenido deberían ser, de manera predeterminada, cronológicos en lugar de aleatorios (es decir, mostrar el último artículo que apareció en ese tema).
La adición automática de ganchos DYK después de que se hayan mostrado en la página principal al grupo desde el cual el portal extrae sus selecciones DYK.
La adición automática al conjunto de contenidos del portal de imágenes destacadas y de calidad cuando se promocionan en Wikimedia Commons.
La generación automática de un resumen de imágenes para las imágenes destacadas basado en su sinopsis en Commons, pero con la posibilidad de editarlo y mejorarlo si es necesario.
La capacidad de extraer automáticamente imágenes de los artículos de DYK para asociarlas con sus enlaces en el portal.
La capacidad de aleatorizar todos los ganchos DYK individuales en lugar de diseñar manualmente "bloques" de ganchos.
Una lista generada automáticamente de artículos nuevos y recientemente ampliados que sean relevantes para el tema.
Aprobación de la Fundación para actividades de difusión directa por parte de Wikiproyectos a los usuarios del portal, como por ejemplo, ofreciendo mesas de referencia temática, publicidad en concursos dentro del proyecto, campañas de adopción por parte de los usuarios, etc.
Perdón por el muro de texto, pero pensé que valía la pena señalar que el grupo pro-portal ha presentado un plan concreto para la reforma y creo que la implementación de estos cambios abordaría la mayoría de las quejas que la gente tiene sobre nuestro sistema actualmente averiado. Abyssal ( discusión ) 01:35, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición. ( editar conflicto ) Hay portales que todavía están bien mantenidos. Me gusta la idea de etiquetar los portales desactualizados y sin mantenimiento con un aviso de eliminación de una semana que señale al creador y al WikiProject(s) asociado(s) para que lo guarden o lo dejen eliminar. Los miembros del proyecto deberían poder extender el período de una semana si los editores están en una discusión en curso al respecto. ¿Quizás tener una página WP:Pfd donde se puedan proponer portales para discusión/eliminación? Francamente, me sorprende todo el apoyo que recibe esta RfC. ¿Qué sigue? ¿Alguien presentará un caso para eliminar categorías poco vistas? ¿O artículos con pocas visitas a la página? ¿Qué pasa con las redirecciones del espacio de ayuda sin uso al espacio de proyectos? ¿Dónde termina todo esto y cuánto de esto se debe a un nivel objetable de borrado? Paine Ellsworth put'r there 01:46, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo . Mueva todos los portales al espacio de nombres Wikipedia y márquelos como históricos. Lojbanist elimina el ganado del escenario 03:17, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Weak Oppose según Paine Ellsworth. No he editado ningún portal excepto las publicaciones en cursiva, así que no es un área en la que trabajo. Pero es extraño que esta discusión se esté llevando a cabo sin alertar a la página de discusión de cada portal (mis disculpas si han sido alertadas) y sin dar un buen aviso en la página de discusión de Wales (y nuevamente, mis disculpas si lo han sido, no soy un observador constante de esa página). Este es un paso importante para eliminar toda una subcultura de Wikipedia. Paine propone algunas buenas "formas de avanzar". En cuanto a sus preocupaciones, he visto, con mis propios ojos, a editores que realmente están considerando si los cuadros de navegación (yo los llamo plantillas) deberían eliminarse del proyecto. Ya están prohibidos en la edición móvil de Wikipedia. A muchos de nosotros nos encantan los cuadros de navegación, son los mapas de Wikipedia. Crear o agregar a un mapa de temas bien diseñado se siente como una obra de arte. Pero como los navboxes ya están prohibidos para el 50% de las visitas de nuestros lectores, tal vez no haga falta mucho para que se descarten. ¿Es eso lo que viene después? Como dije, los portales no son lo mío aquí, así que no sé el nivel de trabajo y cuidado que se ha puesto en ellos. Probablemente mucho, supongo. Así que este movimiento es bastante importante, de cualquier manera que suceda, por lo que cada página de discusión de portales debería ser alertada, para que los editores activos sepan sobre esto (lo mencioné en una revisión de movimiento y creo, a juzgar por los comentarios recientes a esta discusión, que esa mención en esa revisión de movimiento alertó a bastantes editores activos de que esta discusión estaba ocurriendo, y mucho menos de que tendrían la oportunidad de leer seis "eso es" en una oración). Es probable que esta importante discusión no sea muy conocida en la comunidad. Randy Kryn ( discusión ) 04:10, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo la eliminación de los enlaces del portal de la página principal tan pronto como sea razonablemente posible. En general, apoyo la descontinuación del sistema del portal, pero creo que esto debe ser un proceso lento y estructurado que se desarrolle fuera de esta discusión única. Hay muchas cosas que deben hacerse (por ejemplo, dejar de crear enlaces nuevos; eliminar los malos; volver a trabajar en los que ya son compatibles en el espacio principal; considerar alternativas; dejar de anunciarlos o enlazarlos; posiblemente algún día eliminarlos), y creo que ese proceso y un cronograma aproximado deben ser elaborados por un pequeño grupo de personas dispuestas a hacer el trabajo, en lugar de que se conviertan en una única discusión grande como esta. Nuestro objetivo en este momento debería ser establecer la dirección y algunos parámetros básicos. WhatamIdoing ( discusión ) 05:19, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyar y reemplazar los enlaces de la Página Principal con los esquemas correspondientes (¿o qué tal algo completamente nuevo y refrescante en la parte superior derecha?). El espacio del portal está polvoriento y bastante muerto. Las pocas personas que continúan manteniendo portales podrían reorientar sus esfuerzos hacia otros sistemas de navegación, como cuadros de navegación, barras laterales, páginas de esquema y categorías. — Esto, aquello y lo otro (discusión) 06:18 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy en contra . Estoy de acuerdo con algunas de las afirmaciones descriptivas de los partidarios. Es cierto, por ejemplo, que casi nunca edito o uso los portales, y a menudo olvido que están ahí. Pero al echar un vistazo a algunos de ellos, no estoy de acuerdo en que sean inútiles: son una buena manera de reunir material relacionado de una manera que llama la atención y despierta el interés. No es un buen argumento que existan problemas de punto de vista; puede haber problemas de punto de vista en cualquier parte. -- Trovatore ( discusión ) 07:04 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Como muchos de los anteriores, rara vez he editado en el espacio del portal. No han cumplido con su propósito previsto, muchos están completamente desactualizados. Es hora de cerrar el libro sobre este capítulo de Wikipedia. Sin embargo, prefiero que se mantenga el historial y marcarlo como histórico en lugar de eliminarlo. Saludos – Ianblair23 (discusión) 08:16, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo. Parece que se ha abandonado toda la idea. Sin la participación de los editores, los portales no sirven para nada. Sandstein 10:28, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte No es útil y distrae del trabajo que es útil. Creo que las plantillas de enlaces a portales que se encuentran en la parte inferior de los artículos deberían eliminarse, así como los enlaces de la página principal. La eliminación total de las páginas del portal en sí podría ser demasiado desmoralizante para los editores que las crearon. Calliopejen1 ( discusión ) 12:18, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo : Redundante con artículos y categorías regulares que pueden proporcionar mejor contenido y navegación. Sin embargo, también apoyo la condición de que, si se aprueba esta propuesta, todas las páginas del portal se etiqueten con {{ historical }} en lugar de eliminarse. ToThAc ( discusión ) 18:08 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo: Hice una propuesta para rediseñar los portales, pero eso está sujeto a un posible retorno al concepto, si se acepta. Estoy de acuerdo en que el sistema de portales, tal como está hoy en día, no funciona y debe desaparecer. Sin embargo, como lo solicitaron otros, debería hacer que los portales sean históricos o dar una fecha límite antes de eliminarlos. Cambalachero ( discusión ) 19:18, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
deprecate and mark as historical . He estado trabajando en ellos en pequeñas formas, pero ahora parecen moribundos. Supongo que la culpa la tiene el enlace profundo de los motores de búsqueda, que lleva a la gente directamente a los artículos. Además, WP ya no es nuevo, y tanto los editores como los lectores conocen mucho mejor su camino. Por eso apoyo la eliminación de los enlaces a ellos, pero deberían conservarse, como un registro del trabajo en ellos, y en caso de que alguien algún día piense en un uso para ellos. Tal vez un día, cuando WP se lance en un nuevo medio, necesite una interfaz totalmente nueva, y pueden resultar útiles para eso. -- JohnBlackburne palabras hechos 20:25, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición. En caso de discontinuación, se deben conservar los portales existentes. samee converse 21:17, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición – Sin duda, existen portales útiles en Wikipedia (aunque las visitas diarias a la página sean solo de cientos), e incluso si se conservan fuera de un espacio visible para el lector, se volverán inútiles incluso si antes eran útiles y se actualizaban a menudo. Sí, hay muchos, muchos portales inútiles y dignos de ser eliminados en Wikipedia, pero debería haber habido una discusión mucho más amplia previa a la RfC para considerar varios enfoques de reforma (y no creo que esta discusión sea lo suficientemente grande o pública como para cumplir con ese requisito) antes de esta propuesta de abolición total dada anteriormente. Master of Time ( discusión ) 21:28, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
El apoyo nunca llegó a despegar y en los últimos años se ha desvanecido casi por completo en la oscuridad. Muchos de los comentarios en contra citan la gran cantidad de tiempo que la gente ha pasado trabajando en los portales, lo que para mí es una razón más para descartarlos... ¡imagínense cuánto mejor sería la enciclopedia si todo ese tiempo se dedicara a mejorar los artículos! Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 21:59, 10 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a la eliminación total. Apoyo que se marquen la mayoría de ellos como históricos, similares a proyectos inactivos y otras contribuciones previas de buena fe que simplemente ya no funcionan en la práctica. Y como parecen indicar los números de Andrew D. a continuación, todavía hay un interés sustancial de los espectadores en algunos de estos portales. GermanJoe ( discusión ) 23:45 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Puede que estemos confundiendo causa y efecto. ¿El interés sustancial de los espectadores se debe a que son útiles o a que están vinculados desde la página principal? ¿Un enlace con el mismo texto de enlace a una página de "descripción general" generaría menos interés en los espectadores? -- Guy Macon ( discusión ) 23:57 10 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
11 de abril de 2018
Soporte - La mayoría de los portales no son de mucha utilidad, ya que muchos requieren demasiados clics para acceder, o son tan inaccesibles que la mayoría de los lectores habrían encontrado lo que buscaban antes de buscar el portal. Fuera de los diez portales vinculados en la página principal, el espacio de nombres rara vez recibe visitas. Yo apoyaría marcarlos como históricos, o automatizarlos para que requieran poco mantenimiento. Fusionarlos en WikiProjects también es una buena idea. Nova Crystallis (discusión) 00:18 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte oposición Esta propuesta lleva el borrado a nuevos niveles. Es equivalente a una AFC masiva sin ninguna comunicación a los propios Portales. Esto ni siquiera le sucedería a un artículo individual en AFD. Ya existe una Guía y un mecanismo para la eliminación de cualquier Portal que se considere pobre o irrelevante. Está en WP:MFD , y esa es la ruta que deberíamos seguir, no una exterminación total porque a los editores no les gustan o no usan Portales, o sienten que nadie más lo hace tampoco. Es cierto que el tráfico no es alto para muchos, pero usar las cifras de visitantes de la página como guía para decidir si se debe eliminar un espacio de nombres completo parece ir en contra de nuestros principios de acceso a la información. Es tan absurdo como proponer que todos los artículos con menos de un cierto número de visitantes también se eliminen en masa. Muchos Portales están vinculados directamente desde WikiProjects, algunos de los cuales también tienen bajas cifras de visitantes. ¿Deberíamos eliminarlos todos también, ya que estamos en eso? Así como hay muchas maneras para que los recién llegados a una biblioteca accedan a su contenido, los portales ofrecen una ruta alternativa y, a menudo, una selección bastante visual de temas introductorios, que ofrecen una mirada a un tema amplio de una manera que una plantilla aburrida al pie de una página simplemente no lo hace. Para ser brutalmente franco, hasta esta RfC nunca me había dado cuenta de que había enlaces a portales desde la parte superior de nuestra página principal. (Mi vista nunca se desvía hacia estos banners). Pero si la eliminación de contenido se basa en el desinterés y en el bajo número de visitantes desde la página principal, entonces deberíamos eliminar Wikipedia:Embajada local - enlazada desde el centro de nuestra página principal, pero con un número de visitantes mucho menor que cada uno de los portales enlazados. Si se considera que los portales individuales no tienen valor, deberían marcarse como , o bien ponerse a discusión para su eliminación. En el momento en que finalizó el plan de "Portal destacado" en 2017, había 176 de esas páginas destacadas. ¡No pueden ser todas de repente dignas de una eliminación masiva! Nick Moyes ( discusión ) 00:49 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]{{historic}}
Soporte . La falta de mantenimiento activo y participación de los editores es problemática en algunos aspectos, más allá de simplemente mantener las cosas actualizadas. Hay una comunidad lo suficientemente pequeña, que hace suficientes pocas ediciones, como para que sea posible que un editor cree y mantenga un portal de temas sin ninguna supervisión significativa, lo que conduce a problemas de NPOV potencialmente graves. Crear un portal permite que alguien descuidado o inescrupuloso cree una bifurcación de contenido, cambiando sutilmente (o no tan sutilmente) el tono y el énfasis, o incluso la sustancia, de la presentación de un tema en Wikipedia. (Y argumentar que eso no es realmente un problema grave porque muy pocos lectores ven las páginas del Portal realmente no ayuda). TenOfAllTrades ( discusión ) 00:57, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo , por muchas de las mismas razones que las anteriores. Mi opinión sobre lo que debería suceder: Estas páginas se trasladan al espacio WP (WP:Portal/Science) y se etiquetan como históricas. El espacio de nombres del portal se elimina sumariamente de la base de datos. -- Izno ( discusión ) 02:52, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte – pero ¿qué pasará con los portales realmente útiles, como el Portal: Actualidad ? Nixinova T C 04:33, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Nixinova : Se eliminaría por el argumento a continuación de que esta propuesta no entra en detalles. - Knowledgekid87 ( discusión ) 13:29, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, cualquier persona competente que esté cerca de cerrar el portal verá la falta de apoyo para su eliminación o para marcarlo como histórico: los resultados de las RFC no tienen por qué coincidir con la redacción original y pueden excluir esos portales específicos. Galobtter ( pingó mió ) 13:32, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy seguro de que ya te habrás dado cuenta de que te has metido de lleno en un gran problema. Me preocupa un poco que no hayas ofrecido una propuesta sobre qué hacer si se eliminan los portales, hay otras cosas que los editores han señalado. ¿Vas a dejarle al final de la discusión qué se debe o no marcar como histórico? - Knowledgekid87 ( discusión ) 13:51 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte apoyo . Si bien se creó con buenas intenciones (es decir, para que fuera una "página principal" de cada tema), ya no es práctico mantenerlo debido a la falta total de interés. Reh man 07:20, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte débil Los principales deben mantenerse. Ediciones de Bobherry Talk 04:18 14 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se necesitan propuestas detalladas : está claro que hay apoyo para hacer cambios drásticos y radicales en el sistema de portales y en el espacio de nombres. Lo que no está claro es la forma de hacerlo. Se trata de una tarea enorme que corre el riesgo de causar muchos trastornos a la infraestructura existente si no se hace con cuidado. Yo estaría a favor de marcar esas páginas como históricas, en lugar de eliminarlas directamente (mover páginas a espacios de nombres de WikiProject es otra opción, pero ¿qué pasa si más de un WikiProject tiene un derecho sobre un portal?). Marcar como históricas conserva un registro de las contribuciones realizadas (¿eliminar el espacio de nombres del portal eliminaría por completo todos los registros de las contribuciones de un editor a ese espacio de nombres?) y mantiene un registro histórico de las páginas. También conservaría los portales destacados, que sería una gran lástima perder. El punto de que debería haber un aviso de eliminación en cada página también es bueno, y que cualquier eliminación definitiva debería hacerse a través de Miscelánea para eliminación . También parece que una propuesta tan drástica como la de eliminar un espacio de nombres completo necesita una serie de propuestas y solicitudes de comentarios que se lleven a cabo durante algún tiempo y con mucha publicidad para garantizar que todos los que deberían tener la oportunidad de hablar tengan esa oportunidad y que toda la comunidad de editores sea notificada sobre el cambio propuesto. Carcharoth ( discusión ) 10:54 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a la propuesta tal como está planteada actualmente, principalmente debido a la cantidad de oposiciones que se han hecho desde que se llevó a cabo el etiquetado de los portales para su eliminación (como se debería haber hecho en primer lugar), lo que parece haber atraído a varias personas a esta discusión para oponerse a la propuesta. Está claro que hay un grupo de editores que trabajan en algunos portales y los mantienen; eliminar todo el espacio de nombres pasa por alto el trabajo que se ha hecho y que todavía se está haciendo en este espacio de nombres. Proponer reformas y nominar selectivamente algunos portales para su eliminación en MfD utilizando ciertos criterios, y marcar algunos como históricos (tal vez incluso ser WP:BOLD y marcar los portales inactivos como históricos sin ninguna discusión), pero en la actualidad esta propuesta es una maniobra evasiva para evitar el proceso de eliminación. Carcharoth ( discusión ) 09:53, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición: Los editores de cine indios hemos estado usando portales para categorizar a los distintos GA, FA y FL en función del idioma y la industria. Esto se debe a que WP:ICTF es un grupo de trabajo complejo y nadie apoya la creación de múltiples grupos de trabajo para cada industria cinematográfica india. -- Kailash29792 (discusión) 11:35, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario . No he votado en esta RfC porque no tengo una opinión firme en ningún sentido. Todo lo que puedo decir es que los portales no ocupan espacio en el servidor. Dicho esto, la prueba de concepto que se demuestra en esta RfC parece reflejar un consenso de que la comunidad quiere que los portales queden obsoletos. El proceso real sería complejo, como lo ilustra Carcharoth . ¿Vale la pena el esfuerzo? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( discusión ) 11:39, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hasta donde sé, la colocación de una etiqueta de notificación en todos los portales existentes parece haber sido realizada recién hoy por The Transhumanist (¿quizás podrían confirmarlo?). Cualquier cronología sobre cuánto tiempo debería durar esta RfC debería tener eso en cuenta. Mi intuición me dice que mover las páginas al espacio WikiProject es una pérdida de esfuerzo. Es mejor marcar como históricas y dejar que los editores individuales y los Wikiproyectos muevan lo que quieran conservar. Es trivial (usando las mismas plantillas y transclusiones) replicar portales en el espacio de nombres de Wikipedia para aquellos que quieren mantener algo en funcionamiento a nivel de espacio de nombres de WikiProject o de Usuario. Todo lo que realmente se necesita es eliminar los enlaces del espacio de nombres de artículos a los portales obsoletos. Aquellos que sigan trabajando en contenido de navegación actualizado (donde sea que esté alojado) volverán a agregar enlaces según sea necesario, y el proceso de edición normal se hará cargo a partir de ese punto (¿es útil para los lectores de los artículos, etc.?). Realmente no debería iniciar una discusión en hilo aquí, siéntete libre de moverte si es necesario. Carcharoth ( charla ) 11:56, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Respuesta : He colocado un aviso al respecto en la parte superior de esta propuesta. — El Transhumanista 12:05, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . El contenido debería, si fuera aplicable, trasladarse a WikiProjects, plantillas, contenido de artículos, etc. Chicbyaccident ( discusión ) 11:46 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oppose Un portal no es un proyecto, los proyectos deberían apoyar a los portales en la creación de nuevos contenidos. Siempre se encuentran nuevos artículos en los portales. Los portales ofrecen una visión general. -- NezLe ( discusión ) 11:50 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo en que siempre se encuentre contenido nuevo en algunos portales, pero eso ni siquiera es relevante. Pero tienes razón al decir que ofrecen una visión general, una forma diferente de abordar un tema, si se quiere. Al haber proporcionado una muestra de artículos de un amplio sector, como muchos artículos aquí, no necesitan mucha modificación. Si tuviéramos que adoptar el enfoque que se propone aquí, pronto estaríamos eliminando en masa todos los artículos que no se han editado durante un año o así y que reciben una cantidad no especificada de visitantes por día. Qué desmoralizador para todos los usuarios. También estoy de acuerdo contigo en que WikiProjects podría/debería apoyar más a los portales (y muchos están muy estrechamente vinculados), pero son bestias completamente diferentes y ambos tienen su valor muy distinto en mi opinión. Nick Moyes ( discusión ) 16:48, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En contra : considero que los portales son útiles y que aportan un beneficio neto a Wikipedia. Sin duda, se pueden mejorar, pero esta propuesta es tirar al bebé junto con el agua de la bañera. También estoy de acuerdo con quienes señalan los fallos en las notificaciones con respecto a esta propuesta. Jusdafax ( discusión ) 11:57 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Opónganse , ya que son la mejor agrupación de artículos relacionados que existe, mucho mejor para los lectores que los libros, categorías, WikiProjects o cualquier otra agrupación. ɱ (discusión) · vbm · coi) 12:08 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición . Esta RFC es un pequeño y desagradable documento. Oposición a la eliminación o desuso total de todo el sistema del portal y favor de una revisión caso por caso, según Nick Moyes. Divulgación completa: he trabajado bastante en el contenido de Portal:Mathematics en el pasado. Como señaló Andrew D., ese portal no está desactualizado en sí, como se afirma que está Portal:Cricket . Si un portal en particular apesta, mejórelo o deshágase de él, utilizando los procedimientos existentes (incluido el aviso adecuado en la página de discusión del portal). Si un portal está bien construido, déjelo en paz (bueno... o mejórelo aún más, como cualquier otra cosa). Si esto da como resultado algún tipo de desequilibrio, como se mencionó anteriormente (no puedo encontrar el comentario exacto en este momento), entonces está bien, elimine los enlaces a la página principal (aunque, por supuesto, eso debería discutirse en Talk:Main Page y no decidirse aquí). Las ideas de automatización de Abyssal son interesantes y las partes interesadas deberían considerarlas. Finalmente, creo que este RFC ha sido mal manejado desde el principio, ya que aparentemente ninguno de los portales fueron notificados (en sus páginas de discusión) sobre esto hasta 2 o 3 días después de la discusión ( y Portal:Society , vinculado desde la página principal, todavía no ha sido notificado [edición: se hizo poco antes de que publicara mi comentario]). La propuesta tal como se enuncia me parece (francamente) escandalosamente amplia y no debería tomarse en serio (y mucho menos aceptarse) hasta que se hayan buscado otras vías de mejora (como se acaba de mencionar). - dcljr ( discusión ) 12:10, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apóyelos con precaución. La gran mayoría están obsoletos y los que se mantengan actualizados deben migrarse a, por ejemplo, un WikiProject relevante. Stifle ( discusión ) 12:17, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me sorprende que se esté considerando esta posibilidad. Me sorprende aún más que parezca que hay varios editores que la apoyan. Mi primera advertencia: no dejen que una gran cantidad de personas sean consideradas automáticamente como el consenso. Reviso Wikipedia varias veces al día y me enteré de esta propuesta esta mañana. La notificación a una base tan amplia de editores llevará algún tiempo. En cualquier caso, los portales son útiles y ayudan a la navegación, brindan una salida para que los editores entusiastas promuevan sus temas favoritos, alientan la colaboración entre editores, amplían Wikipedia con un diseño distintivo y son una fuente excelente. El argumento de que muchos portales están desactualizados es una señal de que necesitamos tener una campaña para actualizar los portales, no eliminarlos, que es mi segunda advertencia: no confundan un problema de edición con un problema de eliminación . La solución aquí está en la edición, no en la eliminación. -- Paul McDonald ( discusión ) 12:25, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las páginas de artículos de soporte funcionan como el "portal" predeterminado para los temas de los artículos en Wikipedia. El contenido existente en los portales debe, cuando corresponda, trasladarse a WikiProjects, plantillas, contenido de artículos, etc. Mitchumch ( discusión ) 12:31, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta sugerencia es no entender en absoluto el potencial de los portales para proporcionar una ruta alternativa y a menudo muy visual hacia un tema amplio, sin tener que leer un artículo muy largo y a menudo tedioso, o visitar un WikiProject complicado. Los portales son (o deberían ser) una ventana brillante hacia un área temática amplia, que permita al usuario "meter el pie" en temas que podrían interesarle o entusiasmarle. Como dice la explicación principal de los portales: La idea de un portal es ayudar a los lectores y/o editores a navegar por las áreas temáticas de Wikipedia mediante páginas similares a la Página principal. En esencia, los portales son puntos de entrada útiles al contenido de Wikipedia. Compare Mountain o WP:WikiProject Mountains con Portal:Mountain ; Biology o WP:WikiProject Biology con Portal:Biology , y Arts o WP:WikiProject Arts con Portal:Arts . Creo que los portales funcionan mejor si se asocian estrechamente con un WikiProject relevante en la mayoría de los casos, aunque este último ofrece una función completamente diferente de centrar la colaboración de los editores. Eliminar 1.500 portales de una sola vez y trasladar el contenido a un WikiProject generaría una gran cantidad de trabajo sin ningún beneficio y, de manera similar, no comprendería el propósito de los WikiProjects ni el papel de los portales. Nick Moyes ( discusión ) 14:12 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Un callejón sin salida, casi totalmente sin mantenimiento y desactualizado, pero incluido en casi todos los artículos. Hay varias direcciones IP en las áreas de mi lista de seguimiento que constantemente modifican y vuelven a modificar las plantillas de la barra del portal para portales que no se han actualizado en 11 o 12 años. -- ferret ( discusión ) 12:48, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario : algunos de los portales son en realidad proyectos clave, como Portal:Contenido destacado , Portal:Eventos actuales (el departamento de noticias de Wikipedia) y Wikipedia:Portal de la comunidad ; mientras que Portal:Contenidos forma el núcleo del sistema de navegación de Wikipedia. Portal:Contenidos no es un portal en absoluto, ya que está compuesto enteramente de listas de navegación. Se colocó en el espacio de portales porque en ese momento (hace más de diez años), no sabíamos dónde más ponerlo. — The Transhumanist 12:56, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : la mayoría no se mantienen y, por lo tanto, son engañosos para los pocos lectores que parecen hacer clic en ellos. Apoye la eliminación de todos. - Ahunt ( discusión ) 12:58, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a la eliminación de todo este contenido. Estoy completamente de acuerdo en que la mayoría de los portales no funcionan actualmente, pero esa no es razón para eliminarlos a todos y pretender que nunca existieron. Muchas colaboraciones solían organizarse a través de portales, por ejemplo, véase Portal:Alemania/Anuncios de nuevos artículos o los archivos de Portal talk:Polonia/Tablón de anuncios de Wikipedia relacionado con Polonia . Hace diez años, algunas personas intentaron usar los portales como algo que se dirigiera tanto a lectores como a editores, tratando de mostrar el mejor contenido en un área temática mientras intentaban atraer más ayuda. El mismo concepto funciona razonablemente bien en la Wikipedia en alemán. En la Wikipedia en inglés, los portales lentamente se fueron dejando de lado. Supongo, sin embargo, que algunos siguen vivos y sirven a algunas subcomunidades (y, por ejemplo, Portal:Alemania/¿Sabías que está muy vivo?). La sugerencia de simplemente eliminarlos todos es indignante y francamente insultante. — Kusma ( t · c ) 13:14, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Admitir y eliminar espacios de nombres. Esto se ha hecho esperar mucho tiempo, ya que el sistema tiene una utilidad muy limitada junto con una gran carga de mantenimiento. El sistema de categorías y los enlaces Ver también hacen efectivamente el mismo trabajo. — Huntster ( t @ c ) 13:23, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente . No encuentro ninguna de las razones que he visto realmente convincente para justificar una eliminación total. No tengo necesariamente objeciones a eliminar (o archivar/mover) la mayoría de los portales sin soporte/sin mantenimiento y obsoletos, pero eso puede (y debe) hacerse de forma individual. En general, los portales son útiles para la navegación y permiten material y debates que no tienen lugar en el espacio de nombres de artículos y, por lo tanto, no pueden simplemente reemplazarse por artículos en el campo en el espacio de nombres de artículos (contrariamente a las afirmaciones anteriores). También, en ocasiones, pueden proporcionar una función similar a los proyectos. Por lo tanto, mientras un portal tenga soporte y los mantenedores estén felices de hacerlo, no veo ninguna razón para cerrarlo. "Mucha gente ya no lo usa" no es, en mi humilde opinión, un argumento adecuado ni una justificación para agravar a los (menores) lectores y editores que sí lo hacen. -- Kmhkmh ( discusión ) 13:40, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse - Eliminar todos estos portales sólo porque algunos no cumplen con los estándares es una propuesta terrible según WP:BABY . - Knowledgekid87 ( discusión ) 13:41, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición - Esta propuesta aparentemente tiene su origen en un problema personal con los portales. El hecho de que los portales no se actualicen no es un problema que se pueda resolver eliminándolos, la forma correcta es idear esquemas que incentiven a los editores a editar los portales. -- M h hossein talk 13:52, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte oposición Un portal creado correctamente, debidamente respaldado con enlaces entrantes, puede ser mucho más efectivo que una búsqueda de Google o el sistema de categorías de WP para ayudar a los lectores (no editores) a encontrar información relacionada con un tema en particular. No estoy de acuerdo con que los portales deban eliminarse sobre la base de que (a) a menudo no se mantienen y actualizan manualmente de manera adecuada; y/o (b) a menudo no son muy visitados. Suponiendo que el primer caso sea el primero (y no estoy seguro de que lo sea), entonces la automatización es la solución. Google ya ha automatizado la incorporación de extractos de artículos de WP en los resultados de las búsquedas de Google (por ejemplo, si buscas en Google el nombre de mi suburbio de origen, obtienes una página que incluye un cuadro de información generado automáticamente con un extracto actualizado incorporado automáticamente del artículo de Wikipedia sobre el suburbio). Por lo tanto, es claramente posible que los portales tengan contenido actualizado incorporado automáticamente. Suponiendo que los portales no son visitados con frecuencia (y, de nuevo, cuestiono esta suposición), entonces me parece que una gran parte del problema es la falta de enlaces desde los artículos a los portales relevantes. (Cuando creo un nuevo artículo, normalmente incluyo al menos un enlace al portal. Sin embargo, acabo de visitar al azar más de media docena de artículos importantes enlazados desde la página principal, y ninguno de esos artículos tenía un enlace al portal). Estoy de acuerdo con el comentario anterior en que la solución está en la edición (y, añadiría, en la automatización), no en la eliminación. Bahnfrend ( discusión ) 14:03, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tengo sentimientos encontrados , aunque estoy de acuerdo en que necesitamos encontrar una forma gradual de depreciar los portales (especialmente aquellos que no han tenido un mantenimiento significativo o visibilidad pública en los últimos años), esto debería ser gradual: primero con la eliminación de portales de la página principal / otras subpáginas principales de Wikipedia, y luego un proceso gradual de eliminaciones (probablemente podría hacerse con PROD en portales con menos de 20 páginas vistas al día). La otra opción, es revisar la infraestructura utilizada para los portales, para que sea impulsada más por Lua Scripts y Wikidata Queries - tenemos una tecnología mucho mejor que la que teníamos cuando los desarrollamos por primera vez hace 5-10 años: hay un beneficio en ayudar a las personas a navegar por los proyectos de Wikimedia. Dicho esto, los portales tienen un nivel muy bajo de demanda en este momento. Sadads ( discusión ) 14:08, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse ¿Qué diablos? No me di cuenta de que esto estaba pasando hasta que vi un portal que tengo en la lista de seguimiento etiquetado por Transhuminist hace un momento. Nadie me dijo que estos estaban desactualizados cuando logré que Portal:New York City tuviera el estado destacado. Todo lo que veo aquí en los apoyos es que algunos de ellos están desactualizados. ¿Desde cuándo eliminamos artículos que tienen etiquetas {{ update }} ? No veo ninguna mejor razón aquí. – Muboshgu ( discusión ) 14:13, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
El hecho de que el proceso del portal Destacado en sí mismo haya sido marcado como histórico el año pasado podría significar que, si bien los portales no están necesariamente desactualizados, podría haber una falla fundamental en el sistema que no se pueda resolver fácilmente. Como he mencionado en otra parte, se ha propuesto la automatización del portal, lo que probablemente resolvería el problema de la actividad de edición, pero podría no ser suficiente para resolver el problema de los lectores. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:18, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
El problema no es que estén desactualizados, sino que no aportan nada a la enciclopedia de la misma forma que un artículo llena los vacíos en la cobertura; requieren más esfuerzo del que merecen; y los lectores no se sienten particularmente interesados en ellos a pesar de la frecuencia con la que los enlazamos. Galobtter ( pingó mió ) 15:50, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por supuesto, no completan la enciclopedia de la misma manera que lo hace un artículo; no es su intención. Son colecciones de artículos que deberían proporcionar una muestra visual y una ruta hacia una amplia selección de temas que caen bajo el paraguas de ese Portal. ¿Más esfuerzo del que valen? Explíqueme, por favor. Los argumentos sobre el interés y la eliminación se basan nuevamente en números. Como un niño en la escuela: si puedes abrir los ojos de un niño a la maravilla de un tema como la ciencia, la geografía, la luna o lo que sea, eso es un verdadero éxito. Por lo tanto, los partidarios deben demostrar que todos los Portales rechazan a los usuarios, o no les permiten acceder a los artículos, o que la descarga del servidor es demasiado alta; entonces podrían tener un argumento válido para la eliminación masiva. Pero nadie lo ha hecho. Todo es WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT hasta donde puedo ver. En cuanto a "obsoleto", creo que podría haber un argumento a favor de desaprobar el uso de las secciones "Noticias" dentro de los portales, o al menos tener una guía para eliminar estas plantillas si no se actualizan regularmente. Nick Moyes ( discusión ) 17:10, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Opónganse a Per TonyB. No interfieren y tratan las tonterías del punto de vista caso por caso. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:31, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse : los portales no son redundantes, son complementarios y, si se los desestima, su eliminación es el enfoque equivocado. -- John Cline ( discusión ) 14:54 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
La más enérgica oposición . Decir que un número bajo de lectores o que está desactualizado es motivo de eliminación masiva es una pendiente muy, muy resbaladiza. Las estadísticas proporcionadas por Andrew D. mostraron que hay muchos lectores e interés en este espacio de nombres. Las estadísticas y los números no mienten, y son mucho mejores que los comentarios anecdóticos. También es difícil imaginar que solo los nuevos lectores se topen con las páginas del portal (un argumento falaz clásico), ya que Wikipedia existe desde hace 17 años y el portal desde hace 13 años. Lo que se necesita es hacerlo más útil y atraer más atención, no eliminarlo. También estoy muy disgustado con esta RfC furtiva que no consultó a las personas del portal antes de proceder con la RfC. Página de discusión de OhanaUnited 14:59, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se publicó en Wikipedia talk:Portal#Ending the system of portals , que probablemente sea el mejor lugar para llegar a las personas a las que les importa el sistema de portales (en lugar de solo el portal para un tema). Apareció allíun minutodespués de que comenzara la RFC. También se publicó en WP:CENT en cuestión de minutos y, por supuesto, en tres listas de RFC diferentes. Parece que no lo viste durante las primeras 72 horas, pero se anunció correctamente. WhatamIdoing ( discusión ) 16:05, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso se publicó solo después de que comenzara la convocatoria y no demuestra ninguna voluntad de hablar con los portales para abordar el problema. Más bien, la intención era eliminarlos todos desde el principio. Página de discusión de OhanaUnited 13:15, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición - Ni el bajo número de lectores ni las bajas tasas de actualización son motivo para eliminar portales. Wikipedia nunca está completa , siempre se está actualizando. Hay muchos, muchos artículos con un bajo número de lectores y pocas revisiones, lo que tampoco significa que deban eliminarse. Si los portales sirven solo a una pequeña parte del público lector en general, esa es una razón suficiente para mantenerlos. De hecho, un portal que necesita una actualización puede simplemente incitar a algún lector a editar. Simon Burchell ( discusión ) 15:12 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Estuve editando Wikipedia durante bastante tiempo antes de siquiera saber de los portales. Me encontré con Portal: Science al seguir el historial de edición de un vándalo y descubrí que muchos de los "Artículos Seleccionados" habían sido vandalizados, algunos desde hacía muchos años, y nadie estaba controlando esto. Me tomé la responsabilidad de vigilar todas las páginas de los artículos seleccionados y durante muchos años parecía ser el único que lo hacía (afortunadamente, ahora hay un par más). Desde entonces, casi todas las ediciones que he visto en los artículos seleccionados han sido vandalismo, principalmente de las escuelas. Parecería que a los alumnos de algunas escuelas se les está indicando que visiten nuestras páginas del portal para que investiguen. No es un problema tan grande si el vandalismo en la página de navegación no se corrige durante un tiempo, pero es un gran problema si la información del artículo está corrupta y no se corrige. Eso daña directamente nuestra reputación. El problema con los artículos seleccionados es que contienen información enciclopédica, pero no están en el espacio principal. Son resúmenes de artículos del espacio principal. Podría sentirme tentado a apoyar la conservación del espacio de nombres del portal si estos resúmenes de artículos seleccionados se transcluyeran directamente del espacio principal, pero el sistema actual solo fomenta el vandalismo y los errores que quedan sin corregir durante años. Además, como muchos otros han comentado, me opongo a la eliminación de Portal:Contents . Muchos usuarios, especialmente, digamos, de cierta edad, esperarán una página de contenidos que los ayude a navegar y es la segunda opción desde arriba en el menú de navegación. Spinning Spark 15:50, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente a la eliminación de los portales existentes. Si bien no me opongo exactamente a que se impida la creación de nuevos portales, eliminar el arduo trabajo de muchos editores, pasados o presentes, es ir demasiado lejos. "He puesto mucho esfuerzo en esto" no es un argumento aceptable para "mantenerlo" en AfD, pero creo que lo es cuando se trata de cubrir temas notables, en un espacio principal que no es un artículo, de un proyecto que trata de recopilar y dar acceso a la suma de todo el conocimiento humano . Hay muchos portales que son brillantes y fascinantes; tienen un gran potencial para el aprendizaje del tipo "hecho aleatorio del día". Y muchos no necesitan más mantenimiento.Sin embargo, puede que valga la pena desaprobar el proyecto de alguna manera que indique a los nuevos editores, o a aquellos que algún día se topen con los portales, "si tienes tiempo para invertir en Wikipedia, preferimos que lo inviertas en otra cosa". Incluso esta es una medida bastante extrema: todos somos voluntarios y podemos elegir cualquier forma (productiva) de contribuir que nos guste.En cuanto a lo que debería o no debería aparecer en la página principal o en la barra lateral, eso es un debate para otro lado. La página principal necesita urgentemente una revisión seria, pero por si sirve de algo, creo que sería divertido hacer enlaces aleatorios a portales destacados (¿antiguos?), ya que esto encaja con el tema de TFA, DYK, etc. de promover información oscura y puntos de partida para aprender algo completamente nuevo. — Bilorv (c) ( discusión ) 16:00, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse Hay valor en un sistema de portales, especialmente para temas que no cambian mucho, porque puede dar al lector una idea amplia del tema sin tener que leer un artículo. Considero que Portal:Mountains es un gran ejemplo de lo que podría ser una descripción general de un tema, así como un lugar para reconocer contenido destacado y de calidad. Creo que los portales probablemente funcionen mejor cuando están conectados a un WikiProject, pero no me gusta la idea de una eliminación masiva. -- Enos733 ( discusión ) 16:14 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse . Si bien no ganamos mucho con la existencia de portales, no ganamos nada con deshacernos de ellos. Su existencia continua tiene más mérito que eliminarlos y, dada la naturaleza voluntaria de Wikipedia, no es como si el esfuerzo que va o se invirtió en ellos se canalizara automáticamente a otra parte. G RARPLE X 16:25, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo . Siempre he considerado que los portales son una mala idea, ya que suelen promover puntos de vista o ideologías y, en general, son engañosos. Creo que estaríamos mejor sin ellos. :bloodofox: ( discusión ) 16:46, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Respeto tu opinión pero quiero recordarte que a veces hay muchos editores en un proyecto determinado y no todos los portales son iguales. - Knowledgekid87 ( discusión ) 16:52 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si eso es cierto (y no digo que no lo sea), es una indicación de un problema de edición y no de eliminación . -- Paul McDonald ( discusión ) 18:12 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición : el hecho mismo de que esta convocatoria de propuestas haya generado una respuesta masiva demuestra que los portales están siendo vigilados, utilizados y leídos. Aquellos que no vigilan los portales son libres de ignorarlos. – S. Rich ( discusión ) 17:40, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : específicamente, descontinuarlos, hacer que los bots los marquen todos como históricos y con el tiempo convertirlos en esquemas o índices para que sirvan como listados centralizados de "Ver también" por tema.
No contribuyen a nuestro objetivo de ser una enciclopedia . Para mí, no se trata de si están bien mantenidos, y se aplica igualmente a Portal:Arts . Los portales están pensados para ayudar a los usuarios a encontrar material de calidad sobre subtemas aleatorios dentro de un campo. Ese no es un objetivo que me importe o que piense que Wikipedia debería perseguir. Me gusta la propuesta de Finnusertop de mesas de referencia específicas para cada tema gestionadas por WikiProjects, pero parece una idea completamente nueva, no un ajuste de los portales. Daask ( discusión ) 18:38, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a que, aunque algunos portales se hayan dejado atrás (también sucede con WikiProjects), algunos portales aún se mantienen regularmente y no apoyaría simplemente su eliminación. Considero que algunos de ellos son útiles, pero si la mayoría los apoya, espero que el contenido de los portales se traslade a otra sala de nombres. -- Pelmeen10 ( discusión ) 19:11 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo . No son útiles para nuestros lectores y desvían la atención y los esfuerzos de los editores que podrían dedicarse mejor a mejorar los artículos. -- 19:16, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC)
Me opongo firmemente : estoy usando portales.-- Maxim Pouska ( discusión ) 19:21 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : por cierto, es de suponer que se está haciendo algún tipo de campaña: alguien dejó un mensaje en mi página de discusión pidiéndome que votara a favor de mantener los portales. Pero realmente no creo que ese sea el mejor uso de los recursos. Hubo una época de apogeo hace diez años cuando la mayoría de ellos estaban bien mantenidos. Ahora, o están mal mantenidos o han sido automatizados desde hace mucho tiempo y nunca se tocan ni se actualizan. Con menos personas intentando mantener más contenido, los portales son solo una oportunidad para que haya bifurcaciones en POV de temas controvertidos. -- B ( discusión ) 19:40, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente : los portales son una excelente manera de comprender un tema o de orientarse rápidamente en un tema y los uso mucho. También son una herramienta valiosa que ayuda a los equipos de WikiProject a coordinar la creación, expansión y mejora de artículos relacionados con un tema. Muchos portales son excelentes. Eliminar todos los portales porque algunos son de mala calidad o no están bien mantenidos es un enfoque que tira al bebé junto con el agua de la bañera. El enfoque debería ser la mejora, no la eliminación. Eso no es diferente de Wikipedia en general. ¡No eliminaríamos todos los artículos solo porque muchos necesitan más trabajo! -- Bermicourt ( discusión ) 19:44, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte – La única razón por la que hago clic en los enlaces de los portales es para acceder a las páginas de los WikiProjects relacionados. Definitivamente, existen problemas importantes relacionados con la frecuencia con la que se actualizan. Por ejemplo, esta subpágina del portal de Florida: Portal:Florida/Contenido ejemplar . Hace unos días, decidí agregarle algunos enlaces a artículos destacados relacionados con Florida que había promocionado recientemente, pero dejé de hacerlo cuando me di cuenta de que mis ediciones eran las primeras que se le hacían en 8,5 años. Cuando páginas como esta quedan muy desactualizadas, pueden causar problemas. Estos problemas se pueden evitar si nos deshacemos de los portales y nos centramos más en mantener y actualizar las páginas de WikiProjects. Jackdude 101 talk cont 19:44, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse . Los portales tienen muchas funciones, como señalo a continuación . Incluso muchas de las personas que quieren eliminar portales ven en ellos algún contenido valioso que necesita ser preservado. He aquí una idea: ¿por qué no dejar el contenido donde está? Contrariamente a las opiniones de muchos aquí, los portales realmente no necesitan mucho mantenimiento una vez que se configuran. Y ocupan muy poco espacio. Compárelos con los navboxes: a menudo agregan mucho desorden a una página y contribuyen a la sobreexposición de enlaces , lo que hace que la página se cargue más lentamente; sin embargo, solo puede eliminar uno si no hay artículos que lo transcluyan. Los portales agregan solo un enlace a cada página, pero los partidarios de esta propuesta los están sometiendo a un estándar de uso más alto. RockMagnetist ( discusión ) 21:34, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En contra Si bien es necesario eliminar el software obsoleto, es más importante no eliminar los artículos asociados a él. Y aunque estoy de acuerdo con la eliminación de los portales que han dejado de funcionar para el propósito para el que fueron diseñados originalmente, sin embargo, la eliminación de los artículos asociados a esos enlaces debe hacerse con extrema precaución . Habiendo editado y enviado ediciones en más de uno de estos artículos, sé que la cantidad de tiempo que lleva el proceso de estudio, investigación, redacción y envío es bastante larga, se debe tener el debido cuidado al considerar la propuesta de eliminación de cualquier artículo. En consecuencia, sugiero que los "portales" se revisen individualmente, artículo por artículo, en lugar de la eliminación absoluta de todo. Birdymckee ( discusión ) 21:34 11 abr 2018 (UTC) BirdyMcKee 11 abr 2018 14:34 hrs [Hora del Pacífico] — Este comentario de Birdymckee fue movido aquí desde una sección más abajo en esta página por el usuario:Dcljr para evitar que la discusión se fragmentara. Fue necesario hacer algunos cambios menores para armonizar el comentario con la discusión circundante.[ responder ]
Oponerse . Portal Polonia, por ejemplo, es el mejor lugar al que acudir cuando se necesita confirmar que el nombre de un lugar extranjero o un fragmento de texto difícil se tradujo correctamente. Por cierto, ¿la Fundación se está quedando sin espacio o algo así? Poeticbent talk 21:40, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
El espacio del servidor definitivamente no es un problema para WMF, y eliminar cosas no libera espacio, sino que en realidad lo aumenta, ya que todo se guarda en Wikipedia (por ejemplo, las páginas eliminadas son visibles para los administradores) y esto solo agregaría datos a los registros de eliminación, etc. Pero no creo que nadie haya argumentado que nos estamos quedando sin espacio. — Bilorv (c) ( discusión ) 13:38, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En general , apoyo la eliminación de los portales, pero deberían marcarse como históricos en lugar de eliminarse, eliminarse de los resultados de los motores de búsqueda externos y eliminarse los enlaces a ellos. La excepción es si todavía se mantienen activamente y se usan bien, aunque no estoy seguro de que haya muchos de esos casos. O si realmente queremos mantenerlos, entonces deberíamos automatizarlos por completo para que se mantengan actualizados automáticamente (tal vez usando Wikidata para cosas como "en este día"). Gracias. Mike Peel ( discusión ) 21:42, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Obviamente, mucha gente se está estrujando el cerebro intentando encontrar soluciones originales al mayor problema de la comunidad de Wikipedia en estos días: ¿cómo podemos ahuyentar a más editores colaboradores? Hemos tenido bastante éxito en eso, pero esta propuesta puede hacer mucho más. Lo siento, pero la mayoría de la gente a la que le gusta participar en estas discusiones aparentemente no tiene el más mínimo respeto por el trabajo de otras personas . Pero parecen saber exactamente cómo otras personas usan Wikipedia. ¡O al menos cómo deberían usar Wikipedia de acuerdo con su limitado horizonte! Lo siento de nuevo, la mayoría de los seguidores aquí lo hacen porque nunca pudieron usar un portal. Eso es prueba suficiente de que son inútiles, ¡así que acabemos con ellos! He visto morir un buen número de proyectos prometedores gracias a este tipo de frenesí destructivo. Obviamente, esos jóvenes entusiastas estúpidos nunca fueron vistos nuevamente. Mi opinión: mientras haya un solo usuario haciendo un buen uso de un portal, eso es suficiente para mantenerlo. Pero esa es solo mi opinión, y estoy seguro de que todos ustedes lo saben mejor. ¿Debería entonces * OPONERME a esta fantástica idea o debería simplemente felicitar a todo el mundo por llevar a Wikipedia un paso más cerca del suicidio? MySpace tomó un camino similar hacia el olvido, y muchos otros también. Lo más asombroso: ¡ni siquiera necesitamos que Facebook nos manipule para ir en esa dirección! ¡Guau! -- Lamassus ( discusión ) 22:09 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Amigo, los editores deberían poder mostrar su frustración hasta cierto punto, porque podría ser una señal de un posible éxodo de editores. Que se vayan demasiados editores sería malo para un proyecto. Estar molesto porque se borra tu propio contenido no es necesariamente una apropiación inapropiada; es una condición humana natural. La eliminación debe estar bajo escrutinio, porque la gente generalmente no contribuye si se borra su material . WhisperToMe ( discusión ) 22:52 25 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Guy Macon : Entiendo el enojo aquí, algunos editores aquí están diciendo en pocas palabras que el portal de su proyecto es basura que necesita ser eliminada. Me molesta un poco ver estos comentarios de WP:IDLI , solo porque puede que no le gusten o no los use no significa que pueda salirse con la suya sobre docenas de otros editores que sí lo hacen. - Knowledgekid87 ( discusión ) 02:09, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad no me importa si la gente se enoja porque piensa que tiene WP:OWNERSHIP sobre una página. Acusar a otros editores de "alejar deliberadamente a los editores colaboradores" y "no tener el más mínimo respeto por el trabajo de otras personas" no está permitido aquí. Y en cuanto a tu afirmación de que "solo porque no te gusten o no los uses no significa que puedas salirte con la tuya sobre docenas de otros editores que sí lo hacen", sí podemos hacer exactamente eso, si eso es lo que decide la comunidad. Esto se llama WP:CONSENSUS y es cómo tomamos decisiones aquí. Tanto Lamassus como tú deberían publicar argumentos tranquilos y razonados que respalden su posición en lugar de convertir esto en una conversación tóxica al negarse a asumir la buena fe. — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por Guy Macon ( discusión • contribs ) 03:57, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sin embargo, no se trata de propiedad, los portales son un esfuerzo colaborativo dentro de los proyectos Wiki. Si un único editor se hace cargo de un portal, debe informarse como cualquier otro problema de propiedad en Wikipedia. El consenso también se determina por el peso de los argumentos, decir que no te gusta algo porque no lo usas no hará que tu argumento llegue muy lejos. Al final... estoy de acuerdo contigo, lo que digo es que al final no me sorprenden algunos de los comentarios de enojo. - Knowledgekid87 ( discusión ) 12:04, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
(comentario de un abstemio) - Estoy de acuerdo con Guy Macon. Lamassus debe revisar WP:BATTLEGROUND , WP:AGF y WP:FOC y abstenerse de convertir las discusiones en batallas entre los buenos y los malos. Knowledgekid87 sabe que no debe defender ni excusar eso, y mucho menos participar en ello. Tenemos estas políticas y pautas por una razón. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo en que las discusiones no deberían convertirse en "buenos contra malos". Al mismo tiempo, necesitamos saber qué tan fuertemente se sienten las personas sobre ciertas propuestas, y personalmente me gusta dejar pasar a las personas si sus cosas son borradas (copyvio no cuenta, por supuesto); es una condición humana natural no querer que tus cosas sean destruidas y la sensibilidad al respecto es importante. WhisperToMe ( discusión ) 23:17 25 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los portales de oposición son una parte integral y útil de Wikipedia, y si hay algunos portales con problemas específicos , se deben solucionar. No destruya todo por pereza.-- יניב הורון ( discusión ) 22:32 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición Inicialmente, cuando leí por primera vez esta propuesta, iba a votar a favor o en contra, pero al volver a leer esta discusión unos días después, está claro que algunos editores han hecho una cantidad significativa de trabajo en varios portales. Creo que Wikipedia ahora es demasiado grande para que se hagan grandes cambios casi de la noche a la mañana (lo que implicaría la eliminación de todos los portales) sin afectar a una parte de los editores con cualquier cambio por encima de cierto tamaño. Seguro, algunos portales sin mantenimiento que atraen tanto vandalismo como visitas deberían eliminarse, pero hay algunos ejemplos excelentes a los que los editores han dedicado una cantidad significativa de tiempo, y sus contribuciones, tiempo y esfuerzo que han invertido en la enciclopedia no deberían eliminarse de la noche a la mañana. Hay un gran plan de acción arriba con la idea de automatizar los portales que parece factible y debería reducir la sobrecarga de mantenimiento. jcc ( tea and biscuits ) 23:22, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte - Nunca he visto el sentido de los portales y sigo sin verlo... Estoy a favor de conservar las cosas históricas (¡incluso las cosas inútiles!) pero apoyo eliminarlas... No se van a perder, ni van a quedar muy desactualizadas, ni van a estar muy poco utilizadas, ni será mejor eliminarlas. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:25, 11 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tú no los extrañarás, pero sí, todos los demás editores que los usan... ¿qué pasa con ellos? - Knowledgekid87 ( discusión ) 02:05, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los que apoyan están en 130 y los que se oponen en 62 al momento de esta respuesta... eso indicaría que no soy la única persona que no los extrañará. Bueno, estoy seguro de que aquellos que sí los quieren vivirán (si los eliminan, claro está). – Davey 2010 Talk 02:52, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC)[ responder ]
Davey2010 , ¿de dónde sacas la cifra de 130 personas que apoyan? ¿Estás contando "marcar como histórico" como apoyo a la eliminación? En el momento de escribir esto (esta versión), creo que hay 92 personas que apoyan explícitamente la propuesta y 64 que se oponen explícitamente (más o menos algunas que se mantienen al margen o con muchas salvedades en su posición). Carcharoth ( discusión ) 10:04 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mi error es que todo lo que he hecho es contar el uso de "Apoyo" y "Oposición". Probablemente debería haber buscado "'''Apoyo'''", pero bueno, considero que ese punto ha sido alcanzado. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:24, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse La razón principal por la que me convertí en editor de Wikipedia fue para ayudar con un portal. Es útil para mí encontrar toda la información que quiero fácilmente. Sin embargo, creo que tal vez debería haber algunas actualizaciones en el sistema del portal. Sería bueno una forma de hacer que las noticias sobre el tema se actualicen sin tener que actualizarlo manualmente cada vez. Lo que quiero decir con eso es que podrías poner noticias que caduquen cuando ya no sean relevantes y las cosas nuevas se actualizarán en sus lugares, y la entrada es solo para poner las noticias, lo que se puede hacer con anticipación (para un portal de deportes, juegos que se jugarán, cosas así). Tal vez el propósito original de los portales ya no sea para lo que se usan, pero las cosas deberían adaptarse y cambiar para ajustarse a las nuevas necesidades de los portales. No deberían eliminarse, pero el sistema debería actualizarse para que sean más fáciles de mantener y usar. Demasiadas personas han pasado demasiado tiempo en los portales como para que simplemente los eliminen o archiven, porque muchos de ellos serán inútiles cuando no estén actualizados. Aabernat ( discusión ) 23:57 11 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
12 de abril de 2018
Oponerse a la eliminación directa, apoyar la reforma : los portales solían ser muy valiosos para agrupar a los usuarios en torno a un tema en particular, acordar un formato común y estándares de calidad y organizar el mantenimiento de los artículos para mantenerlos actualizados y libres de vandalismo sin duplicar esfuerzos. Desaparecieron, no porque dejaron de ser útiles, sino porque se volvieron mucho menos prominentes y hubo una mayor centralización de las disputas y los estándares de los artículos en una élite más pequeña de editores. La gran mayoría de los editores más recientes que solo han conocido el enfoque centralizado nunca los han visto ni usado. WatcherZero ( discusión ) 00:01, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ligeramente en contra : entiendo de dónde vienen ambas partes, ya que hay comentarios a favor y en contra de este argumento. En mi opinión, creo que debemos mejorar de alguna manera la función de portal de Wikipedia, incluso si eso significa dedicarle trabajo a cosas que no muchos verían. Pero creo que hay algunos portales que no se ven y que deben eliminarse, pero se trata de un caso por caso. La animación está en desarrollo 00:03, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Algunas cosas se ponen de moda y otras no. Creo que les hemos dado una oportunidad a los portales, pero sus desventajas superan a sus ventajas. Tomaré Portal:Microsoft como ejemplo. El portal ha recibido menos de 100.000 visitas a la página (no está mal), pero si lo comparamos con Microsoft , que tiene más de 7,6 millones de visitas a la página, empezamos a hacernos una idea de por qué el tiempo que se dedica a mantenerlos se podría invertir mejor en otras cosas. Si lo analizamos sección por sección, todo parece tener un lugar en otra parte.
Introducción --> Párrafo de introducción de Microsoft
Artículo seleccionado --> Artículo del día o artículo aleatorio
Imagen seleccionada --> Imagen del día o artículo principal
¿Sabías que? --> ¿Sabías que en la página principal?
Oponerse, pero eliminar los enlaces de artículos y marcar como históricos los menos utilizados o menos mantenidos, y también, idealmente, pedir algunos recursos para desarrolladores para crear fácilmente portales mantenidos "automáticamente". Los portales están obsoletos, los lectores no los usan, pero también son básicamente inofensivos. Si alguien quiere pasar un montón de tiempo creando uno, que se vuelva loco, siempre y cuando dicho editor reconozca que nadie lo va a leer. En cuanto a la rotación automática, no debería ser TAN difícil para los desarrolladores darnos algún código que, dado un WikiProject o una Categoría, rote automáticamente entre GAs / FAs seleccionados al azar y similares, y simplemente arroje los párrafos principales al Portal. Podría ayudar vagamente con los problemas de frescura. SnowFire ( discusión ) 00:36, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Aprecio tanto el trabajo que los editores han puesto en algunos portales como las sugerencias de reformas, pero los que revisé en el campo de China no han sido editados en años. ch ( discusión ) 02:45, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición Aunque nunca he contribuido realmente a los portales, no veo ningún problema en que estén ahí. Técnicamente no estorban a ningún artículo o lista, así que como la gente está contenta de tenerlos, me opongo a eliminarlos. -- NadirAli نادر علی ( discusión ) 04:24, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse – Esto eliminaría todo el espacio de nombres del portal, y algunos portales se visitan con bastante frecuencia. Esto también eliminaría una característica de navegación que muchos lectores utilizan. Tal vez se podrían etiquetar como históricos los que están desactualizados. La eliminación de todos los portales porque algunos de ellos están desactualizados y por razones subjetivas como que a algunos usuarios no les gustan o no los usan, que algunos piensan que son inútiles, sin sentido, etc. equivale a tirar al bebé junto con el agua de la bañera, y en el proceso se tirarían a la basura miles de horas de trabajo realizado por cientos de editores de una sola vez. Sería demasiado drástico y apresurado eliminar en masa todo el trabajo que se ha realizado en los portales de esa manera. Norteamérica 1000 04:32, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición Aunque estoy de acuerdo en que la mayoría necesita actualizaciones, no creo que esa sea una justificación válida para la eliminación. Los pocos portales de mi lista de seguimiento que se actualizan continuamente me han ayudado mucho. Tal vez alguna otra reforma sería una mejor alternativa a la eliminación total. LM2000 ( discusión ) 04:34 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo condicionalmente. Personalmente, encuentro algunos de los portales muy útiles, pero si pudieran integrarse en otra cosa, obviamente no me importaría; sin embargo, se debe valorar su naturaleza histórica y, como muchos han dicho antes, el hecho de que no sean tan populares como antes no debería obligar a su eliminación. Considero que todos los contenidos e índices son útiles. Los índices son lo que más me gusta, ya que leo los artículos en orden cuando me aburro. - speednat ( discusión )
Oponerse, según MuzikAnimal. Dejemos que los WikiProjects a los que pertenece el portal decidan qué hacer con cada portal. De esa manera, los útiles se pueden conservar y, si es necesario, mover, mientras que los miembros de ese proyecto pueden trabajar en otros que necesiten mejoras o eliminarlos. Me parece una solución de sentido común. - the WOLF child 05:05, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte oposición : desde el comienzo de Wikipedia, consideré que los portales eran útiles para explorar un tema amplio y que eran una de las partes más interesantes de Wikipedia. Estas son las razones por las que creo que los portales deberían mantenerse:
Facilitan al lector que quiere explorar un tema de interés.
Ejemplo: Digamos que quiero explorar el tema de las matemáticas. Como lector curioso, voy al portal de matemáticas. En la sección de artículos seleccionados, me entero de que hay un buen artículo sobre ecuaciones cuadráticas. Me interesa y reviso el artículo. Si solo hubiera visitado el artículo sobre matemáticas, no me habría enterado tan fácilmente de la existencia de un artículo sobre este tema. Luego miro la sección ¿SABÍAS? Veo una entrada de ¿SABÍAS? como: “... que hay 115.200 soluciones al problema de ménage de permutar seis parejas de mujeres y hombres en una mesa de doce personas de modo que los hombres y las mujeres se alternen y se sienten lejos de sus parejas”. Como persona interesada en las matemáticas, inmediatamente siento curiosidad. Sin encontrarme con este ¿SABÍAS?, tal vez ni siquiera hubiera sabido de la existencia del problema de ménage. Luego, desde Portal:Matemáticas, salto a otros portales relacionados como Portal:Álgebra, etc.
Ofrecen una oportunidad a los proyectos Wiki de mostrar el resultado de su trabajo.
Ejemplo: comencé mi andadura en Wikipedia con Portal:Bangladesh y luego quise mejorar el portal. Para encontrar más materiales para mostrar en el portal, terminé explorando numerosos temas relacionados con Bangladesh y, a menudo, terminé contribuyendo en muchos artículos.
A continuación se presentan un par de razones por las cuales no se deben eliminar los portales:
No se deben eliminar porque no reciben el mantenimiento adecuado. Según esta lógica, se deben eliminar todos los contenidos que no reciben el mantenimiento adecuado.
No se deben eliminar porque tienen un número menor de vistas. Por esta lógica, se deben eliminar todos los contenidos con un número menor de vistas.
Sin embargo, podemos considerar lo siguiente:
Podemos introducir criterios de “notabilidad” para el Portal. Por ejemplo, podemos decir que, para tener un Portal sobre un tema, el artículo principal sobre el tema debe ser al menos un Artículo Vital de Nivel 4.
Los portales que no mantengan su sección de “Noticias” durante un año completo pueden recibir instrucciones de eliminar la sección de noticias y reemplazarla con una sección sobre “Artículos sobre acontecimientos recientes”. Arman ( Discusión ) 05:55 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte El sistema de portales resultó ser un callejón sin salida. Son pocos los que aún reciben mantenimiento, si es que hay alguno, y es poco probable que los lectores los utilicen. Nick-D ( discusión ) 06:59 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola Nick-D : Por curiosidad, ¿has comprobado las visitas a las páginas de los portales? Tu valoración de que "...es poco probable que los lectores los utilicen" se ve contrarrestada por las estadísticas de las páginas de varios portales. Por ejemplo, Portal:Biography ha recibido 62.874 visitas a las páginas en los últimos treinta días a partir de esta publicación. Norteamérica 1000 07:48, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Northamerica100: Danos el total de visitas a la página de un portal que no tiene un enlace desde la página principal... :-) Ed [discusión] [majestic titan] 14:46 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Según la solicitud anterior de The ed17 , un buen ejemplo es Portal:Food , que ha recibido 12.898 visitas a la página en los últimos treinta días a partir de esta publicación. Es un portal muy utilizado por los lectores de Wikipedia ; su eliminación no beneficiaría a Wikipedia de ninguna manera en particular y simplemente eliminaría una opción de navegación que muchos lectores claramente utilizan. Norteamérica 1000 10:12, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC)
ed17 : Otro ejemplo de un portal muy utilizado es Portal:Contents/Lists , que ha recibido 11.330 visitas de página en los últimos treinta días a partir de esta publicación. Es evidente que es de utilidad para muchos lectores. ¿Cómo beneficiaría a esos lectores su eliminación? Norteamérica 1000 23:27, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
ed17 : Además, Portal:Contenidos/Portales , una página que enumera todos los portales, ha recibido 112.995 visitas en los últimos treinta días. Eso significa que muchos lectores buscan portales que les interesen o que quieran saber más sobre su disponibilidad. Norteamérica 1000 04:29, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Northamerica1000 : Algunas cosas. Si tomas nota de mi voto de apoyo a continuación, creo que deberían marcarse como históricas. Quien haya hecho esta convocatoria y haya dicho la palabra "eliminar" tomó una decisión realmente mala. 12.000 visitas en 30 días no es un "uso adecuado", es un error de redondeo. Portal:Contenidos está vinculado desde la barra lateral en cada página de Wikipedia. Ed [discusión] [majestic titan] 16:30, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a la eliminación, hay cientos de páginas excelentes aquí. Apoyo el cambio, incluyendo marcar muchas como obsoletas o históricas, y posiblemente eliminarlas de la página principal. – SJ + 07:27, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . En general, su utilidad no es proporcional al esfuerzo de mantenimiento como páginas separadas. Algunos elementos (por ejemplo, listas de DYKs) tienen sentido como parte de WikiProjects, pero el resto podría archivarse para la posteridad. T.Shafee(Evo & Evo) discusión 07:52, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : Muchos son masas confusas de contenido, difíciles de actualizar y en la mayoría de los casos sin fuentes (ya que en la mayoría de los casos no utilizan un sistema de fuentes). -- Eckhardt Etheling ( discusión ) 07:57 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Pero: ¿No sería suficiente una solución técnica como "sin actividad durante 1 año => eliminación automática"? Además, los portales con >= X visitas/día (por supuesto) probablemente deberían permanecer, ya que se ha demostrado que son de interés público. Saludos cordiales, Grueslayer 08:41, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse firmemente¿Quieres saber más? Bueno, será mejor que leas pronto antes de que se borre todo.Habiendo creado un par de portales en los últimos años, tengo un perro en esta pelea. Los portales proporcionan una manera de vincular artículos, imágenes, citas, DYK de una manera diferente a la de los artículos individuales. Sí, pueden estar desactualizados, etc., pero también lo están muchos artículos. Como dice Paul McDonald, este es un problema de edición y no una razón para la eliminación masiva... Jokulhlaup ( discusión ) 09:03, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Parece que no se utilizan ni se mantienen. No sería necesario eliminarlos en masa, pero tal vez se podrían integrar en Wikiproyectos donde la gente esté dispuesta a hacerlo. Ivar the Boneful ( discusión ) 09:23, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los portales de Oppose son para lectores (por eso encerrarlos dentro de WikiProjects no tiene sentido), y necesitamos la "investigación de mercado" sugerida por PaleCloudedWhite antes de que podamos estar seguros de qué formas de ayuda a la navegación son más útiles para los lectores. Entre portales, índices, esquemas, cuadros de navegación, barras laterales, TopicTOCs y el resto, no hay consistencia en cuáles existen para un tema dado y en qué medida están vinculados desde artículos. Un plan para salvar los portales: (1) retomar las ideas para la máxima automatización de su construcción y mantenimiento; (2) automatizar también la provisión de vínculos desde artículos, de la siguiente manera: para cada categoría asignada a un artículo, un proceso sigue el árbol de categorías hasta llegar a una que se ha marcado como correspondiente a un portal, luego agrega un vínculo al artículo; (3) mantener portales para áreas temáticas principales, recortando aquellos para subtemas menores; (4) tenga en cuenta que no todos los lectores habrán oído hablar de los portales web , y la palabra "portal" de otro modo sugiere frases grandilocuentes como "entrar en los portales de la gloria" - por lo que simplemente poner un enlace que diga "Todos los portales" en la página principal no atraerá muchos clics, necesita decir "Elija un tema que le interese especialmente, y aquí hay una descripción general de cómo Wikipedia cubre ese tema" : Noyster (discusión), 10:03, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición - Para ser totalmente transparente, tengo una fuerte conexión personal con este tema; creé y he estado manteniendo Portal:Trains y realizando ediciones diarias desde su inicio en mayo de 2005, pero no he sido la única persona que lo ha visto. El recuento de páginas vistas durante el último año es de casi 30.000. Si asumimos que mis ediciones suman cinco páginas vistas por día, eso reduce las vistas generales del año pasado en solo 250. Cuando hago ediciones en el portal, casi siempre encuentro otras páginas dentro del alcance de WikiProject Trains en las que puedo realizar mejoras, y haré esas mejoras cuando pueda. Mi trabajo de edición del portal me ha llevado diariamente directamente a un trabajo adicional de creación de contenido fuera del portal. Me ha ayudado a mantenerme involucrado como editor y administrador de Wikipedia desde mi primera edición hace 13 años. Slambo (Hablar) 11:01, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En el clavo, Slambo. Otra forma de ver los portales es que son una "página de contenidos inteligente" para un tema. Y, sin duda, mucho más fáciles de usar para hacer un seguimiento de los artículos relevantes que para examinar el artículo principal, a menudo extenso, de un tema que no está estructurado para la fácil localización de los artículos. Muchos portales también son un activo valioso para el proyecto, ya que indican lo que se ha hecho, lo que se necesita mejorar, lo que se necesita añadir, etc. La mejora de los portales es un objetivo que vale la pena; la eliminación masiva deja a Wikipedia mucho más pobre. -- Bermicourt ( discusión ) 12:29, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además, Portal:Trains tiene traducciones en 18 versiones de Wikipedia en otros idiomas. Portal:Transport tiene otras 24 variantes en otros idiomas, y Portal:Technology tiene otras 62 variantes en otros idiomas. Entiendo que los cambios en en.Wikipedia no necesariamente significan que también se producirán cambios en Wikis en otros idiomas, pero tener tantas versiones en diferentes idiomas de todos los portales muestra un fuerte interés mundial en mantenerlas. Slambo (Speak) 12:06, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición No veo qué daño le pueden causar los portales al proyecto. En todo caso, son útiles para combinar varios artículos relacionados sobre un tema en un solo lugar. Hay varios portales bien construidos y destacados. Mar4d ( discusión ) 12:39 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo - Agradezco a quienes han contribuido con ellos, pero creo que eliminar los portales ayudará a concentrar nuestros esfuerzos en áreas de mayor impacto. - McGhiever ( discusión ) 12:47 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a la eliminación del espacio del portal y del "sistema/instalación" del portal, pero apoyo la eliminación de portales obsoletos (y por lo tanto, por definición) sin mantenimiento. Estos son contrarios al propósito declarado de un portal y le quitan valor a la experiencia del lector. Sugiero que cualquier portal que no haya sido actualizado (y debería haberlo sido) durante 12 meses más pueda ser nominado para su eliminación a través de un proceso similar al de AfD. Aoziwe ( discusión ) 13:18, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En contra Creo que podrían tener un propósito muy útil, al estar escritos de una manera menos formal que la mayoría de los artículos, y proporcionar una hoja de ruta más accesible a los artículos relacionados para los visitantes que no están tan familiarizados con las categorías de Wikipedia y otros medios de navegación. Creo que el verdadero problema es que no se han promocionado adecuadamente. La mayoría de los enlaces a ellos están escondidos en la parte inferior de una página. Creo que si se pudiera hacer un enlace a ellos en la parte superior de la página, tal vez al lado o debajo del espacio donde aparecen las coordenadas, entonces podrían recibir más visitas y tal vez se mantendrían mejor. Debo admitir que me había olvidado bastante de ellos. Derek Andrews ( discusión ) 14:03 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo al No, y especialmente me opongo a eliminar todos los portales. ¿Cuántos artículos tenemos en Wikipedia que nadie o pocos leen? ¿Cuántos artículos tenemos en Wikipedia que no están bien mantenidos? Estos no son los criterios que utilizamos para crear artículos y, por extensión, no deberían serlo para crear portales para esos artículos. Además, tenemos portales que están bien mantenidos. Acabo de ver el RfC hoy; esto tiene que ser más público de lo que es ahora. ( Littleolive oil ( discusión ) 14:21, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC)) [ responder ]
Oposición Para mí, los portales actúan como subsecciones de un periódico, si tomamos nuestra página principal como el equivalente a la portada de un periódico. Cuando se actualizan, proporcionan una buena instantánea actual de un área temática dentro de WP. Creo que esta RFC conduce a la idea de que deberíamos reevaluar qué hace que un portal sea bueno, cómo alentar a los portales a mantenerse actualizados y la posible inversión de tiempo en nuevas herramientas/procesos para automatizar las actualizaciones, pero la simple falta de actualizaciones no debe interpretarse como que los portales no son necesarios y deben eliminarse. -- M asem ( t ) 14:24, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se admite la desuso y el archivado, pero no la eliminación . Los portales fueron un experimento interesante que no parece haber funcionado. Dicho esto, estoy de acuerdo con quienes dicen que todo este esfuerzo no debería tirarse ahora a la papelera. Alguien puede encontrarlos útiles y posiblemente reutilice elementos de los portales existentes para otros fines. — Kpalion (discusión) 16:01 17 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo la idea general de depreciar el espacio de nombres del portal (en términos generales, cosas como el portal de contenido destacado no deberían incluirse y quizás trasladarse al espacio de nombres Wikipedia:), pero ¿quién diseñó esta RfC? ¿Por qué propondrías eliminarlos a todos y garantizar la oposición en ese frente, en lugar de marcarlos como históricos? Simplemente no tiene ningún sentido. Ed [discusión] [majestic titan] 14:44, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tenga en cuenta que las páginas del portal se editan a través de plantillas. Al final, debe medir la actividad de la plantilla y no la página del portal que solo presenta toda la información. - Knowledgekid87 ( discusión ) 14:50, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición . Es una propuesta demasiado amplia. Es necesario abordar los problemas identificados, pero no es la manera de hacerlo. Andrewa ( discusión ) 14:57 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los portales de soporte tenían sentido en los días anteriores a los motores de búsqueda robustos, cuando Yahoo Directory y Open Directory Project/DMOZ dominaban la web y la mayoría de las páginas de inicio de los navegadores de la gente estaban configuradas como iGoogle o My Yahoo !. Lo mejor es eliminar los portales o incorporarlos a WikiProjects. Démosles a los Wikiprojects unos meses para que refactoricen cualquier contenido deseado en sus páginas de inicio y luego elimínelos. La única excepción a esto tendría que ser Portal:Current events , cuyo WikiProject está inactivo (aquí, la respuesta fácil es simplemente mover Portal:Current events → Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events ). -- Ahecht ( PAGINA DE DISCUSION) 15:25 12 abril 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse Esta es una de las propuestas más estúpidas que he visto en Wikipedia. Como se describe en la descripción "La idea de un portal es ayudar a los lectores y/o editores a navegar por las áreas temáticas de Wikipedia a través de páginas similares a la Página principal". Si la gente no encuentra los portales útiles y útiles, ¿quién demonios creó todos esos portales? Eliminar todos los portales solo porque reciben un número bajo de visitas es una mala decisión y un mal ejemplo para los futuros editores. Propondrán eliminar artículos de Wikipedia también solo porque reciben un número bajo de visitas. Si realmente quieres detener la función de portal en Wikipedia, hazlo. Pero por favor no elimines todos los portales que fueron creados por tantos editores que encontraron los portales interesantes y útiles. --- Randeer ( discusión ) 15:36 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a "la eliminación de todas las páginas del portal y la eliminación del espacio de nombres del portal", que es lo que propone la RFC. No tiene sentido eliminar todas las páginas sobre la base de que algunas (o incluso muchas) no son satisfactorias. Thincat ( discusión ) 16:17 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo por varias razones.
Parece que esta medida sería muy divisiva y podría provocar el antagonismo de un número significativo de editores apasionados a cambio de muy pocos beneficios reales, si es que los hay. Esto por sí solo es suficiente para abandonar esta propuesta.
No nos falta espacio, y de todos modos los portales ocupan muy poco espacio.
No hay suficientes pruebas para la mayoría de las afirmaciones de ambas partes como para que se las tome en serio. Esto sería un gran cambio y las posibles consecuencias deberían ser evaluadas por expertos antes de hacer la propuesta. Los argumentos aquí son en su mayoría emocionales o se basan en opiniones y conjeturas.
Muchos de los apoyos provienen claramente de personas que no tienen ninguna relación personal con los portales, por lo que se puede esperar razonablemente que sean bastante ignorantes sobre su utilidad para quienes sí los utilizan, trabajan con ellos y los mantienen. ¿Son estas personas realmente las que deberían quitar algo a la fuerza a quienes quieren mantenerlos? Los portales han estado en Wikipedia durante mucho tiempo, no hay duda de que son aceptables en términos de tradición y política existente.
La eliminación significa que se pierde el contenido. Gran parte de ese contenido puede ser valioso. ¿Quién lo ha comprobado y puede decir con pruebas que no lo es?
Se han sugerido soluciones alternativas, pero no se ha demostrado su viabilidad. No se debería suprimir nada hasta que se hayan examinado y debatido. La propuesta es prematura. No hay prisa.
No borramos cosas porque no sean perfectas, las arreglamos. Esto sería un precedente peligroso. Ya no podríamos confiar en que Wikipedia respete nuestro trabajo y el esfuerzo que se ha invertido en él. Ya es bastante malo que no podamos confiar en la WMF la mayor parte del tiempo, no tenemos por qué empezar a desconfiar también de nuestra propia comunidad. Probablemente haya menos votos de apoyo aquí que la cantidad de portales que quieren eliminar. · · · Peter (Southwood) (discusión) : 16:41 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario Todo editor debería prestar atención al último punto de Peter. Wikipedia existe, ante todo, como un repositorio de conocimiento, y si te alegras demasiado de borrar contenido, acabarás con el impulso y el entusiasmo de la base de usuarios. Esto no significa que no se deba borrar nada, pero sí que es necesario considerarlo y reconsiderarlo con cuidado. WhisperToMe ( discusión ) 22:52 25 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a la eliminación, apoyar la reforma. Muchos portales están desactualizados y no se han mantenido durante mucho tiempo, y deberían sacarse del espacio de nombres y marcarse como históricos. Sin embargo, se han dado numerosos ejemplos anteriormente de portales sobre temas importantes que aún se mantienen, y siento que la opción nuclear es un caso masivo de exageración. (La falta de un plan para cosas como Portal:Current events en particular me ilustra que no se ha pensado lo suficiente en la opción nuclear). The Drover's Wife ( discusión ) 16:45 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse : tratar el contenido desactualizado de los portales de la misma manera que tratamos el contenido desactualizado de los artículos: editándolos. Los diversos argumentos que se presentan en apoyo de esta propuesta exigen la eliminación masiva de cosas que solo necesitan ser reparadas o la eliminación selectiva . En el caso más extremo, esta propuesta exige la eliminación de contenido que, de otro modo, sería perfectamente bueno. Esta situación es demasiado matizada como para utilizar la eliminación masiva como solución. Además, si se eliminan portales, no hay garantía de que sus editores redirijan su atención a otras tareas. Los voluntarios trabajarán en proyectos que atraigan sus propios intereses y atención, por lo que no podemos asumir que esas energías se canalizarán a otros esfuerzos. Imzadi 1979 → 16:55, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mi última intervención aquí ha sido duramente criticada, sobre todo cuando escribí que esta idea es propensa a "alejar a los editores colaboradores" y que "la mayoría de las personas que gustan de participar en estas discusiones aparentemente no tienen el más mínimo respeto por el trabajo de otras personas". En doce años me he encontrado con un buen número de personas que dieron esa impresión y, como consecuencia, he permanecido apegado a Wikipedia en la periferia. Pero esa es una pregunta personal que realmente no pertenece aquí. En realidad, esperaba que mis duras palabras provocaran alguna reflexión, así que agradezco a todos por sus respuestas. En primer lugar, quiero decir que no se trata de dividir a los ciudadanos en buenos y malos. Podría decir que mis palabras fueron irónicas, pero eso sería sólo la mitad de la verdad sin cambiar mucho. Esto es lo que realmente pienso: Hay muchas maneras de destruir una comunidad democrática y esta es bastante esclarecedora. ¿Cuál es el truco? Haces una pregunta simple: ¿Crees que Hillary es corrupta? Todo el mundo la ha visto en televisión varias veces, así que supongo que pueden responder. Todo el mundo ha visto alguna vez un foro en Wikipedia, así que debe haber sacado alguna impresión de si le ha resultado útil. ¡Vamos, no sea tímido, diga su opinión! La gente tiene derecho a decir lo que piensa, ¡eso es democracia! Si hay una votación o una elección es la única manera. Pero tan pronto como respondes a esa pregunta, positiva o negativamente, para decidir sobre el propósito general, pareces no tener el "mínimo respeto por el trabajo de los demás". Es inevitable, porque puede que hayas mirado últimamente tres o cuatro portales, los más diligentes incluso más, pero condenas a cientos de ellos, juzgando la inteligencia de miles de personas que han hecho todo lo posible en un millón de ediciones que han sido verificadas por otros 10.000 o 100.000 usuarios. Nadie es capaz de responder a esto para todos y cada uno de los portales en cuestión. Es una generalización. Por eso creo que esta propuesta debería ser declarada INADMISIBLE . Pero ahora que la cuestión está sobre la mesa, todo el mundo lo ha entendido, necesita una respuesta y todo lo demás pasará a un segundo plano. Como a los atenienses, a quienes se les preguntó si querían gobernar Sicilia. Por supuesto que sí. O más recientemente a los votantes estadounidenses, a quienes se les pidió que decidieran si se sentían más cómodos con Crooked Hill o Grabbing Don. Les deseo entonces una buena discusión, pero no olviden que el propósito de la democracia es incluir, no destruir. Si solo algunos de nosotros entendemos esto, aún puede haber alguna esperanza en el fondo de la caja. -- Lamassus ( discusión ) 18:00, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte - Cuando necesito información sobre algo, utilizo la función de búsqueda o motores de búsqueda externos de Internet. Cuando me interesa aprender más sobre el tema, hago Ctrl+clic en todos los enlaces que me parecen interesantes. Termino con 100 pestañas abiertas, horas de lectura agradable y sin necesidad de ningún "portal" creado por otra persona para informarme sobre los artículos "más interesantes" sobre un gran tema. Nunca he considerado siquiera abrir una página de portal. ~ ToBeFree ( discusión ) 18:13, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
"No uso X" → "¿X debe ser destruida"? : Noyster (discusión), 18:25 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente . He leído toda esta discusión, así como la discusión que precedió a esta RfC, y he visto y considerado todas las razones que se han dado a favor. Y no estoy convencido. No es como si eliminarlos mejorara Wikipedia. De hecho, incluso si postulo por el bien de la discusión que los partidarios tienen razón en que los lectores casi nunca hacen uso de los portales, entonces se deduce que los lectores casi nunca notarán si desaparecen. Aunque entiendo que los portales necesitan una modernización significativa, la propuesta aquí es una solución en busca de un problema. Pero apoyaría con gusto un esfuerzo importante para mejorar el sistema de portales. -- Tryptofish ( discusión ) 19:09, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta es la mejor oposición a una propuesta que he visto en mucho tiempo. Estoy 100% de acuerdo con todo lo que has dicho. En todo caso, esta propuesta será negativa porque sería una pérdida enorme de tiempo administrativo eliminar estas cosas. TonyBallioni ( discusión ) 19:21 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . El mantenimiento mensual es mínimo, pero también lo es el número de lectores. Menos de 100 visitas por mes y día. A pesar de la invitación a ser audaces, solo otro editor intentó sumarse al nuestro en 10 años. - SusanLesch ( discusión ) 19:22, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@SusanLesch :Exhibición en el mostrador de recepción de la biblioteca: venga y lea más libros como estosSi el portal al que haces referencia tiene algún defecto, tienes una ruta para eliminarlo. Está en WP:MFD . Esa no es una razón para borrar en masa los otros 1.500 portales. Tampoco lo es la falta de edición reciente o tener solo 36.500 visitas al año. Piensa en los portales como una ventana o una mesa de exposición en una biblioteca. Simplemente presentan una selección minuciosa de sus fondos para fomentar un uso más amplio de cualquiera de los fondos de la biblioteca. Son solo otra ruta hacia el contenido; elige uno y tal vez te inspire. ¿Por qué negarles esa oportunidad a los lectores? Nick Moyes ( discusión ) 00:10, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición a favor de una revisión técnica : como muchos otros, estoy de acuerdo en que mantener los portales actualizados y mantenidos es un problema, al igual que el punto de vista sigiloso. Ambos son solucionables. Mi sugerencia es que los portales estén altamente estandarizados de alguna manera, posiblemente permitiendo una serie de plantillas automatizadas para el contenido destacado, etc., aunque lo más visto probablemente no sea útil (para WPEQ, creo que el artículo sobre la Princesa Ana es el que recibe más visitas, mientras que Horse debería ser lo que aparezca de inmediato) Montanabw (discusión) 19:47 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición : Muchos portales necesitan mejoras y, en algunos casos, pueden haber dejado de ser útiles. Sin embargo, no creo que eso sea un argumento para deshacerse de todos los portales. Sin embargo, algunos tienen el potencial de ser muy útiles y, si se pudiera encontrar una mejor manera de mantenerlos, como otros han sugerido, creo que esa es una mejor opción. Dunarc ( discusión ) 20:12 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición : Sí, hay algunos portales que han caído en el olvido y el deterioro, pero los portales no son los únicos en este sentido. Hay otros que proporcionan un resumen útil de un tema. Semejante selección generalizada de contenido sobre bases tan endebles sería totalmente inapropiada. — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por DavidCane ( discusión • contribs ) 21:34, 12 de abril de 2018 (UTC)
Soporte . Incluso en su apogeo, dudo que los portales fueran muy útiles. Creé y mantuve un portal, luego me olvidé de él hasta este aviso de eliminación. Nadie más se encargó de mantenerlo actualizado. → Wordbuilder ( discusión ) 22:10 12 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
errm, pero estos eran Portal:Texas Tech University y Portal:University of Houston, ninguno de los cuales es un tema demasiado amplio para empezar. Aún puedes usar WP:MFD si lo deseas. Nick Moyes ( discusión ) 00:25 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Edité Portal:University of Houston? No lo recuerdo en absoluto. Las universidades que existen desde hace mucho tiempo son bastante amplias en sus temas. No me ocuparé de WP:MFD ya que el problema puede resolverse por sí solo. → Wordbuilder ( discusión ) 17:24 23 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
13 de abril de 2018
Fuerte oposición a la eliminación total de portales; apoyo a algún tipo de reforma. (La redacción amplia de esta propuesta, "la eliminación de todas las páginas del portal y la eliminación del espacio de nombres del portal", me preocupa, ya que afectaría claramente a portales que muchos usan, incluido Portal:Current Events , etc.) Sin embargo, está claro que este es un tema polémico y, sin embargo, un tanto oscuro al mismo tiempo: todos los portales son creados iguales, sí, pero no todos los portales resultan iguales. Si bien soy naturalmente reticente a eliminar portales en su totalidad, se necesita alguna reforma: muchos portales (como el que me llevó a esta discusión, el de Gilbert y Sullivan) caen en desuso y, por lo tanto, en mal estado (el de G&S no se ha actualizado en tres años), pero la eliminación de portales simplemente no mejorará marginalmente Wikipedia de una manera u otra. Después de todo, no es que tengamos un espacio limitado y necesitemos conservarlo ( WP:NOTPAPER ), por lo que mantener los portales no desperdiciará espacio ni nada por el estilo. Pero se necesita una reforma: menos de 100 visitas a la página por mes significa que algo anda mal. Honestamente, no estoy seguro de qué funcionaría mejor: no me gusta el mantenimiento automatizado de los portales (supongo que me gusta la interacción humana), y agilizar los portales a través de la estandarización, seamos honestos, es una apuesta arriesgada; pero no tengo mejores ideas para aportar a la discusión. — Javert2113 ( discusión ) 00:37, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Obsoleto, pero no elimine No creo que los portales deban estar vinculados desde el espacio de nombres del artículo. Es solo desorden. Simplemente eliminar Portal: tomorrow no tendría ningún inconveniente para el 99,99 % de los lectores y el 99 % de los editores, pero el otro 1 % estaría realmente molesto. Por otra parte, parece mucho trabajo innecesario tener una revisión exhaustiva de cada portal para evaluar si parte o todo el contenido se mueve a otro espacio de nombres antes de una fecha límite de eliminación. jnestorius ( discusión ) 00:59, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo : Se mantiene una minoría de portales y la población en general nunca los lee. Apoyo la eliminación de todos los portales. – Vami _IV✠ 01:10, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No tengo una opinión firme : nunca he prestado mucha atención a los portales (con la notable excepción de la creación inicial de la página para Portal:Software ), por lo que no puedo decir si deberían eliminarse o no. Pero sí quiero decir que, si se eliminan, asegúrense de que se archiven de una manera que preserve todo su historial, simplemente porque la información no debería volverse inaccesible. flarn 2006 [ u t c ] hora: 04:26, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición - Por dónde empezar, no he estado editando tanto como solía hacerlo debido a problemas en la vida real, pero puedo decir que cuando edité más profusamente, me encargué de mejorar la experiencia del portal, incluida la creación de múltiples plantillas, ajustes y otras herramientas similares para mejorar la experiencia del portal. Incluso comencé el mantenimiento de Portal:Food , Portal:Beer y la creación de Portal:Drink para complementar P:Food y WP:Food and Drink . Los portales pueden ser una excelente manera de presentar a los nuevos lectores una gran cantidad de temas en áreas específicas. Por lo tanto, estoy totalmente en desacuerdo con la discontinuación del espacio de nombres Portal y la eliminación del contenido. Lo que sí apoyo es un sistema de promoción de los portales que aumentaría su uso e importancia en Wikipedia. También apoyaría la fusión de portales similares, de enfoque estrecho, en otros de enfoque más general que cubran áreas de ideas más amplias y agrupadas de manera similar. ¿Cómo haríamos esto? No lo sé, pero una discusión sobre cómo comenzar probablemente sería un buen lugar para comenzar. Jeremy ( bla, bla, bla , ¡ lo hice! ) 05:01, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tal vez la mejor manera de promocionarlos, así como de aumentar su uso e importancia, sería mejorar su calidad, en términos de interactividad y contenido dinámico autoactualizable, para mantenerlos interesantes y relevantes. Inspirar visitas repetidas. Actualmente, la gran mayoría de los portales son estáticos y, por lo tanto, se vuelven obsoletos con el tiempo. — The Transhumanist 13:05, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No cumplen ninguna función perceptible. No los necesitamos para la organización. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:57, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte : como se indicó en la página de discusión de WP:Spaceflight hace un par de días , demasiado trabajo para poco beneficio. Se podría dedicar mejor el tiempo a trabajar en otras cosas. Apoyo la eliminación completa, sin guardar páginas históricas. Kees08 (discusión) 09:51, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Knowledgekid87 : Lo sabía, pero no sabía qué era. Encontré el enlace en la página principal (aunque se llama de otra manera) y no creo que eliminarlo sea una gran pérdida. Aunque estoy involucrado en el WikiProject de vuelos espaciales, hay información sobre vuelos espaciales en ese portal de la que no estaba al tanto. Hay enlaces a tres páginas propuestas para su eliminación, varios enlaces DAB. Parece un duplicado de Wikinoticias y podría reemplazarse con eso, ya que la página no encaja bien con el tema de la enciclopedia. Kees08 (discusión) 05:35 14 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a la eliminación de portales, no tengo opinión sobre otros cambios propuestos (hacerlos históricos, eliminar enlaces del espacio principal). El único portal que he utilizado es Portal:Amiga, que ya no se actualiza, obra de un editor (retirado). Por supuesto, el contenido se puede mover bajo WikiProject Amiga (desaparecido/no muerto). Pavlor ( discusión ) 10:21 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse Útil para colocar avisos en las páginas de discusión de portales de discusión relacionados con el tema durante las solicitudes de eliminación. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( discusión ) 11:34 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Nunca entendí el sentido de los portales en los 13 años que llevo editando. El tiempo de los editores se emplearía mejor en mantener los artículos del espacio principal. Número 5 7 11:36, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse — mantener pero reformar. ¿Para qué sirven los portales? Los editores quieren un foro, pero los wikiproyectos lo hacen mejor, así que mueva el contenido del portal que está orientado al editor (como listas de artículos para mejorar) al espacio de nombres WP:. Los lectores quieren algo útil cuando hacen clic en Contenidos en la barra de navegación izquierda, así que mantenga Portal:Contenidos o cree un reemplazo. Muchas subpáginas como Portal:Contenidos/Matemáticas y lógica simplemente duplican la mejor Portal:Matemáticas , etc., así que vinculemos esta última directamente al árbol de contenidos. Los wikiproyectos más entusiastas pueden reformatear sus portales con énfasis en la lista de contenidos; el resto puede permanecer en el estado actual, que es mejor que nada. Certes ( discusión ) 11:43, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a la eliminación masiva de todos los portales, apoyo el análisis y la eliminación de los inactivos. Probablemente haya cientos que no se han actualizado en años, algunos incluso cerca de una década, y estos deberían eliminarse. Pero otros todavía se visitan con cierta frecuencia y se actualizan a diario y no deberían eliminarse. No creo que este tema pueda ser tan blanco o negro... hay un punto medio. S EMMENDINGER ( discusión ) 13:30 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Llevo 14 años editando y nunca he usado ningún portal de forma regular. Además, aparentemente a los lectores no les interesan los portales. Con todo el respeto a los editores de portales, el tiempo dedicado a mantenerlos podría ser más eficiente para mejorar los artículos en sí. -- Jklamo ( discusión ) 14:05 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es un buen enlace para hacer y creo que lo he visto mencionado en algún lugar de Wikipedia en un ensayo. La idea de que "los editores estarían mejor haciendo x" es una pendiente resbaladiza, ¿deberíamos continuar y decir algo como: "Los editores deberían dedicar su tiempo a artículos relacionados con plantas debido a la complejidad del campo"? Cada portal atrae a editores interesados en esa área en particular, solo porque no edites portales ni te importen es una buena razón para eliminarlos por completo. - Knowledgekid87 ( discusión ) 14:14, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo siento, Jklamo , argumentar a favor de eliminar todos los portales y respetar a los editores de los portales son mutuamente incompatibles. En lugar de argumentar a favor de la eliminación de portales, ¿por qué no dedicas tu tiempo de manera más eficiente a mejorar los artículos? Dejando de lado el sarcasmo, redirigir el esfuerzo de los voluntarios de lo que quieren hacer hacia lo que crees que deberían hacer es mucho trabajo, y eliminar el trabajo de los voluntarios no suele ser una buena manera de hacer que se ofrezcan a más. — Kusma ( t · c ) 14:16, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a la eliminación de todos los portales, pero apoyo la eliminación de aquellos que son particularmente malos. Los portales pueden ser útiles de vez en cuando, e incluso si se usan raramente, eso no significa que todos deban eliminarse. Si alguien busca en un portal, siempre estará feliz de encontrar lo que encuentre, incluso si no está bien mantenido. Sin embargo, algunos portales no han sido editados en años y deberían eliminarse. El "Mucha gente no usa portales, así que eliminémoslos todos" es ridículo. La eliminación masiva de portales no hará que Wikipedia sea mejor. L293D ( ☎ • ✎ ) 14:55, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a la eliminación general de todos los portales independientemente del estado de mantenimiento actual. -- SarekOfVulcan (discusión) 15:08 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse , pero restar importancia. En realidad, estos enlaces no están diseñados para personas como nosotros, sino para lectores nuevos en WP o en un área temática. Probablemente se deberían eliminar algunos enlaces a ellos y eliminar los que son realmente malos. Pero muchos parecen funcionar bien, más o menos en piloto automático, y sí que reciben visitas. Johnbod ( discusión ) 16:20, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte – Hace muchos años que configuré los portales de Historia Militar para Portal:Napoleonic Wars y Portal:American Civil War , pero las visitas a la página de los portales son generalmente tan pobres que no vale la pena el esfuerzo de mantenerlos (ACW y NW). Si las tendencias son similares para otros portales, todo el sistema parece una pérdida de esfuerzo y debería ser desechado a favor de centrarse en el contenido de los artículos reales. Los portales parecen un poco phpBB de los años 90, en mi opinión. — Marcus ( discusión ) 16:31, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
78.500 visitas desde el 15 de mayo (Portal:Guerra Civil Estadounidense) no parece tan malo en absoluto. ¿Realmente necesitan más mantenimiento que cualquier otra página? Johnbod ( discusión ) 16:40 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si comparamos las 78.500 visitas con los 15 millones de visitas al artículo sobre la Guerra Civil Estadounidense en el mismo período, entonces sí, en realidad es solo el 0,5 %. No vale la pena. — Marcus ( discusión ) 19:23 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyamos la reforma del sistema de portales tal como lo conocemos, pero nos oponemos a la eliminación de todos los portales en masa. Tal vez, en lugar de recurrir a una eliminación general de todos los portales, sería mejor revisarlos. Después de la revisión, cada portal podría ser:
catalogado como portal activo, siendo el criterio general para esta condición que deben ser monitoreados regularmente y mantenerse actualizados;
eliminados por completo (por ejemplo, si están particularmente mal mantenidos y/o raramente mantenidos).
Los portales pueden resultar útiles para los editores de vez en cuando, pero es bastante fácil darse cuenta de que ya no son del todo adecuados para su propósito. No creo que sea ilógico sugerir que muchos portales, si no la mayoría, son visitados con muy poca frecuencia por la mayoría de los editores y lectores (no editores). No creo que sea necesario que haya tantos portales como los que hay actualmente.
¿Esta propuesta de eliminar el sistema de portales habría provocado un debate tan interesante entre editores si el sistema no hubiera estado en tan lamentable estado? No puedo darte la respuesta a eso, pero lo que sí puedo decir es que el sistema necesita urgentemente una mejora. Un portal debería ser una herramienta de navegación útil para lectores y editores, pero tal como están hoy en día, la mayoría no lo es. Con demasiada frecuencia, la actividad de edición se desvanece, dejando un portal casi abandonado que es un blanco fácil para problemas de punto de vista y material sin fuentes.
Perdóneme si esta idea es demasiado simple, pero puede ser sensato intentar idear un sistema que aumente de forma discreta la conciencia del sistema de portales entre los lectores, de modo que se anime a la gente a visitarlos. Se esperaría que esto generara cierto interés en el uso de los portales, de modo que la gente se sintiera más inclinada a contribuir a Wikipedia editándolos. A su vez, esto ayudaría a mejorar la enciclopedia al ayudar a la gente a navegar por ella.
No suelo expresar mi opinión en debates comunitarios como este, porque puede resultar bastante intimidante para editores como yo, que no nos consideramos tan versados en Wikipedia como muchos de vosotros y no hemos colaborado durante tanto tiempo como muchos de vosotros. Así que, una vez más, permítanme disculparme si les estoy recordando algo que es pan comido para ustedes. Hay varias plantillas que se pueden utilizar para incluir enlaces a un portal o a varios portales. Tomemos como ejemplos las plantillas Portal , Portal bar , Portal-inline , Subject bar y Sister project links .
Saludos cordiales, Ntmamgtw ( discusión ) 16:49 13 abr 2018 (UTC) (actualizado 09:24 17 abr 2018 (UTC)) [ responder ]
Oposición : son geniales. No tengo mucho que decir sobre los portales, no interactúo con ellos con frecuencia, pero parecen una forma útil de presentar una descripción general útil de temas generales. Si algunos de ellos están en mal estado, arréglelos o elimínelos individualmente si individualmente no son útiles. Ivanvector ( Discusión / Ediciones ) 18:01 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente : todos los portales que he visitado son muy útiles para navegar y presentar a los lectores temas nuevos o interesantes. La razón por la que muchos de los portales tienen "poco tráfico" es porque están ocultos bajo el título de "portal" y no mucha gente buscaría naturalmente esos títulos de página (a menos que ya estuvieran familiarizados con ellos). (Vea también algunos de los otros argumentos para mantener los portales mencionados anteriormente y algunos otros argumentos en las secciones siguientes; son bastante razonables). No obstante, los portales están vinculados a la mayoría de los artículos relacionados o relevantes a través de las Plantillas de portales en las secciones "Ver también" de los artículos, por lo que realmente creo que una cantidad razonable de personas lee y consulta los portales regularmente y, por lo tanto, el tráfico de la página no debería ser un problema. El bajo mantenimiento es una excusa muy pobre para eliminar los portales ; Este problema está presente en muchos de los WikiProyectos en los que he trabajado, porque algunos de los colaboradores más veteranos/activos ya no lo son tanto. ¿Deberíamos eliminar todos los WikiProyectos porque algunos/muchos de ellos ya no reciben mantenimiento regular? Esto es simplemente ridículo. Utilizo regularmente algunos de los portales para navegar y mejorar artículos, y soy muy consciente de que muchos de nuestros lectores también lo hacen regularmente. Supongamos que eliminamos todos los portales: ¿cómo vamos a reemplazarlos entonces? ¿Vamos a crear un "nuevo" conjunto de páginas de navegación, o vamos a dejar que todo este útil medio de navegación simplemente se pudra y desaparezca en el olvido? Sin los portales, ¿cómo podrán los lectores y editores activos acceder a muchos de los artículos de un WikiProyecto específico a través de una página? Independientemente del nivel de visitas y mantenimiento de la página, los portales ya son demasiado útiles como para simplemente eliminarlos. Los portales de Wikipedia son extremadamente útiles para todo tipo de navegación dentro de un WikiProject y para presentarles a los lectores nuevos temas. No veo por qué nada de eso sería motivo para eliminar los portales. Light and Dark2000 ( discusión ) 17:54 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No tengo problemas con reformar el sistema del portal o incluso con configurar algo para aumentar la conciencia de los lectores/usuarios sobre los distintos portales (lo que ayudará a mitigar cualquier problema de mantenimiento), pero ¿borrar o redirigir todos los portales directamente simplemente no es una opción viable? ¿Eres consciente del daño a la infraestructura o del impacto que causarías a los lectores si eliminaras todos los portales? Light and Dark2000 ( discusión ) 18:02 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por cierto, una gran cantidad de portales, como Portal:Current events , Portal:Science , Portal:History y Portal:Tropical cyclones se mantienen regularmente y tienen una gran cantidad de visitas (hasta donde yo sé). Estos son solo algunos buenos ejemplos. ¿Vamos a eliminar en masa todos los portales solo porque algunos de ellos no están a la altura de los estándares ideales? Esta propuesta cae dentro de la misma falacia que a menudo se invoca para eliminar rápidamente artículos nuevos/inicio o de clase stub que tienen mucho potencial o que eventualmente se convirtieron en excelentes artículos en este sitio. (Hay una razón por la que no se supone que se etiqueten arbitrariamente artículos nuevos o problemáticos para eliminarlos porque no se ven ideales). Dudo seriamente que todos los portales tengan suficientes problemas como para justificar una eliminación real de todos los portales. Light and Dark2000 ( discusión ) 18:19, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte general, prefiero marcar los portales como históricos He trabajado en portales y dejé de hacerlo porque me di cuenta de que no son particularmente útiles y dan más trabajo del que valen. No creo que eliminarlos sea la mejor solución. MI solución preferida sería marcar todo el sistema como histórico, desaconsejar (¿prohibir?) la creación de nuevos y desaconsejar la expansión de todos excepto los más utilizados (o incluso moverlos a Projectspace). Wugapodes [t h ɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 18:18, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No apoyaría que se marcaran todos los portales como "históricos" (ni que se los sacara a todos del sistema de portales). Algunos portales, como los de eventos actuales y ciclones tropicales , todavía se mantienen de forma activa y son muy esenciales para acceder a los artículos más recientes (en sentido cronológico) en relación con sus WikiProyectos específicos. Podría apoyar que se marcaran los portales arcaicos o extremadamente antiguos como históricos, pero los portales activos o relevantes todavía se usan mucho y no deberían sacarse del espacio principal de Wikipedia de ninguna manera. Light and Dark2000 ( discusión ) 18:24 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Existen alternativas que quizás sean incluso mejores que el sistema de portales, como listas, cuadros de navegación, esquemas y categorías. Las listas y los esquemas en particular son mucho más fáciles de mantener, ya que requieren menos conocimientos esotéricos de funciones de análisis, transclusión y subpáginas (en serio, miren Wikipedia:Portal/Instrucciones, es una pesadilla). Incluso los portales vinculados en la parte superior de la página principal apenas superan las 2000 vistas por día, mientras que los artículos de DYK a menudo obtienen al menos esa cantidad de vistas, y muchos superan las 5000 vistas . Portal:Tropical cyclones during the Atlantic hurricane season promedia 190 vistas por día; la página principal de Signpost tiene mejores estadísticas de visitas a la página y acaban de publicar un artículo en el que preguntan si está en sus últimas. Unos pocos valores atípicos como Portal:Current events no deberían usarse como un garrote para mantener lo que es esencialmente una característica muerta con alternativas superiores, es por eso que tenemos WP:IAR . Conserve los pocos que sean útiles, mueva el resto al espacio del proyecto y marque WP:Portal y WP:POG como históricos. Wugapodes [t h ɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:16, 17 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Conservar, pero marcar los portales inactivos o arcaicos como "históricos" : esta es mi propuesta de compromiso, asumiendo que algo realmente salga de esta RfD. Sin embargo, mi voto original (arriba) sigue en pie. Light and Dark2000 ( discusión ) 18:35, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No voy a votar dos veces. Estoy especificando un poco más mi opinión sobre esto. Me opongo a eliminar todos los portales directamente, pero estoy abierto a la opción que acabo de mencionar arriba (y otras propuestas similares de otros usuarios en algunas de las votaciones anteriores). Light and Dark2000 ( discusión ) 04:38 14 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hold - Hay pocos datos sobre los lectores. Reciben bastantes visitas a la página y, si se automatizaran, los consideraría una buena forma de mostrar contenido destacado. Necesitamos datos de los lectores antes de eliminarlos al por mayor. Cas Liber ( discusión · contribuciones ) 19:55, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son los portales que actualmente reciben el mejor mantenimiento? Para poder compararlos con los que no reciben mantenimiento, y tener una idea de la relación costo-beneficio de una renovación integral del proyecto. — The Transhumanist 21:15, 13 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse - Los portales son una excelente manera de explorar los millones de artículos de Wikipedia. Permiten encontrar datos interesantes e inesperados. Existen problemas con los portales que pueden ser solucionados por la comunidad de editores, con herramientas como la selección aleatoria de artículos. -- NaBUru38 ( discusión ) 21:54 13 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
14 de abril de 2018
Soporte - Redundantes, inútiles y no muy bien mantenidos son las palabras que usaría para describir los portales. Si soy un visitante, simplemente usaría la búsqueda y no recorrería los portales. Creo que el compromiso proporcionado por LightandDark2000 también es una buena idea, manteniendo los portales principales y activos. ITSQUIETUPTOWN discusión • contribuciones 03:35, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse como una eliminación masiva - El argumento de que hay algunos portales malos o desactualizados no me parece que justifique la eliminación de todos los portales, al igual que algunos artículos malos o desactualizados no justifican la eliminación de todos los artículos. Además, creo que habrá una pérdida considerable de buena voluntad de aquellas personas que mantienen activamente los portales, posiblemente hasta el punto de perderlos como contribuyentes por completo. Creo que un mejor resultado de esta discusión sería una campaña de implementación lenta para proponer la eliminación de portales *específicos* malos/desactualizados. Esto puede incitar a las personas a actualizar esos portales (y salvarlos) o dar como resultado la eliminación de esos portales. Digo de implementación lenta porque si una persona está involucrada con varios portales y decide actualizarlos, deberíamos darle tiempo para hacerlo y no ponerlos todos a disposición para su eliminación simultáneamente, lo que haría imposible que los actualice todos. Kerry ( discusión ) 04:51, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse Hay una cierta duda sobre si todo este RfC fue envenenado o no en base a la redacción inadecuada de la pregunta. Obviamente, no todos los portales deberían ser eliminados. Hay portales que Wikipedia mantiene y de los que depende, y que son bastante populares. No necesitamos destruirlos todos solo porque algunos de los portales más oscuros no reciben mucha atención. No obstante, hay una pregunta que debe hacerse sobre qué se podría hacer con los portales que apenas superan las 100 visitas al mes (un plazo muy generoso en mi humilde opinión). Los portales parecen ser algo más de nicho que un espectador normal puede no querer ver, pero un wikipedista experimentado puede visitar con frecuencia, especialmente si se trata de un tema que le interesa. Aunque parece que la forma en que se anuncian es el problema. Revisé algunos de los portales a través de la función "qué enlaza aquí" y descubrí que están más relegados a la última sección de la página, después de ver también, donde apenas unos pocos lectores logran pasar y parece que solo por suerte encontrarías el enlace al portal X. Esto es inaceptable y probablemente sea la razón principal por la que no se utilizan los portales. No son más que un enlace escaso cerca del final de una página, apenas una nota a pie de página, que incita por sí sola a un lector a hacer clic en ellos. No creo que se deban eliminar todos los portales, pero deberían estar en un formato más accesible y más amigable con la interfaz gráfica de usuario (haga clic en mí para obtener más información sobre el tema X). Tutelary ( discusión ) 06:46, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a esto , los portales suelen ofrecer una descripción general de cada tema y los artículos relacionados . Revisar rápidamente el artículo principal del tema no es una forma fácil de llegar a los artículos relacionados; y navegar por categorías o índices es una forma realmente horrible de encontrar cosas, especialmente cuando no se sabe lo que se está buscando por su nombre.
Uno podría no usar el portal cuando sabe lo suficiente sobre el tema, pero eso no niega su utilidad para principiantes; también proporciona indicadores de buenos artículos destacados (y en algunos casos, artículos de eventos recientes ) sobre el tema de interés. Como dijo Tutelary anteriormente, su presencia en artículos relevantes debería ser más destacada para alentar más usos. Si portales específicos son inexactos o están desactualizados, trátelos caso por caso; convertirlos en portales automáticos también es bueno. ¿Pero proponer una eliminación masiva? Eso es un descuido.
Oponerse No hacen ningún daño y pueden ser útiles para algunos usuarios para encontrar información más fácilmente. - Quickfingers ( discusión ) 13:39 14 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte He estado editando aquí durante más de cinco años y casi nunca presto atención a ningún portal (excepto, como se mencionó anteriormente, Portal:Current events ), y mucho menos los edito. Casi siempre los he ignorado, ya que parecen realizar básicamente la misma función que las barras laterales y los cuadros de navegación del pie de página, pero en un espacio de nombres separado innecesario que los mantiene aislados sin sentido de los artículos que intentan vincular. Por lo tanto, el espacio de nombres/sistema del portal parece no tener un propósito como está ahora, y solo se volverá más obsoleto e ignorado si no se elimina. Todas las mañanas (hay un halo...) 13:45, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte Muchos de los portales no reciben un cuidado activo y, por lo tanto, no son muy útiles. Yo diría que muchos usuarios ocasionales de Wikipedia nunca utilizarían un portal para buscar información en Wikipedia. Jpmanalo ( discusión ) 13:47, 14
Oponerse . Aunque algunos portales pueden estar mal mantenidos, lo mismo podría decirse de muchos artículos. La eliminación masiva de portales parece una forma muy severa de resolver lo que de todos modos podría no ser un gran problema. He utilizado Portal: Astronomy recientemente para obtener opiniones (y tracción) sobre un artículo que comencé. Recibe alrededor de 150 visitas al día y se mantiene. Eliminar el valioso trabajo de los editores sería una acción negativa, no positiva. Richard Nowell ( discusión ) 13:58, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte , me temo que son básicamente páginas de solo edición, a los lectores no les interesan y este lector nunca ha usado una para buscar nada. Tenemos muchas formas simples y directas de llegar a las páginas, sin siquiera mencionar al Dr. Google. Chiswick Chap ( discusión ) 14:09, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo - Lo que otros han dicho arriba en apoyo a esto. -- Malerooster ( discusión ) 15:46 14 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse Esta es una mala solución a un "problema" que no es un problema en absoluto, y la calidad de la discusión no inspira confianza en el proceso. XOR'easter ( discusión ) 15:50 14 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Algo así como Oponerse Soy nuevo en Wikipedia y no uso mucho los portales. Sin embargo, un portal que se visita mucho (por mí y por muchos otros) es Portal:Current events . Se visita varios miles de veces al día (45.180 veces hoy mientras escribo esto). ¿Qué pasaría con él si se eliminara el espacio de nombres Portal? SemiHypercube ( discusión ) 17:23 14 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyar el cese del trabajo en los portales. No hay consenso sobre la eliminación total, por lo que recomendaría en su lugar un período de gracia de varios meses para fusionar el contenido relevante (para aquellos portales que se mantienen activamente) al espacio de proyectos. Podría ser útil, por ejemplo, importar algún contenido del portal para las páginas de WikiProject (que, en mi opinión, deberían reutilizarse como tablones de anuncios de áreas temáticas de todos modos). Si se importa el contenido, las páginas deben conservarse para el historial de atribución y, por lo tanto, redirigirse. Etiquete los portales restantes y aquellos que no se fusionen/redirijan en varios meses deben eliminarse, aunque sería razonable (como siempre) restaurar temporalmente ese contenido si alguien quiere fusionarlo después de la fecha límite. Hay muchas discusiones caso por caso que se deben tener, pero solo una vez que tengamos un acuerdo general sobre el destino de los portales.
La pregunta central que no se está haciendo lo suficiente aquí es qué portales contribuyen a nuestro propósito de construir una enciclopedia . No hay escasez de causas perdidas a las que nos dedicamos, desde las marginalmente notables hasta las resmas de debates en las páginas de discusión sobre oraciones individuales, por lo que no hay garantía de que los mantenedores de portales de repente decidan administrar un artículo de descripción general de temas de alto nivel: el tiempo empleado por el editor no viene al caso. El tema de los lectores es más destacado, pero entra en un debate sobre qué lectores cuentan como significativos, que es el debate equivocado. Es mejor preguntar qué portales contribuyen al servicio de una mejor enciclopedia. ¿Están canalizando activamente a los usuarios de interés general a artículos más específicos? ¿Están sacando a la luz contenido para atraer a los lectores más hacia sus propios intereses generales? ¿Cómo encuentran los lectores los portales además de la barra de bienvenida de la página principal y las barras que a veces adornan la parte inferior de los cuadros de navegación? No he visto ninguna respuesta tranquilizadora a estas preguntas. Nuestros sistemas existentes de artículos de alto nivel con resúmenes de temas (para lectores) y WikiProject/tablones de anuncios (para editores) parecen cumplir con todos los objetivos de los portales, con el beneficio adicional de que ya existen y tienen una base de usuarios dedicada. Espero que el trabajo de los encargados del mantenimiento de los portales pueda ser bien recibido en estas otras áreas de la enciclopedia. czar 17:27, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a la eliminación masiva. Como algunos usuarios han comentado anteriormente, utilice WP:Miscellany para la eliminación de portales individuales, con la opción de marcar como {{ historical }} . Polyamorph ( discusión ) 18:38 14 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Hay tan pocos portales útiles que un espacio de nombres dedicado no sólo es innecesario sino que invita al tipo de basura inútil que de hecho lo infesta. La página principal es un portal pero no está en el espacio de nombres Portal, otros tampoco necesitan estarlo. Cualquier información "Portal" genuinamente útil puede ser integrada en el espacio de artículos principal con bastante facilidad, típicamente en un artículo "Introducción a...", "Lista de artículos sobre...", "...visión general" o incluso "...portal". Obviamente, sería necesario un período de transición mientras los editores activos del portal rediseñan su información. Por ejemplo, Portal:Actualidad podría ser movido a Portal de actualidad (aunque no creo que tenga lugar en una enciclopedia seria, vea el comentario anterior sobre el propósito de Wikipedia , debería ser fusionado con Wikinoticias, pero ese es un tema diferente). — Saludos, Steelpillow ( Discusión )
Me opongo porque obviamente no hay consenso para eliminar los portales y no se debería intimidar continuamente a los editores para que logren grandes proyectos en un par de meses. Sugiero que solo se vinculen los portales actualizados desde el espacio principal y que los desactualizados se desvinculen, excepto a las páginas del Proyecto Wiki, hasta que se actualicen. Además, apoyo el uso de la automatización para actualizar los portales como se usa en la Wikipedia en español, que se detalla en una de las siguientes subsecciones, gracias Atlantic306 ( discusión ) 18:51, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo, esto es una maniobra evasiva para evitar WP:MFD . Este asunto debe tratarse de manera concreta en MFD antes de dar por sentado que se realizará una eliminación masiva. -- Mark viking ( discusión ) 20:34, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse – Como lector que rara vez edito la Wikipedia en inglés, encuentro los portales muy útiles. Guycn2 · ☎ 20:42, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por el contrario, veo algunos de ellos, como Portal:Jane Austen (gran parte del contenido está escrito por un especialista) y Portal:Literatura infantil . Cada uno de ellos recibe visitas y creo que cada uno de ellos es un activo para el proyecto. Es una especie de escaparate, un lugar donde detenerse, mirar, curiosear y tal vez decidir entrar. Están al servicio de los lectores; los editores que tuvieron la energía para crearlos (muchos de los cuales ya no están) merecen elogios, al igual que los editores actuales que continúan construyendo y cuidando portales. Victoriaearle ( tk ) 21:08, 14 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo . Creo que algunos de ellos son útiles en el uso habitual. ¿Por qué no eliminarlos caso por caso? Xxanthippe ( discusión ) 22:32 14 abr 2018 (UTC). [ responder ]
Débil oponiéndose , si bien es cierto que debido a las fluctuaciones de la redacción, generalmente a la baja, es difícil mantener el contenido, lo primero que se me viene a la cabeza es WP:NOTPAPER , luego WP:NOTFINISHED . Hasta que haya tiempo para mejorar me gusta la idea propuesta por ToThAc ( discusión · contribs ) de marcar los portales como Template:Historical , hasta que se pueda hacer algo que sea constructivo con el contenido.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( discusión ) 22:51 14 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo condicional Solo me opongo a esto si se eliminan. Deberían marcarse como históricos en su lugar. MoonyTheDwarf ( discusión ) 23:38 14 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
15 de abril de 2018
Apoyo especialmente para reiterar y destacar los puntos planteados por Czar ( discusión · contribs ) arriba. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:03, 15 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
El espacio del portal está lleno de contenido abandonado, obsoleto y a menudo inexacto. Esto es cierto incluso en portales sobre temas importantes. Un buen ejemplo es Portal:Philosophy, que tiene una página de discusión que no se ha utilizado desde 2014 y una sección de Noticias que enumera los eventos de 2010 a 2011. Además, me preocupa que los portales puedan usarse para promover ideologías y agendas; hace solo unos años, yo y algunos otros editores intentamos eliminar un portal pro-ISIS. Si bien muchos editores han sugerido mejorar los sistemas del portal, esto va a requerir una cantidad de esfuerzo enorme para algo que pocos lectores usan o incluso saben que existe. Francamente, nunca he entendido qué se supone que están logrando nuestros más de 1500 portales. De ahora en adelante, sugeriría archivar (no eliminar) la mayoría de los portales. Estaría bien si se mantuviera el portal de eventos actuales, así como algunos portales bien mantenidos y de uso activo. Spirit of Eagle ( discusión ) 05:40 15 abr 2018 (UTC)[ responder ]
Oponerse Actualmente, varios editores están trabajando para revisar y automatizar el sistema del portal, y mucha más gente usa el sistema del portal de lo que inicialmente pensé. Si bien todavía tengo muchas quejas sobre el sistema del portal, me complace darles una oportunidad para que arreglen las cosas y ver qué se les ocurre. El sistema del portal necesita una reforma para abordar los problemas que mencioné, pero estoy convencido de que puede haber algún valor en mantener activo el espacio de nombres del portal. Spirit of Eagle ( discusión ) 05:13, 2 de mayo de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo rotundamente ¿En serio? Se han empleado muchas horas de trabajo para crear estos portales, una simple eliminación molestaría a muchos voluntarios, así que, por favor, ¡detengan esta propuesta! -- Sinuhe20 ( discusión ) 07:22, 15 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Que la "eliminación molestaría a muchos voluntarios" no es una motivación razonable para mantener los portales. Lo que se pone en cuestión aquí es su utilidad y la veracidad de sus contenidos. La bondad de la enciclopedia debería anteponerse a cualquier capricho personal de los usuarios.-- 2.37.216.231 (discusión) 13:37 15 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario El término "utilidad" es realmente arbitrario porque depende de una persona u otra determinar qué es eso, y eso se convierte en una preferencia personal. Eso comienza a ahondar en el rango de WP:IDONTLIKEIT , que nunca es una razón para eliminar nada en Wikipedia. En cuanto a la "precisión del contenido", es un tema válido, y si el contenido no es preciso, entonces la conclusión obvia es editarlo. De vez en cuando encontramos contenido que está tan mal ensamblado que la eliminación es el mejor paso, pero ese no es el caso aquí... ciertamente no una eliminación general para cada portal. -- Paul McDonald ( discusión ) 14:30, 15 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse Puedes simplemente eliminar el portal o los portales "obsoletos" en lugar de eliminarlos todos. Mucha gente dedica su tiempo a crear un portal bonito e informativo. El portal también funciona como un lugar para encontrar personas que tienen los mismos intereses que tú y/o buscan un artículo determinado relacionado con un tema determinado. Wikipedia no solo se trata de crear artículos juntos, sino que también es un lugar para conectar a personas de todo el mundo. flixwito ^(•‿•)^ ( discusión ) 10:40 15 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Ésta es realmente la peor de las motivaciones que se han esgrimido para salvar los portales! ¡Wikipedia no es una red social! El objetivo de este proyecto es construir una enciclopedia de contenido de buena calidad (con respaldo académico), ¡no hacer amigos que compartan los mismos intereses!-- 2.37.216.231 (discusión) 13:37 15 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si bien es cierto que Wikipedia no es una red social, no estoy de acuerdo con la lógica de que, como no es una red social, no tiene valor colaborar con otros editores que se interesan por el mismo tema o temas generales. La colaboración es algo bueno y, si los portales ayudan a promover la colaboración, esa es otra razón para mantenerlos. -- Paul McDonald ( discusión ) 14:33, 15 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los wikiproyectos ya sirven para reunir a editores para que colaboren en un tema. Los portales no son necesarios para este propósito Cesdeva ( discusión ) 15:11 15 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En primer lugar, Wikipedia también es una red social (pero con un propósito específico). En segundo lugar, es cierto que gran parte o la totalidad de las funciones de los portales podrían ser asumidas por Wikiproyectos (o viceversa, en realidad), pero la conclusión de esto es (en el mejor de los casos) una fusión o migración (con una posible eliminación gradual de una de ellas) y no una eliminación total como se sugirió anteriormente. -- Kmhkmh ( discusión ) 15:36, 15 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Y viceversa? Los portales ni siquiera funcionan bien para su propósito principal, ni hablar de incorporar las funciones de un wikiproyecto. Muchos portales ya están bajo la "jurisdicción" de los wikiproyectos, pero aún tienen problemas importantes. Cambiar el espacio de nombres no resolverá nada. Cesdeva ( discusión ) 16:03 15 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario adicional: Además, no estoy de acuerdo con la premisa de que la colaboración solo debería provenir de una fuente (un "proyecto" o un "portal"): la colaboración puede y debe provenir de múltiples fuentes, si es posible. Además, no creo que la "necesidad" sea la medida adecuada... ¿"necesitamos" portales? No "necesitamos" Wikipedia (ver WP:NEED ).-- Paul McDonald ( discusión ) 22:28, 15 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición . La propuesta es demasiado extremista para el "problema" que pretende resolver. Si hay portales que son perjudiciales para la enciclopedia (como plantean los partidarios), entonces se puede considerar la eliminación de esos elementos en particular o la adopción de otras medidas correctivas, como la mejora. No hay necesidad de desplegar armas termonucleares para un problema que se puede solucionar con medios más específicos y convencionales. Francamente, me sorprende que casi la mitad de los que votaron apoyen una medida tan extrema... preocupante. Cbl62 ( discusión ) 16:12 15 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No puedo apoyar la eliminación general de todos los portales, ya que algunos de ellos son claramente útiles. Portal:Current events , por ejemplo, está bien mantenido, proporciona un recurso útil que no está duplicado por nada más y recibe entre 30.000 y 50.000 visitas al día. Dicho esto, el autor original tiene razón en que la mayoría de los portales no están mantenidos y no son terriblemente útiles, y creo que es justo decir que la idea general no ha tenido éxito. Como resultado, apoyaría la desaprobación general del concepto. Si queremos conservar un portal, entonces debería ser posible demostrar que el portal agrega un valor significativo a la enciclopedia que no está duplicado por nada más. Si un portal no cumple con este estándar (y, en mi opinión, la mayoría de ellos no lo hacen), entonces debería archivarse o eliminarse. Hut 8.5 17:52, 15 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Creo que los portales fueron un concepto interesante en su momento, pero no han resultado ser realmente útiles para el propósito o la función para los que fueron diseñados originalmente. Muchos de ellos simplemente han sido abandonados o están muy desactualizados, y hay muy poco compromiso de los editores para mantenerse al día y convertirlos en lo que se suponía que debían ser en teoría. Bearcat ( discusión ) 19:23 15 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los portales de soporte fueron una moda en el diseño web cuyo tiempo llegó y se fue. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( discusión ) 23:41, 15 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
16 de abril de 2018
Oposición Por un lado, puedo ver el mérito de argumentos como el anterior, que son una reliquia del pensamiento de principios de los años 2000 sobre el diseño web y cómo los usuarios abordarían Wikipedia, pensamiento que no ha demostrado ser correcto en el largo plazo. Pero por esa misma razón no deberíamos eliminarlos por esa razón. No creo que podamos decir que solo porque no atraen muchas visitas ahora nunca volverán a hacerlo . Las tendencias futuras de uso de la web podrían cambiar, y sería más fácil tener los portales disponibles si se volvieran valiosos de alguna manera en lugar de tener que reconstruirlos o algún equivalente desde cero. Daniel Case ( discusión ) 02:09, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener los portales en caso de que se vuelvan populares nuevamente es CRISTAL, por lo que en realidad has invocado una política que es la antítesis de tu argumento. -- Iryna Harpy ( discusión ) 18:55, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
WP:CRYSTAL es una política que solo se aplica en su totalidad al contenido de un artículo, no a un espacio de nombres. En este caso, creo que está perfectamente bien argumentar en ambos sentidos. Daniel Case ( discusión ) 18:27 19 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apóyenlos , pero no los eliminen. Marquen los portales como históricos y eliminen los enlaces del espacio principal. Estoy de acuerdo en que los esquemas y los índices funcionan mucho mejor que los portales. Rreagan007 ( discusión ) 05:13, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte oposición . Si tienes problemas con portales específicos, no dudes en nominarlos para que los eliminen. Sin embargo, hay muchos portales (especialmente aquellos que están destacados) que son excelentes. Curiosamente, los portales destacados son el ÚNICO contenido destacado que nunca se destaca en la página principal. Esto se ha propuesto varias veces (tener un enlace rotativo una vez al día a un portal, o uno que se cargue aleatoriamente en cada carga de página según una lista de portales destacados), pero la gente parece pensar que sería mucho trabajo (no lo sería... una característica utilizada en muchos portales podría usarse para crearlo). Se necesita mucho trabajo para que un portal completo alcance el estado destacado (he ayudado con dos de ellos), y si se construyen de manera efectiva, no requieren mucho mantenimiento. ···日本穣·投稿· Habla con Nihonjoe · ¡Únete a WP Japan ! 07:00, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición Estoy de acuerdo en que muchos de los portales están desactualizados y son inútiles, pero hay algunos portales que están bien mantenidos y son una buena fuente de información. No creo que se deban eliminar todos. Más bien, se debe evaluar cada portal y determinar si está inactivo o no. Los que lo están se pueden eliminar, pero otros se deben mantener si tienen un apoyo activo. Draconicfire ( discusión ) 14:05 16 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo a la eliminación, pero apoyo que se marquen los portales como históricos y/o se los mueva a un espacio de nombres diferente. No veo ninguna razón para eliminar la capacidad de las personas de leer el contenido histórico del portal, dicho acceso no haría perder el tiempo a los editores y los datos antiguos sobre los portales sin duda serán de interés para algunos. Además, es importante que ciertos portales como Portal:Contents y Portal:Current events estén exentos o se mantengan activos en un espacio de nombres diferente, como se ha discutido varias veces en esta propuesta - Cake ~ talk 14:53, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo el razonamiento expuesto anteriormente. Isseubnida ( discusión ) 14:57 16 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte condicional Yo estaría más a favor de podar y/o congelar la creación de portales. Algunos (¿uno?) de los portales siguen siendo bastante útiles, como Actualidad. Mientras no perdamos páginas importantes, no me importa si los portales se revisan o se eliminan gradualmente. Pero odiaría que mi fuente de noticias favorita desapareciera de la noche a la mañana. Además, Actualidad es una buena cápsula del tiempo, por lo que sería una pena que todos los años de artículos de noticias seleccionados simplemente desaparecieran. Spoonlesscorey ( discusión ) 15:06, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo totalmente. Eliminar un elemento tan bueno de Wikipedia decepcionaría a quienes solían frecuentar los portales. De hecho, solo este año, he tenido más ediciones en el portal que en cualquier otra cosa. Llámame cuando tengas la oportunidad 15:17, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente . Considero que es una característica muy útil que brinda un resumen práctico y conciso sobre un tema. Una relativa falta de visitas nunca debería afectar el contenido de una enciclopedia, de lo contrario, podría eliminar el 90 % del mismo. -- Therexbanner ( discusión ) 16:00, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse . Los portales han sido muy útiles. Utilizo el de noticias a diario. Arglebargle79 ( discusión ) 15:20 16 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse a Contenidos, Contenido destacado y Eventos actuales; Neutral para todo lo demás : el concepto de Portal es bueno cuando se hace bien. Un portal sirve como una página de contenido temática útil para los lectores cuando la gente realmente lo usa y lo edita. Sin embargo, los portales que no se visitan ni se editan mucho deberían marcarse como históricos para que la gente no espere que estén actualizados. — python coder ( discusión | contribs ) 16:20, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerme Soy mucho más un lector “externo” que un editor “interno”. No estoy informado sobre muchos de los problemas que implica crear o mantener portales, y no tengo opinión al respecto. Como consumidor de contenido, leo Portal: Current Events todos los días. Otros portales con los que me topo mientras uso Wikipedia, y en general parecen útiles (de memoria). Ahora bien, puede que no sea apropiado que use Portal: Current Events como mi periódico diario, pero cuando voy a Wikinoticias y los titulares no cambian durante días y los de Portal: Current Events sí, la fuente de noticias *activa de facto* es Portal: Current Events en Wikipedia. Odiaría que eso desapareciera sin reemplazo. Parece que algunos portales son útiles y se mantienen y otros no, así que espero que haya un enfoque menos binario para resolver los problemas de los portales. Sonic Purity ( discusión ) 16:28, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
El portal Current Events seguiría en el espacio de Wikipedia. Nadie quiere cerrarlo. Legacypac ( discusión ) 16:31 16 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente El portal de eventos actuales es quizás una de las mejores cosas de Wiki y la razón por la que me convertí en un editor activo en primer lugar. Sería un completo desastre deshacer todo el trabajo duro que yo y muchos otros hemos puesto y seguimos poniendo en él. Puedo entender que se eliminen portales inactivos, pero el portal de eventos actuales debe permanecer. GWA88 ( discusión ) 17:12 16 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
En contra - en gran medida como el voto ! de pythoncoder arriba, estoy motivado principalmente por mantener los portales que promueven contenido y ayudan a explicar y presentar materiales de interés periodístico. También de acuerdo con el voto ! de Andrew D., no creo que eliminar portales sea beneficioso para el proyecto en su conjunto, solo porque algo pueda estar desactualizado no significa que tenga que eliminarse, la incompletitud es un llamado a que se mejore el contenido, no a que se descarte (ver WP:DINC ). Inter&anthro ( discusión ) 17:18, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte condicional Personalmente sólo uso el portal de Eventos Actuales, sin embargo creo que los otros portales están obsoletos.
Oposición : ¿Por qué no los nominamos por sus méritos individuales en lugar de eliminarlos en bloque? Hay más de un millón de artículos de WP que están en mal estado, pero eso no significa que debamos eliminarlos en bloque. Mejorarán si reducimos su cantidad . Störm (discusión) 18:02 16 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse Aunque una gran parte de los portales no son muy populares, estás tirando al bebé junto con el agua de la bañera al generalizarlo a TODOS los portales. Por ejemplo, durante el último mes, Portal:Current events ha tenido 1,4 millones de visitas a la página (43.500 por día), Portal:Featured content ha tenido 200.000 visitas a la página (6.400 por día) y Portal:science ha tenido 39.400 visitas a la página (1.200 por día). Estas representan un mero 0,2% del total de visitas a la página principal, pero ten en cuenta que la página principal es el lugar más visitado del quinto sitio web más popular de todo Internet, y es probable que reciba miles de veces más visitas que incluso un artículo destacado (¡Stephen Hawking solo recibió un tercio de las visitas que recibió la página principal el día de su muerte!). exoplanetaryscience ( discusión ) 17:19, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me ofrezco como voluntario para ayudar a encontrar/crear una herramienta de visualización de contenido que organice páginas relacionadas en una estructura fácil de entender/navegar... y como no conozco ninguna otra herramienta de organización de contenido además de los portales, ese poco de voluntariado coincide con una sensación de oposición. Vengo de la dirección de los portales muy vistos, necesarios para la mayoría de las instituciones educativas, como Química, Matemáticas, Lingüística, etc. Tener las páginas de estos portales reunidas en un solo lugar no es perfecto, pero en este momento crea un método mucho más accesible para ver muchas de las páginas correlacionadas para una rama intimidante del conocimiento. Sin embargo, saludo a quien haya pensado en eliminar por completo el tipo de datos de espacio de nombres; se ha producido un debate estimulante a partir de lo que he leído. Fue una propuesta tan radical que me hizo sumarme a la conversación, y esta es la primera vez que he hecho más que ediciones solitarias, lo que debería darles a todos una idea de cuán importantes son los portales para mí, y nuevamente, solo aquellos que representan el material utilizado para enseñar las "materias necesarias". Creo que hay mucho potencial, y tal vez una solución sea un mejor mantenimiento automatizado de los portales. --Silex.logike (discusión) 18:49 16 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oposición No creo que se deban eliminar todos los portales. Apoyaría que se marque cada portal con Template:Historical, pero permitiría que cualquier editor de portal elimine la plantilla si cree que el portal está activo. Cualquier portal que no elimine la plantilla después de 12 meses puede eliminarse mediante WP:MFD . -- Frmorrison ( discusión ) 19:05, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte débil Débil porque no soy muy experto en portales. De hecho, he estado buscando cosas activamente en Wikipedia durante 12 años y editando casi tanto tiempo y nunca he usado un portal. Supongo que podría averiguarlo con unos pocos minutos de trabajo, pero ni siquiera sé cómo encontrar o usar portales, y nunca los he necesitado. Creo que eso es lo que ocurre con la mayoría de los usuarios de Wikipedia. Además, este tipo de método para encontrar información está algo desactualizado porque es menos efectivo/más difícil de usar. Por ejemplo, en comparación con una barra de búsqueda. Requiere que el usuario aprenda el método de categorización (del portal) para poder usarlo para encontrar algo. North8000 ( discusión ) 19:19, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con que se eliminen portales de una sola vez. Como se mencionó anteriormente, algunos portales tienen mucho tráfico mientras que otros tienen un uso muy bajo, similar a los artículos destacados de Vice Stub. Vwanweb ( discusión ) 21:18, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse. Mantener los portales y actualizarlos . El concepto inicial de diseño de los portales era que cada uno de ellos fuera una página principal para un tema. La realidad ha sido que la mayoría de ellos se han convertido en una instantánea (versión de un día) de una página principal para sus respectivos temas. Imaginemos lo que hubiera pasado si la página principal de Wikipedia nunca hubiera cambiado su contenido. El quid de la cuestión aquí es que los portales nunca se hubieran convertido en lo que se había previsto que fueran.
Si analizamos los problemas de los portales denunciados en el debate, se pueden resumir en 1) obsoletos/falta de mantenimiento (falta de trabajo voluntario), 2) inútiles (estáticos/sin cambios) y 3) poco tráfico (pocas visitas repetidas). Estos son problemas que podemos resolver. El apoyo para hacerlo es evidente en el debate anterior.
El tercer problema (el tráfico relativamente bajo) es engañoso por dos razones. En primer lugar, los portales en su conjunto reciben más tráfico ahora que nunca, con más de 20 millones de visitas al año. En segundo lugar, los portales obtienen su tráfico internamente, en lugar de obtenerlo de los resultados de motores de búsqueda externos.
Tenga en cuenta que los portales son una función interna destinada a mejorar la experiencia del usuario una vez que este ya está allí. El tráfico es mayor en los portales que brindan servicios continuos a los que los usuarios vuelven.
Sin embargo, la mayoría de los portales no cuentan con ese nivel de trabajo voluntario. Por lo tanto, el contenido dinámico generado automáticamente, por ejemplo, en forma de selecciones aleatorias de temas, canales de noticias automatizados, etc., sería un servicio valioso que convertiría a los portales en una especie de publicación periódica o boletín informativo.
Además, con estas páginas en funcionamiento, quién sabe qué mejoras se les podrían hacer en el futuro. La tecnología avanza a pasos agigantados.
Creo que la solución es la automatización, con capacidad de configuración (para brindar flexibilidad a los diseñadores de portales). Actualizar la entrada de introducción mediante la transclusión selectiva para que no se vuelva obsoleta es una forma de automatización que puede ayudar.
Obviamente, no hay consenso sobre la eliminación, pero el mensaje es alto y claro: el status quo es inaceptable. Los portales necesitan mucho trabajo. Necesitan una actualización para convertirlos en lo que originalmente se pretendía que fueran: páginas principales para sus respectivos temas. Es hora de arremangarnos y ponernos manos a la obra. Preveo que se avecina una importante y divertida colaboración. Pueden esperar verme allí. Sinceramente, — The Transhumanist 22:17, 16 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fuerte oposición Vengo a Wikipedia todos los días y leo el Portal de eventos actuales. Si llega un día en que no exista el Portal de eventos actuales, dejaré de usar y apoyar Wikipedia en su totalidad. 23.251.93.185 ( discusión ) 23:04 16 abr 2018 (UTC)Dan [ responder ]
¿Lo son? No lo veo como una amenaza, sino como una declaración real de que el editor obtiene valor de los portales y probablemente no volverá si desaparecen. Pero no sabía que se suponía que debía poner los ojos en blanco ante esto... -- Paul McDonald ( discusión ) 01:00, 17 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los lectores son la parte más importante de la comunidad; más importantes incluso que los editores, ya que una enciclopedia sin lectores no es nada. Este lector está afirmando que sin portales, dejará de ser lector. Los lectores rara vez comentan, ya que están aquí para consumir contenido, no para contribuir con él, y el hecho de que un lector haya intervenido debería considerarse una información particularmente valiosa. -- BobTheIP editado como 2.28.13.227 ( discusión ) 16:37, 17 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los portales de oposición son útiles para la navegación. Siempre los utilizo, especialmente para los eventos actuales. Persistent Corvid ( discusión ) 23:33 16 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente . Considero que el portal de eventos actuales es extremadamente útil. Lo leo a diario para estar al tanto de los acontecimientos mundiales importantes. 2600:1700:FCA0:2580:7C47:345E:D33:F139 (discusión) 23:58 16 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
17 de abril de 2018
Algo en contra Los portales son una herramienta muy ingeniosa, y por eso existen. Entiendo las razones para eliminarlos. Personalmente, creo que una acción apropiada sería dejarlos como están. Los portales populares, como los que tienen millones de visitantes, probablemente deberían mantenerse y actualizarse. Los más desconocidos se pueden guardar y dejar en el orden en que están. Si es necesario un cambio: Mantenga los eventos actuales . -- 66.76.14.92 (discusión) 00:33 17 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente El portal de eventos actuales ofrece una concatenación muy singular de artículos sobre diversos temas. Sin un portal como este, Wikipedia perdería un punto de acceso fundamental a artículos actualizados recientemente, artículos relacionados con eventos actuales y artículos relacionados pertinentes que se vinculan con temas de actualidad. Si no hay otro medio para proporcionar este tipo de perspectiva dinámica sobre el contenido de Wikipedia sin algo como un portal, creo que preservar este espacio que intenta proporcionar eventos actuales imparciales es más importante ahora que nunca. Esa895 (discusión) 00:16 17 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyar y guardar primero el contenido necesario en otro espacio de nombres si es necesario; y mover portales como Actualidad al espacio de nombres Wikipedia. Donde, por ejemplo, Wikipedia:Tu primer artículo, que también es una de las páginas más visitadas, se encuentra actualmente. -- Treetear ( discusión ) 00:35, 17 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte en general. Portal:Current Events , en particular, probablemente tenga más violaciones de WP:BLP que el espacio principal. Cavaet: La mayor parte de mi actividad en Portal:Current Events fue revertir "el niño de Michigan", y algunas reversiones de personas que agregaron su propia información a artículos del año actual, así como Portal:Current Events , pero las entradas son un buen lugar para ocultar violaciones de WP:BLP . Se necesita una respuesta más matizada, pero el primer paso es desvincularlas del espacio principal y del espacio de Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (discusión) 00:51, 17 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse . Esto eliminaría el portal de eventos actuales, que personalmente considero increíblemente útil y mejor para usar que la mayoría de los sitios de noticias oficiales. Anon e Mouse Jr. ( discusión ) 01:01 17 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oponerse firmemente
Estoy publicando esto nuevamente después del salto de sección porque no vi esto en los primeros 15 minutos de lectura de esta discusión.
Me encanta Wikipedia y la uso como mi primera fuente cuando aprendo sobre un tema nuevo, pero visito el portal de "Actualidad" al menos una vez al día porque para mí es el equivalente a leer el periódico matutino que era el estándar hace unos 50 años. La diversidad de eventos que las personas se toman el tiempo de informar allí no tiene rival. A menudo me entero de eventos que solo mucho más tarde se convierten en noticias de televisión o nunca llegan a circular. En una frase: "El portal de "Actualidad" enriquece mi vida y perderlo sería una pena". No elimine esta sección solo porque la encuentre innecesaria, por favor, considere a las muchas personas que no contribuyen pero aprecian el contenido por lo que es. Este comentario es solo la segunda vez que edito una página de Wikipedia. La otra vez fue en el portal de "Actualidad". Por lo tanto, tiene otro beneficio: atrae visitantes y los incita a convertirse en colaboradores. Por favor, POR FAVOR, déjelo así.
Algo que he hecho en el pasado, por favor perdonen mi ignorancia aquí, en relación con la limpieza del espacio en disco de mi computadora, ha sido buscar carpetas vacías en mi directorio y eliminarlas usando una utilidad de terceros. Como esto se aplica a lo que parece ser el atractivo para muchos aquí de eliminar los portales, principalmente limpiar el espacio de nombres no utilizado, ¿no se podría hacer algo similar? Si un portal no se ha editado en una cierta cantidad de tiempo, ¿no podría haber automáticamente un mensaje publicado en la parte superior del mismo, como el que me llevó a esta discusión, notificando a los usuarios que a menos que el portal registre alguna actividad dentro del próximo período de tiempo corto, se eliminará automáticamente? Parece un buen compromiso sin matar todo el programa.
Gracias a quien haya movido esto al final de esta sección. Duh, yo tampoco lo había visto. Gracias de nuevo. -- 66.76.14.92 (discusión) 01:03 17 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente Me encanta Wikipedia y la uso como mi primera fuente cuando aprendo sobre un tema nuevo, pero visito el portal de "Actualidad" al menos una vez al día porque para mí es el equivalente a leer el periódico matutino que era el estándar hace unos 50 años. La diversidad de eventos que las personas se toman el tiempo de informar allí no tiene rival. A menudo me entero de eventos que solo mucho más tarde se convierten en noticias de televisión o nunca llegan a circular. En una frase: "El portal de "Actualidad" enriquece mi vida y perderlo sería una pena". No elimine esta sección solo porque la encuentre innecesaria, más bien considere a las muchas personas que no contribuyen pero aprecian el contenido por lo que es. Este comentario es solo la segunda vez que edito una página de Wikipedia. La otra vez fue en el portal de "Actualidad". Por lo tanto, nuevamente tiene otro beneficio: atrae visitantes y los incita a convertirse en colaboradores. Por favor, POR FAVOR, déjelo así.
Algo que he hecho en el pasado, por favor perdonen mi ignorancia aquí, en relación con la limpieza del espacio en disco de mi computadora, ha sido buscar carpetas vacías en mi directorio y eliminarlas usando una utilidad de terceros. Como esto se aplica a lo que parece ser el atractivo para muchos aquí de eliminar los portales, principalmente limpiar el espacio de nombres no utilizado, ¿no se podría hacer algo similar? Si un portal no se ha editado en una cierta cantidad de tiempo, ¿no podría haber automáticamente un mensaje publicado en la parte superior del mismo, como el que me llevó a esta discusión, notificando a los usuarios que a menos que el portal registre alguna actividad dentro del próximo período de tiempo corto, se eliminará automáticamente? Parece un buen compromiso sin matar todo el programa.
Por recuento de palabras, actualmente hay 150 'Oponerse' y 206 'Apoyar', incluidos usos múltiples por parte de usuarios individuales.
Soporte - Francamente, no creo que los portales le aporten nada a nadie. Carrite ( discusión ) 02:04 17 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Francamente, ese razonamiento es tan perspicaz como un razonamiento opuesto que afirma que creen que todo el mundo considera que los portales son bastante útiles. -- John Cline ( discusión ) 16:15 17 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me opongo firmemente a que la página de actualidad de Wikipedia esté mucho más actualizada que Wikinoticias. Hasta que Wikinoticias se ponga al día, sería terrible eliminar el portal de actualidad. 2601:580:C000:604F:A0A4:9E2B:1137:927 (discusión) 02:23 17 abr 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
SupportWP:TLDR, but I don't really think there is any purpose for portals above projects, cats, lists and templates.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Concerning the issue of low reader traffic for a number of portals, perhaps it would be better to move the "portal" portion to the very end of each portal title, such as Tropical cyclones portal, Current events portal, etc. A renaming campaign to this new format would probably attract a lot more readers to the various portals, especially for the newer ones. At least it's better than just simply deleting all of them. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Portal Removal I really enjoy reading Wikipedia Portal:Current_events. I visit the 'Current Events' portal at least once a day and most of the times few times a day. I like reading the daily items. The calendar display on the right-hand bar is very useful as sometimes articles are written without specifying a weekday but not the MM-DD-YYYY. The On Going events side-bar is very interesting and I learned a lot reading the On Going topics. I don't care to read about the Sports section in the On Going events. The Elections and Referendum section is helpful and nice to know about politics around the world. The Trials section on the right-side bar is also informative. The Sports side-bar does not cover some of the international sports and it should be removed. If this and other portals are removed, Wikipedia groups who volunteered on portal topics will be impacted. Wikipedia portals are like a community at Wikipedia and its existence must exist. SWP13 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how rearranging the names will improve the usefulness Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support deprecating/ending the creation of new portals, oppose deletion en masse. The good ones can be kept, the bad ones can be {{historical}}'d or deleted on a case-by-case basis. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY[u+1F602]04:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've worked in a couple of Portals in the past, but I really never visis them. They're quite useless, containing incorrect and outdated info. Standard links, navigation templates, and categories offer plenty of possibilities all the info one wants to find. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - Wikipedia is a necessary reference and is often the best source of information. I visit the 'Current Events' portal every day because it provides the most neutral roundup of daily events with all sources cited. The diversity of events reported are fantastic and overall the portal is very well done and extremely useful. Please do not remove this section!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbenmargi (talk • contribs) 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Strognly oppose deletion Keep all portals!Anjuna (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Portals are a great mechanism we should cherish Jurryaany (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Portals have become obsolete. Also I feel that sometimes portals are biased. RRD (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose I found this survey through a notification on Portal:Current events. I personally, like many others I am sure, use that portal extensively to garner information on current events around the world. The current events portal does a remarkable job at keeping users informed and presenting news with minimal bias all while providing links to relevant articles. I would be extremely disappointed to see that portal go, especially in an era where "fake news" is a serious concern for everyone. I hope that even if this measure passes, there will be a replacement for Portal:Current events. Thank you. Bowwow828 (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. They are an incredibly useful and varied tool; I agree with the comments above. —Nightstallion 07:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. -- Udimu (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose mass deletion of all portals. Some portals (such as Portal: Current Events) are highly useful to Wikipedia. That being said, I would probably support some type of reform for the portals that have gone inactive over the past few years. Canuck89(have words with me) 08:02, April 17, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose First of all, as a matter of principle against blanket deletions; the argument that *many* portals are not well maintained and therefore *all* should be deleted is something to avoid in any discussion. Second, even if one person a year visits a portal and is assisted in learning something, that is sufficient reason for its retention; as others have pointed out above, server space is not a concern. Third, I would support exploring ideas how portal management can be automated (linking a portal with WikiProjects and automatically retrievig DYKs or quality articles etc), but that is a call for improvement, not abolition. Fourth, portals provide a context and content that is not done by the other main namespaces of Wikipedia: articles are strictly about a specific topic, while a WikiProject is about editor collaboration and will rarely be visited by the average user (i.e., reader). When well done, a portal can be exactly that, a gateway to a more comprehensive treatment of a topic and content that does not, by its nature, fit anywhere else (e.g., from my own work, Portal:Byzantine Empire/Weblinks). I find no compelling argument to rid Wikipedia of this. Constantine 08:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose, I like portals. Fish+Karate 09:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that some are not well-maintained is not a sufficient argument for all of them to be deleted. Additionally, unless some specific harm can be identified and well-justified associated with the continued existence of portals, there does not seem to be any advantage to the project in deleting them. These kinds of proposals are at risk of adding to a kind of atmosphere in which content writers are being assailed by those who always seem to wish to delete content. If this atmosphere became more prevalent, it would not be supportive, which I thought would go against what we are all trying to be for one another. Some portals may be poorly-maintained, others may not be. Those who take particular exception to poorly-maintained portals should direct their attention to them, not try to delete all of them, no matter how well or poorly maintained they are. DDStretch (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no reason why a well-maintained portal should be deleted. This should be handled individually, not by mass-deleting. ПАНСЛАВ 10:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, conditional, oppose. Portals themselves are an exceedingly valuable tool on Wikipedia. Their greatest weakness, from my perspective, appears to be that they are relatively hidden from the majority of Wikipedia users. Portals are not clearly located, and often do not contain the types of content people may be interested in, meaning that the current system of portals is one that is in need of reform. Portals themselves, if much more clearly marked, would most likely be used by a far larger number of users. I understand that it may seem a bit odd, but I recently had an opportunity to conduct a survey at the school I attend using Google Forms, and 93% of the school population was completely unaware of the existence of portals. Portals themselves need to be clearly marked, so that people can be informed of their existence, and therefore use them. Removing Portals would cause Wikipedia to lose a potentially important system that may help users find more content, if reformed. SuperChris (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This has long been one of my criticisms of Wikipedia. To repeat from my user page: Portals Are Pointless, Barely Maintained Hulks. The true portals of this site are what search engines and wiki searches lead people to, and that is the main subject articles themselves, not what we call portals. Most portals were developed in a frenzy sometime in the 2000s (some would argue as vehicles for some Wikipedians seeking adminship), and they have been languishing ever since. I think it's high time they, along with their namespace, be decommissioned. However, I wouldn't mind somehow retaining some of their elements, and placing them in main subject articles or in WikiProjects. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 12:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think that we just need some work to be done on them. I am not in support of deleting all portals because of low readership, how do we know that those readers don't find them useful? Ultimograph5 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per many, many other support votes above - they seem neglected and have considerably lower activity and readership than articles themselves. This has made them defeat their own purpose of being "useful entry-points", as they don't usually stay up to date and their quality cannot be guaranteed as well as it can be with articles. It seems the stagnation of portals in general has been going on for a longer time, such as with the discontinuation of featuring portals. The existing high-activity portals should be renamed to Overview articles while portals of lower activity should be looked through for any content worth salvaging and then be removed. SURJECTION·talk·contr·log· 13:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Please do not destroy Portal:Current_events, which I read almost every day and then read in from to learn things related to what is currnetly going on in the world. 14:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.52.211 (talk) 17 April 2018
Strong Oppose this is a solution in search of a problem, but in reality this so-called solution would do more harm than good. Are there some portals that should be marked as historical? Yes, but deleting all of them is not the proper way of handling that issue. Also, there's no good reason to delete any of them instead of marking them as historical. I also reject the argument that portals should be deleted so that editors can focus on more important matters. As long as our editors aren't being disruptive, it is none of our business how they choose to use their time here. Thankfully, there is clearly no consensus here and the portals will likely not be mass deleted. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Keep portals, and upgrade them. Portals represent a place of generalization of information on the topic, information is extremely useful to both the Wikipedians and ordinary readers, unfortunately the latter do not know much about many useful options and functions of Wikipedia. Therefore, I think it is necessary to inform the public at social networks, the media about them and others, including about portals. Also I advocate the increase in the number of links to portals in articles and for the automation of subsections of portals with the availability of the interchangeability of several dozen fragments of articles in each of them and changing them like a kaleidoscope. For those people who point out the weak attendance of portals, I advise you to make an effort to construct and increase attendance at the expense of these mechanisms, and not to use radical methods, ignoring the presence of people who are interested in or important portals. And those people who created them. Because I see the obvious benefit of them and see no harm from their existence. Who does not want to - let him not read them, who sees a shortage of attendance - let him put his hand on their improvement, rather than deleting.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I use the Current Events portal nearly every day, and it has hit 40k average daily views over the last few days. If we were talking about only rarely viewed or edited portals exclusively, I might be willing to support, but this blanket hits too many that get hundreds to thousands of uses a day.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose I do not have TV or any form of print news at this point in time, and Wikipedia is one of the sites I can use to get unbiased and quick information about recent news stories. Portal:Current_Events, as the previous point has stated, is highly used and visited. Deleting all portals would remove one of the ways that many people like me stay informed about the world around them. If this was about deleting unnecessary portals and cleaning up the amount of clutter here on Wikipedia, I would support it, but a huge deletion of everything in the Portal namespace is ridiculous. —StarkinMN 15:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Current Events, for one, is highly used with excellent content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.247.83 (talk) 17 April 2018
(edit conflict) Support. Delete all portals about topics as we have good ways of navigating Wikipedia now, which is the only use for portals according to WP:PORTAL. Keep the Contents but move them out of the Portal namespace. I don't know where exactly, but something like a "(Contents)" or "(Meta)" namespace. I would delete the Current events portal depending on the outcome of my proposal here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)wumbolo ^^^ 16:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose I love searching for interesting facts and portals have helped me find those facts.User:SimonLagann (User talk:SimonLagann) 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support marking all portals historical and removing any link to them from the main namespace. Or at least removing the links. Pageviews largely demonstrate how pointless the whole exercise is (as seen in comments by Pharos and PrimeHunter). I'd also welcome statistics on how diverse the editorship of the portals is on average, but I doubt anyone would challenge the view that nearly all portals are maintained by a single or very few committed users and therefore have a very hard time representing Wikipedia's content on the subject in a neutral and well-sourced fashion. Discontinuing this practice would allow us to focus our resources (including links) on more productive efforts, including categories (as difficult as they are). I oppose deleting any of those pages, per m:Keep history. --Nemo 17:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Truly awful proposal, deletionism to new heights, etc. Other users have voiced these very pertinent positions. If there are merge-able or junk portal pages, deal with them individually. Don't destroy thousands of pages of work and information. KingAntenor (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - better to work at improving them then just deleting them. Let each wiki-project that the portal(s) fall under take responsibility for them, or at the very least, archive them as "inactive". - theWOLFchild 18:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - I use several portals almost daily (including Current Events), and edit a few as well, and know quite a few people that do. We can all think of ways to improve them, but I am strongly against deleting or shutting them down. Skycycle (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose till I die This would be disastrous. If all portals are deleted, so are sources for hundreds — If not thousands — of topics. I swear to every single god in every single reglion Wikipedia will come crashing down if this happens. I agree with KingAntenor and Thewolfchild, either mark them inactive, deal with them indivually, or leave them be. Just don't fliping destroy them! I may only be 12, but I know a thing or two about functionality, and choosing to delete portals is the exact opposite of it. 65.175.240.110 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support at least the general marking with {{historical}} for the vast majority of portals. Some have claimed that Current Events is useful; i don't find it so, but don't deny that they may. It seems undeniable, however, that in general the system of portals is not terribly useful and is an unused and unnecessary portion of the Project. (Noting, in passing, that the previous comment, which i edit-conflicted with, is silly and a bit pointless; a good argument would be more convincing.) Happy days, LindsayHello 19:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally use the Current Events portal as a lovely overview of events that is well curated and cared for. Ancient Studies major (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Current Events portal is in a convenient location, and is where I find most of my news for the day. User:Cyberpunk 93 13:20, 17 April, 2018 (MST)
Strong oppose Without portals there would be no further need of any WikiProject and therefore no forther need for any coordinated collabroation in Wikipedia. Or, in other words, most WikiProjects would die. Else I don't see the point: even if a portal is not well maintained does that not mean that the linked articles are not maintained. People are coming to WP to read articles; the do not come because of portals but portals are one mean to get an entrance to a specific content. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose There is little harm in keeping the portals, and several, including the Current Events Portal, are useful, well-maintained, and informative. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While there may be room for a discussion as to the way forward for Portals, a deletion survey is perhaps too soon, and is not helpful at this stage as it seems to be mainly encouraging Like/Don't like opinions (which is tempting to join in with!) rather than evaluation of the flaws and merits of the system. Some evaluation of the purpose of Portals, and how effective they are in achieving that, would be useful, and would provide material for considering what needs doing. I have no interest in Portals, but I don't feel them to be burden on me or on the project as a whole, because they are in a namespace of their own, and they are either left alone (as are millions of our articles, which is genuinely more concerning) or are maintained by those interested in maintaining them. I'm not seeing any significant problems with Portal:New York City which is a well presented page that contains introductions to articles (the articles selected appear randomly so next time you visit you get presented with different articles selected from those in this cat: Category:New York City portal), this is followed by links to various articles in the topic, and the best articles on the topic. I'm not seeing why that has to be deleted. I looked randomly at seven other Portals and could see no reasons for deleting those either. The Portals seem to follow the same format. If the concern is that the introductory text for the selected articles is not up to date, then by that rationale we would be deleting at least 75% of the project. And, anyway, that concern could be addressed by looking at making templates that transcluded the live lead sections of articles rather than a handful of dated leads. I'm all for discussing the issues and looking for solutions to problems rather than deleting because I Don't Like It or fully understand it. I don't see Portals interfering with my editing of the project, nor getting in the way of the general reader accessing or enjoying the encyclopedia. I don't see Portals creating dissent or causing issues. Should they be linked from the Main Page? I don't know. Would links to the main categories be better? Is it better to send readers here: Category:Arts or here: Portal:Arts? Or do we need something in between those two? I'm not sure, but I do feel evaluation and discussion is the way forward rather than a deletion vote. SilkTork (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the LightandDark2000 proposal. Similar to the "Messendrocker solution" with Esperanza, these were highly visible pages that are no longer viable. I think that portals that no one looks at anymore (like Portal:The Sims) and mark as historical or deprecated the major portals. The only ones that I could think would be worth keeping active are the major subject area ones ("History", "Science", etc.). Nomader (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How did you come to the conclusion that their traffic has gone down? It is exactly the opposite: their traffic keeps going up. They are more visible now than ever. — The Transhumanist 23:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the main ones, maybe, but fringe ones about topics that no one is updating definitely shouldn't exist. We should at most keep it to a few core portals and then delete or archive the rest. Nomader (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem is a lack of maintenance. Portal:College basketball's "featured biography" was last updated by me..... 12 years ago (history is here: [2]). That's insane, and shows that for many of these portals, they've gone too far in the weeds. It should really only be core subjects at the end of this. Nomader (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose You are essentially wanting to remove other's hard work simply because you found a few that are bad. Yes there are the bad ones, but deleting all of them is a pathetic waste of time and energy. Why we can't just remove the ones that are terrible instead of deleting all of them is beyond me. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
18 April 2018
Oppose mass deletion. Instead, extend PROD to portals. Many or event most portals may be abandoned, but the ones that are actively maintained should be retained. When a portal is outdated to the extent that it's a negative for the project, it should be eligible for proposed deletion. WP:PROD currently applies only to articles and files, but there's no reason it couldn't be extended to portals as well with a minimum of effort. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, but a serious reform is "seriously" needed to improve the portals. I propose a "portal mode" for power editors approved by specific moderators. This means that moderators with a certain kind of knowledge (to edit certain kind of articles efficiently) should be using portals with ease. I think my proposition of portals should be only for particular moderators and editors that could view edit histories of articles pertaining to a specific portal. For example, Portal:Arts having Related changes for art-specific articles along with the Featured article text box and the Featured biography text box. Overall, what I'm trying to say is: why not improve the functions of portals just for approved moderators and editors with specific knowledge? --Komitsuki (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, this also means that a couple of very popular portals like Portal:Current_events should be open to everyone. We need to distinguish portals for ease to access with the average viewers and portals for editing purposes. --Komitsuki (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose You are killing all of the bad ones. It's like finding few rotten eggs, and throwing the whole box out, even though 4 of the eggs are bad in 12. Yes, there are the bad ones, but killing all of the portals will ruin people's hard work. Delete the one's that are useless and keep the major ones like Portal:Current Events. Alot of people like me like the news, and I don't want it do be deleted, as it's a great information source. I support the deletion of small and useless portals like things about King Arthur, but keep the main ones.AbhiramKapaganty (AbhiramKapaganty) 1:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Strongly in favor of technical overhaul per Abyssal.Acebulf (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose That would be really harmful for readers. Portals are an important tool to explore articles and join them in the same subject. For example, what would happen to Portal:Current events. For many people, this portal is an important source of news, as much as Google News. This mass deletion is insane. If some portals need updates, just let's do it. There are hundreds of thousands of active users in English Wikipedia, so I think that's not an excuse for removing such important tool. You know what? This Wikipedia, the English edition, is almost perfect. We don't need to do that. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For one, getting rid of the portal system does not guarantee that those who spend most of their energy working on them inevitably will move their focus somewhere else. It's very possible that it causes some sort of push-back, for lack of a better term, amongst the very active editors of those portals, which I personally think isn't worth the hassle. Secondly, I do think they could use some sort of overhaul, but what that would be, I can't say. Other posters have already covered most of the reasons I'm opposed to this move, so you can look to those to understand my thoughts more completely. In the case where this discussion does lead to the ending of the portal system, I think two things need to happen.
Certain portals, such as the current events portal, should stick around. In fact, it probably should be on a case-by-case basis anyway, where the more active portals stay around while the inactive or rarely active ones can be closed.
The various portals shouldn't be removed from existence, but instead left in a non-editable manner for historical purposes. Gamermadness (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Current events portal and Tropical cyclones portal need to be actively maintained, since they both place a heavy emphasis on "active" or "current" events related to their topics (and both portals are actively maintained). LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose, with suggestion - want to know why? See Portal:Explanation. Tisquesusa (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. If it were, there are thousands of Iranian villages with 32 inhabitants and 50 goats that 'nobody' looks at. Same for moths with only one specimen found or islands of Antarctica and so hundreds of examples more.
The whole argument is bogus; a link to a portal may be only clicked once and from there, other pages can be visited (generating multiple clicks and views on the pages linked in the portals), so the view count per day is not a good measure anyway.
Also there is no way to measure how much time or actual reading a reader spends when clicking a portal page.
I never ever click on the Main Page, but browse, read and check my watchlist (hence I found out about this, I never visit the Village pump either) everyday and have written in the past over 200 articles and worked on thousands.
The writers do not decide what readers may find interesting. It is up to the readers, the vast majority of which is not here, to decide that.
Comments above that portals are not linked, I did my share in linking to all relevant portals for the South American paleontological articles (example. It may have led to traffic to those portals, or not, that doesn't make my work redundant.
Many users have spent many hours in creating portals, maintaining portals, improving portals and linking portals. That work done "is not an argument" is not true for a community project, with different writers and personalities.
I have seen portals that are better maintained than many mainspace pages, with outdated information, tags without discussion or proper motivation, bad spelling, grammar, insufficient categorization, etc. And those pages were created years ago and not or hardly maintained afterwards.
It is illogical, and even dominating, that someone who doesn't like portals decides that the people who do like portals should be negated their liking. If you don't like portals, simply don't click on them or do not work on them. If you do like them, please let this discussion be a motivation to improve the portals. An automation for weekly/monthly updates is not hard to implement, after all there are "just" 1500 portals, almost less than comments on this very page (in just a couple of days).
That might be a requirement following from this discussion; all portals that by date X do not have this automated system implemented will be put in historical (not: deleted), after several attempts to contact the content creators of course. All the other portals that have that automated implementation done (plus other maintenance needed) will be maintained as they are. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Someone please speedy delete Portal:Yerevan (It's an empty husk. P1 (as article), A3 (no content)). Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think it is the first time I used CSD P1 in more than 10000 speedy deletions). —Kusma (t·c) 11:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly Support I've never seen the point of portals. They seem like they can be merged with wiki projects. One thing of consideration is that Portals are most likely being made/maintained by the most enthusiastic editors? Lollipoplollipoplollipop (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Portals need fixing, not deleting. They are (or should be) a crucial navigation tool for the encyclopaedia. That's not to say they're not without problems - maintaining them can be time consuming and, as has been pointed out, is often not done. I think the reason for that is the work is actually quite monotonous and repetitive - the kind of stuff that could and should be automated. I've made some inroads in that direction - for example, Portal:South East England is fully automated, pulling articles from its subportals. So, what are these maintenance tasks and how could they be automated?
Updating selected content - the bot proposal in the next section should be able to fix that
Selecting content - can be automated by "selecting" FAs/GAs in the relevant categories
Pulling "current events" from Wikinews (relies on Wikinews categorisation and content creation, which doesn't work too well) using things like Template:Wikinews table
If there's a decent proposal to replace portals with something more automated - a view of categories that automatically shows excerpts from featured/good articles within them and related to them, with "on this day", "current events" and other common portal features supported (again, see P:SEE) - then I'd consider supporting it. But I oppose wholesale deletion without a decent alternative in place. WaggersTALK 14:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Keep portals, and upgrade them – I regularly use Portal:Current Events and think this evidence of its relevance. I think ending the system of portals at large because their function appears redundant would deprive Wikipedia of an essential function, namely impartial aggregated global news that anyone can see the edit history for and anyone can contribute to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaEnochOmega (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems like maybe the notability guidelines need to be better implemented or something, but I came here from portal:current events which I read every day. If there's a replacement for it that has the same functionality, cool. 74.93.182.21 (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Portal are really helpful when people is trying to look and learn from some topic, rather than searching for a specific article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.186.4 (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand the argument that some portals were abandoned and are pointless considering there are WikiProjects, outlines, etc., but I must say Portal:Current events is actively read and edited (including by myself every once in a while), so I'm not sure outright deleting or deprecating them is the right solution. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The portal for News is one of the most useful pages in Wikipedia. It's not the same as the portal for Cricket. Portals that are very useful and serve as reference should not go the same way as useless portals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.218.162.191 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose There are several reasons why this absurd request should not be continued in favour of portal destruction
Portals are no inconvenient, they contribute to the encyclopedia
if it ain't broke don't fix it
Portals are well visited and useful for navigation
The majority is well maintained and updated (comment) but all portals need to be constantly updated and cared of by Wikipedians, not only of the project. The portals need to be in perpetual improvement to avoid stagnation
So why delete portals? --Railfan01 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No value in removing. Lots of value in the current portals. I like the question, but think the answer is to improve portals not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmackenz (talk • contribs) f 19:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
International very strong oppose because it also concerns other wikipedia-projects.
I do not understand why you have to delete something that:
Thousands of hours of free time spent on volunteer helpers
does not bother anyone, does not cost anyone anything
rarely until barely outdated and needs updating
Helping readers by giving them an overview of a topic
Help readers to ask questions when they have a problem
Authors of a subject area help to discuss problems together
leaving behind a lot of frustration after deleting and certainly chasing away old veteran writers
A Statistic shows that only 6 Portals had 451.481 Pageviews in the last 3 Month. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
19 April 2018
Support getting rid of them. There's reason for keeping a few of them, e.g. Current Events, but anything good can be moved to projectspace. Portals were a great idea, but they've just not worked out. "if it ain't broke don't fix it" True, but as the nominator noted, our portals are typically grossly out of date and fail to provide consistent good information. How useful is something featuring a random collection of articles? And they've been around for years: why should we expect portals magically to start improving if nobody's done any significant work for a long time? Yes, they're broken, and they're not likely to be improved. From glancing through some of the upper parts of this page, it seems that most of the opposition is specifically because people don't want to get rid of Portal:Current events. The closing admin (or admin team, given the size of this thing) should note this; unless I've been glancing at a misrepresentative sample, there's consensus for retaining that page at whatever title, but if there's consensus for keeping the system as a whole, it needs to be because of votes that explicitly address the whole system, e.g. Tom's comment immediately above mine. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support: Many portals are merely reiterations of the articles that they are based on. However, some portals are quite useful (like Current Events). The best way to approach it is on a case by case basis.Randomness74 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ridiculous suggestion. Just because there's a few out of date portals, no need to punish the well maintainted. TheLostBoy (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Whatever the theoretical benefits of portals, the reality is that most of them are woefully under-maintained, and v little used. This been the case for years, so all the talk of "keep and improve them" is dreaming: there simply are not enough editors with a sustained interest in doing so, Worse, given the viewing figures, anyone advocating widespread improvement is unintentionally encouraging editors to waste their time. That would actively damage Wikipedia by diverting effort away from actually improving en.wp I say this with some sadness because I recently spent a day or two making Template talk:YearInCountryPortalBox to automatically add portal links to thousands of country-by-year cats; but as I built it and viewed more portals, I became more and more convinced that my concerns were well-founded. My ideal solution would be too keep about 20 major portals(art/science/etc plus continents), and delete the rest. But given the unhelpful binary nature of this proposal, I'd prefer outright deletion to either keeping them all or to having 1500 MfD debates. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Oppose I am a frequent reader of the Current Events portal. I find it useful and a good source of news. I suggest all portals that have a number of views higher than a certain amount to be transformed into something different, but not abandoned. Portals that are old in their updates but visited anyways may become static pages (e.g. "tonight's soccer games" becomes "soccer games till 2017"), updated ones may be continued in other forms. amdp 09:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Personally, I find well maintained portals like that for Mathematics very entertaining and useful. Wikipedia search can only deal with known unknowns but portals excel at unknown unknowns and let you expand your bubble and find interesting subjects that you didn't even know existed beforehand. DecBrennan (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. I am a frequent user. It is very useful when one is interested in particular topics. --Julien1978 (d.) 12:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that there is a common thread among those who support removing portals, and that is that since a group of portals (A, B, and C) are "poorly written/out of date/not maintained" then we must therefore remove all portals (A, B, C, D, ... Z). This argument is essentially WP:ALLORNOTHING, an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. This is especially critical in that it is known that at least some portals are indeed well written, current, and regularly maintained. Not only is the argument one that should not be used in general, it is also proven to be incorrect in this specific case.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak conditional support. Some portals may have content that can be salvaged and moved to the pages of their respective WikiProjects. For example, Portal:Eurovision, which is part of the WikiProject in all but name, has some very handy links in there, besides useless stuff like DYK, article summaries and annual news of who won the main contest. — Andreyyshore T C 14:23, 19 Apr 2018 (UTC)
Oppose It's a nice way to explore a topic. It's still useful even it is unmaintained. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Portals also have a following from interested readers of those topics. The surprise the main page articles give to followers is pleasant. Yes, the update frequency of portals can be increased or a section of main page can display a random/automated article to keep the enthusiasm of the readers up. But portals need not be closed as it will be disappointing for the following community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.211.26.88 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2018
STRONGLY OPPOSE The portal system is EXTREMLY HELPFUL for my book writing, especially the Portal:Tank, due to the fact that there are so many tanks out there. plz keep the portal system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.154.43 (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While they may be mostly unmaintaned, how does removing them benefit Wikipedia? Per many people above, it seems to be a helpful resource. And while I don't oppose the idea of merging them with Wikiprojects, doing that basically forces people to do tons of tedious work, and again, for no real benefit. ~ Dissident93(talk) 17:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe a portal should provide a contemporary overview of what's topical or changing in a subject area. A bit like Britannica's year Books they give the reader an overview of where change is occuring in the understanding of a subject , what novel ideas have emerged and what are the current debates and controversies. If a portal has not been edited for some time ( say 2 years) then a box should be added stating it is silent and asking people who are interested in the subject to adopt it. Lumos3 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I actually really like this; were this to be a proposal after this whole mess is finished, I'd certainly support it. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Reading Franz Kafka I came upon the Book Portal, hoping to find something about Kafka. Instead of which I was treated to a smorgasbord of stuff, some of it interesting, but none of it relating to Kafka and apparently no sensible way of navigating. A complete waste of my time to have been directed there. Three random articles for breakfast did not please me. I say portals should go if this one is in anyway representative of the lot. Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think the "Book" portal would necessarily have something to say about a particular author? Sounds like a better solution to this problem is removing the link to the Book portal from the Kafka article (if it is there) rather than deleting the entire portal namespace. - dcljr (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Breaks the first pillar of Wikipedia, also it is unnecessary. Felicia(talk) 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If what is proposed would remove and not replace the functionality of non-commentary news sources as is demonstrated in the Current Events Portal, then I oppose. I donate yearly due in part to this simplified and "reduced bias" approach to world events. It is my first source for daily news and I refer many people to it. I sincerely hope the concept of Current Events is not lost, regardless of technology change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poweredbywill (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
20 April 2018
Strong oppose deletion (they are in no-way harmful to have available in the history); neutral on deprecating (and redirecting) them in favor of something else. If this discussion had taken deletion off the table initially, it would have avoided at least one source of derailment. Please consider that in the future. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Minor deletion Ok. The portals are nice. Very nice. i think that not ALL the portals should be deleted, but rather let us keep the major portals and get rid of portals like Portal:Cricket that seem to belong more as a category instead. I like the portals. So let's keep the major portals. The garmine (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Portals are detrimental to Wikipedia. They give the impression of being dynamic, constantly updating sources of information, but in practise are out of date and redundant to article space. If someone wants to know about cricket, they'll go to Cricket and follow links from there, not to Portal:Cricket. Portals are a waste of editor time. --LukeSurl t c 10:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think there is a lot that can be achieved by deleting the portals. I find portals to be exciting and helpful. Portals are a part of Wikipedia where I believe there is more artistic freedom compared to articles. Pratyush (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not favor complete removal of portals. It is true that some portals are unmaintained or poorly constructed, but not all portals fall into this group. I think the main problem with portals is a lack of visibility. While the main page has links to several top-level portals, they do not always appear in search results (in particular, when there is a page and a portal by the same name) and, if they are referenced at all in related or relevant pages, the reference is somewhere at the bottom of the page and is not always prominent and are not provided in a consistent and recognizable manner, unlike some other links. Putting the portal link at or near the top of the page would make portals much more visible and much more likely to be visited. I suspect that many Wikipedia readers do not even realize that the portals exist - I know I didn't for a few years (yes, years), and I read pages on Wikipedia regularly. I would support a "weeding out" of unmaintained and poorly constructed portals, or merging the functionality into another area of Wikipedia (if a relevant area exists), and, if portals are retained, I would strongly suggest making them more visible. 67.233.25.174 (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)DrROM[reply]
Strong Oppose because I value Portal: Current events very highly as a world news resource. Evan R. Murphy (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per all the oppose rationales above. This is a terrible idea on many levels. Dr. K. 22:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: In 12 years of active Wikipedia editing, and several prior years as a reader, I cannot recall visiting any portal twice. I can think of only one real engagement with a Portal as an editor, and it was negative. I admit that case is an outlier and should not be used to judge the whole Portal namespace; it is not the reason I support this proposal. The main reason I support it is that portals drain the energy and attention of editors and give very little to readers in exchange. They distract editors who might otherwise make valuable contributions to one or more related Projects. The decay of a Portal is a discouraging experience for contributors, and the ones who left Wikipedia are not represented in this discussion. Finally, deletion on Wikipedia is not annihilation, and time should be allowed for valuable content to be collected and maintained by Projects. It may give moribund projects something to do, and could give them new energy. Portal-like pages in Projects might be the next step toward what the Portal namespace aimed at but failed to achieve. -- ℜob C.aliasALAROB 23:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The remark "I cannot recall visiting any portal twice" is meant to indicate that I have visited many portals, but have not found them useful; therefore I have not returned to them. They are not the resource I believe they were intended to be. I mention this because the opposing comment immediately below seems to make a straw man of my remark, viz.: "many of the "Support" votes have the following character: 'I've never visited a portal, and therefore they are useless and should be deleted.'"
21 April 2018
Oppose. It seems to me that the outcome of this RfC, should it be successful, would be no different than if thousands of MfDs were to close as delete, and all portal pages deleted individually. Accordingly, it should require very strong consensus to proceed. I do not see this outcome. Indeed, on the one hand many of the "Support" votes have the following character: "I've never visited a portal, and therefore they are useless and should be deleted." An argument like this would never pass muster at MfD. And, on the other hand, there does seem to be a consensus that some portals are important and useful, while perhaps the majority of portals should be deleted. As User:BrownHairedGirl points out, the RfC's binary nature is problematic. Yet I reach the opposite conclusion as she: if we were to run 1500 MfD's and the outcome of some of those would turn out as keep, then this RfC should do the same. So far it has been demonstrated the the Portal namespace has a solid core, despite having much cruft in need of culling. The solution, as I see it, is to start a systematic cleanup operation: tag portals as dead, unmaintained, or otherwise needing cleanup. Once tagged for a reasonable period, those that remain so can be en masse discussed at MfD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current events portal is my main source for news and if it goes away I'll be stuck reading biased, for-profit news. 12:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.43.148 (talk)
Oppose. Portal is a great way to discover concepts in a topic when we are free to learn new knowledge. However, a great portal should only contains "links" to articles, hierarchy of the topic (a better looking of categories summary) and templates to topic (or info boxes), instead of polluting the portal system with advertisements and articles content. BAlbert 16:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balbert (talk • contribs)
Strong Oppose The merit of all portals should not be decided by the POV pushing on a few. Portals are, in my opinion, very useful to readers and editors. They do need a lot of work; but I definitely do not support mass-deleting them. Vermont | reply here 17:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Portals provide information on a subject in a very "tasty" way, as for it usually promotes to read more. -> Good Introduction. They are a good start into a subject. Community should take better care to update, OR: provide as much timeless information in the start page as possible. But we shouldn't delete them! --Soha~dewiki (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. i have put in huge amounts of editing in a number of portals, and find the idea of them appealing. there are lots of flawed, incomplete, abandoned portals that dont help. that can be fixed. making them more visible (or making good ones more visible) would help the negative feedback loop of no one seeing them/no one working on them. fix the creation and maintenance process (i removed some 'in the news' sections from moribund portals with no regular editors).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose (but support reform): In my experience, Portals are the optimal way to explore a topic on Wikipedia. My most active period of WikiEditing occurred in the months following when I set Portal:Trains as my homepage. This conjunction was not a coincidence: the Portal was introducing to articles on that topic in a way I can not imagine achieving using the search function, and then I would WP:BEBOLD. The editing did not drop off even as the Portal visibly stagnated for a few months. Many arguments here in favor of support seem to argue that Portals are rarely used by editors and ill-maintained. To the former claim: this is by design! Portals are for readers seeking introduction to a topic, not for editors seeking to coordinate; the latter should use WikiProjects instead. Note, too that this also makes RfC's a poor way to judge the feature's utility. To the latter: as many people have remarked, Portals are relatively easy to automate to randomly select their content, and there seems no opposition to such a change. That suggests that any maintenance issues are technical and easily fixed—hardly a reason to delete. 128.135.98.72 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Move all portals into Wikipedia namespace and mark them as historical. They are useless.--Lirim.Z (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. 99% of a productive WP editor should be spend writing new articles and editing/improving existing ones. The whole portals system is a huge waste of time and has no purpose whatsoever - the system of "Projects" is already doing what "Portals" are trying to (and people can coordinate within "Projects" if need be).--Piznajko (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Productive Wikipedia editors come in all stripes. Trying to tie productiveness to one type of editing pattern is misguided. (And trying to improve editing of one type by suppressing editing of another type is, I think, similarly misguided.) - dcljr (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems wrong to attempt to herd portal editors into more main namespace editing by eliminating any option of portal editing. To eliminate portals for this reason comes across as unnecessarily patronizing, manipulative, and even draconian. Let editors decide for themselves what they want to do. North America1000 00:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dcljr and Northamerica1000. You can't force volunteers to do work that they don't like. If somebody only edited portals while they were here, if the portals disappear they will most likely not move to editing articles. It won't necessarily raise productivity across other areas of Wikipedia. Gizza(t)(c) 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By deleting the portals you have just as likely of a chance of losing editors which is a net loss. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DcljrPiznajko, you clearly haven't spotted that many WikiProjects use portals as a tool to help them improve their topic area. Do your homework before making sweeping statements. Bermicourt (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, @Bermicourt: you wanna try that again? Because your comment doesn't seem to make any sense as a reply to anything I've said. Were you trying to reply to someone else? - dcljr (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I'm sorry, I was replying to Piznajko. I'll change that. Bermicourt (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
22 April 2018
Support (conditional) - Don't delete, mark historical. Not comfortable with such a large chunk of live edits being wiped out, let them exist as a testament to the past. Also, certain portals should be migrated to Project namespace, such as Portal:Current Events, Portal:Contents, and Portal:Featured content. -- Ϫ 01:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose As someone who sometimes read Wikipedia for leisure, portals are a great way for me to expand knowledge and explore in a new area. By deleting portals, users lose a way in which they can explore topics. AI coolTIM (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: A comment left here by User:Wpgbrown was removed by that user and replaced with a different comment in the "27 April 2018" section below. - dcljr (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)][reply]
Oppose: I hardly contribute but frequent wikipedia often. 1) If it isn't broken don't fix it 2) If you decide to remove ALL portals, what will that then cause? 3) Instead of removing all portals, perhaps a system to flag a portal as help needed, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.168.32 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the very fact that so many editors are interested in keeping portals alive (considering them useful) refutes the main thesis of the discussion - that portals should be dismantled because they are useless. Another consideration: click counts are not a good indicator of usefulness anyway, otherwise most articles should have been deleted. --Deinocheirus (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: they are still very useful and many people seem to use them to get more info or news about some subjects. PMLF (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I use the Current Events and Recent Deaths portals to keep up on those things. Please keep those two, at least. Thanks. 2601:645:4301:5360:C466:4921:16A6:C3F7 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's the Recent Deaths portal? If you mean Deaths in 2018 then that's not a portal. DexDor(talk) 20:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The way I see it, portals are one of several ways of navigating through Wikipedia space. Other methods are categories, lists and navigation templates. Each of these methods has its own value and its own audience. Granted, it's a small audience, but the visitor numbers for categories are even a lot smaller, and yet, I haven't heard anybody proposing the deletion of all categories. Besides, it is not true that all portals are ill-maintained, neglected and/or outdated. For example, Portal:Constructed languages (until last year one of the featured portals) has always been kept up-to-date, and besides, it is not the kind of portal that would require regular maintenance anyway. On the other hand, I can also see that a portal with a news section where the last news message is from 2013 looks bad. That's why I would suggest to get rid of portals that are abandoned, incomplete and outdated, or reform them in another way, but leave the rest be. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu? 22:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find the Current Event portal to be kinda helpful in digging through these modern day news headlines. Mrrusty (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
23 April 2018
Oppose. Portals are helpful tools when one is not certain about what to look for, but know it's in a particular "area" on Wikipedia. Plus with all of the crazy amount of events going on in the world, the Current Event Portal is still helpful. JaxisMaximus (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I do support deletion of portals that are neither used nor well maintained but don't think all of them should be deleted. There should be a higher burden of making sure portals are active than mainspace articles since portals are a secondary way of providing encyclopedic information to the reader whereas articles are primary. Portals are also a time sink if not viewed by many people. Categories have a similar navigational purpose but don't require as much work as portals. It would be interesting to compare the page views between the categories of a particular topic and the portal. We could also gauge the perspectives of non-editors by asking a few questions on social media. Perhaps readers are interested in portals but just aren't aware of them (the links on the main page are not very eye-catching - other sections have colourful headings and pictures). Gizza(t)(c) 01:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - With the exception of the main page and related content (e.g. current events), I have never found much use for portals. Keep in mind, I've been using this site for over ten years. Even when I started, portals didn't really do much. Kurtis(talk) 02:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose:
The portal is useful, but hard to browse around. It has great topical information. Just needs a face lift.
Is there a topical index that would replace the portals?
Part of the problem is that many do not know that the portals exist. Maybe a marketing campaign would be worthwhile before the portal is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.160.70 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: I use the Current Events portal nearly daily—it is one of my primary news sources. It would be a significant loss to me and others if it were deleted. If that page were excluded from the proposal, I would be a weak oppose; I generally feel that portals are mildly useful, but I do not think that it would be helpful at all to delete them en mass. I do believe that deleting the portals is likely to drive contributing users away. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no problem with portals. But I agree it needed to reform.--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 08:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have always considered the portals an interesting side entrance to Wikipedia, a possibility to give and get an overview of the specific field. - Mdd (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: All good works of reference need some form of indexing, which a portal is. However most portals are difficult to edit - which is why people do not do it. I have edited the Trains portal and the process was torture. Make it simple. There is a segment of Wikipedia editors who use complexity as a method of exclusion. (Maps and route diagrams for railroads comes to mind) Not all portals need a daily or even monthly update. Wickifrank (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I haven't edited any portals because they didn't interest me from the very start. Though it may be useful for people working on them, but I don't think they are any significant value to this encyclopedia. It is a failed project. Maintaining articles in itself is an exhaustive task so why increase the burden? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you being disinterested makes them without value? It's not a failed project; evident from the dozens of portals that link people from one article to a "topic page" of sorts about them. Vermont (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: Please don't be wary. What can I do if they are of no use to me? But in fact, I'm happy with the "Category" namespace. Portals are oudated and useless but Category provides specific and updated info. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose outright deletion, support reform. The portal is long overdue for an overhaul for the problems that has been discussed at length, but an outright deletion of all portals is not the answer. I do think this discussion of reforming the portal system should continue after this first discussion has concluded. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Portals are extremely useful. They are an excellent and efficient way of collating articles. They do no harm and nothing is achieved by deleting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.reed620 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - such a fundamental shift could completely change how we organize the Wiki, if not bring it down entirely. At best, there will be chaos. At worse, Wikipedia will collapse due to lack of organization. I may be exagerrating a bit, but that's to show how drastic deleting all portals is. The portal system needs tweaking and cleanup, sure - but deletion is not cleanup. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposeWikipedia:WikiProject Portals is willing to deal with any concerns. No valid reason has been given other than people not liking it or it not working out as they expected, there is WP:NORUSH. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in general, Strong Oppose for Recent Events, which I use regularly to see what's happening in the world. Portals in general are good collections for their relevant articles. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I've been making regular use of Portal:Current events for nearing a decade and it is an invaluable resource to me. Juiposa (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
24 April 2018
Strong Oppose I have made frequent use of Portal:Current events over the past year. Septrillion (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Zealous Oppose Portals are a cornerstone of the Wiki experience, and the arguments stated so far have little merit, whether pragmatic or idealist. Portal:Current events is incredibly useful, for instance, to a large number of people who want an idea of world events without political slant or plunging into the madness of the 24-hour news cycle. The Internet lately has had a concerning fever with deconstructing what is reliable in favor of what is (eye-jarringly) sleek and "modern" or even post-modern. This entire debacle is a case of WP:AINT and WP:NOPROBLEM. Wikipedia shouldn't be swept with the wave of the current times and forget its ultimate vision. An overhaul would do far more harm than good. We should not be seeking to reinvent the wheel here, and if inactivity in Portals is our concern (which is foolish logic in my view, it's like worrying about a tire that *doesn't* squeak), maybe we can be proactive and set up projects to tidy up Portals of interest that haven't been maintained. To purge it all, or even to overhaul or streamline it would kill the spirit of this site and make it yet another ugly Web 2.0 experience without any soul. Edit: To emphasize what I said, remember the First Pillar of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encylopedia. Encyclopedias are complicated per essentia and sometimes seemingly-vacuous. Complication and inactivity is not an inherently bad thing. Streamlining would be the acid that corrodes the limestone pillar.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 02:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose outright deletion. Support case-by-case historical marking. There are many well-maintained portals out there and they shouldn't be deleted simply because others aren't. Rather, we should look at each portal individually and mark some as historical and keep others alive. The ones listed on the main page are fine. Portal:History and Portal:Geography, for instance. Pages like Portal:Java and Portal:Blu-ray are so poorly maintained that they should just be marked as historical and left alone. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - The functioning of the portal system is tied up with the functioning of wikiprojects, and bad portals are associated with inactive wikiprojects. We need to figure out what to do about wikiprojects before we decide what to do about portals. — Charles Stewart(talk) 07:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For this we need to launch "WikiProject Y" to find out what happened to WikiProject X: Noyster (talk), 12:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Deletion, Pro Limited Reform - That there are many portals which get little usage/maintenance or can be dealt with in other fashions does not warrant such an all out deletion. It doesn't even warrant a "all but the big 3/big 8" deletion. Having some historical marking of very inactive portals would be good, but this RFC wants radical change when you can get similar benefits with reduced negatives by a more limited reform. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Portals are supposed to sum up the main knowledge about specific topics, and some portals do it good. Unmaintained portals are due to inactive WikiProjects. Deleting portals will not improve the quality of Wikipedia. — Mathieudu68talk 11:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. This portal is crucial to Wikipedia and deleting this portal will most likely do more harm than good. TriNitrobrick (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support In 10 years I have never found anything of value in any portal. deisenbe (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This RfC offers only draconian delete/keep options. In this context I prefer to keep them. Unmaintained portals can be redirected to the article to which they are most closely associated. ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Many portals are still actively used and updated, and they are useful to many of us, such as Portal:Current events. Cipika (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the Current Events portal in a similar form, but otherwise they are an outdated system that only function as a drain on resources, with editors concentrating on portals rather than broadconcept articles. It smacks of "surfing the information superhighway!" In this day and age, there is no real need for them.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how an old design is a bad thing by nature. Sometimes traditional is best.-Sıgehelmus (Tωlk) 15:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally supportive. Portal:Current events is a good portal because it is heavily policed and all the content is cited. Virtually all other portals are very poor: full of uncited material and fanboy cruft. For some reason the portals are treated as though they are exempt from core policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability. If they were not, a lot of material on those pages could be deleted as uncited trivia. Deleting most of these pages will improve the quality of wikipedia. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's just inaccurate to say that "virtually all other portals are quite poor, etc." First, there are many good portals out there. Second, portal material doesn't need to be cited; it consists of links and highlights from the topic articles; its the latter that need citations not the portal! Third, I manage around 30 portals and there is not a shred of "fanboy cruft" on any of them. If you have particularly poor portals in mind, you should focus your criticism on them and not tar all portals with the same brush. Bermicourt (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The elimination of portals flies in the face of the purpose of Wikipedia as it causes the contraction of knowledge, rather than the expansion of it. And, from a personal standpoint, I love the current events portal. 67.253.234.167 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I've little interest in editing them, but they can be useful navigation as a reader. If they get outdated, the structure of them could probably be revised to make them update without human intervention, such as by using templates to display a random selection of articles from a predefined set to feature. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 15:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'll concede that this is not without merit, but their here and they are to some extent useful. Keep'em and reform them if need be. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
25 April 2018
Oppose. I object to the deletion request, in the opinion that it is very useful in addition to it facilitates the person easy access to the rest of the information about what they readEgy writer (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC) [Note: The word "Oppose" was added by User:Dcljr for consistency with the other comments.][reply]
Oppose and close discussion as WP:NOCONSENSUS. Nominations for individual portal deletions should continue. Brian Everlasting (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – so many opposes are coming in that the consensus may become very clear to keep portals. RfC should run its course for the sake of determining what the community consensus is. — The Transhumanist 00:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The Main Page is one of the best pages on the internet. --Tewy 02:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Streamline/rethink portal content (Rename "Portal:" to "Index:" to start, and support new thinking about discoverability on Wikipedia). When I first visited this RFC, I was OK with deletion. Then I wavered. Wikipedia needs UI elements for exploring topics that inexperienced readers can a) locate easily, and b) find useful. [It would not surprise me if categories turn out to do a very poor job of this (and they don't even show in mobile).] I support a system that allows Wikipedia readers to find related content, and I believe we need new thinking about what UI elements would accomplish this. I do not support the essentially arbitrary content that many portals use (as a matter of fact) to represent a topic. They are uninspired re-hashes of the main page, portal by portal, when the main page itself has always been largely arbitrary in content (the right half isn't!). Some of the portals amount to original research, really, by the selective highlighting of random topics that ostensibly pertain to the topic of the portal. I just looked at Portal:2010s, which I think is a good (bad) example of that--the only thing useful about it is the category tree display. The rest is entirely arbitrary content. We need concise UI elements that let readers find categories, lists or overview pages, and so on. Portals are not concise and have too much arbitary content. (A well-defined portal topic, though, like Portal:Jane Austen, is tight enough to not have much arbitrary content.) It is only for this particular aspect of them that I am ok with deletion. I would prefer that portals be turned into "indexes", construed as you wish; then I would like to keep them, and link to them more. I am proposing to rename the portal namespace "Index" and proceed from there. :) Outriggr (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an either/or situation. We already have indexes and tree structures in place and being developed further, with software being developed to enhance them further. They serve different purposes than portals. The Portals WikiProject is currently working on ways for the next generation of portals to transcend the capabilities of our current portals. This is happening fast. See #Portals WikiProject Update: Portals – The Next Generation is almost here, below. — The Transhumanist 04:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. It makes it easier to navigate the encyclopedia, and there is a link to Portal:Current events on the sidebar. removing the portal would make a need for an update for the software just to remove the link. Moreover, portals act as main pages for WikiProjects. Removing portals would require a software change to remove the portal space, and it would be inconvenient to everyone. Even if "Portal:" was eliminated, portals as a whole would have to be deleted manually to avoid clogging up the main space. @Outriggr: it looks a bit strange if you have something like "Index:ABC" as it does not list the articles in its WikiProject. There are already set indexes in the main space, like what The Transhumanist said. Categories can also act as indexes. Nigos (t@lk •Contribs) 08:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but support reform. Portals are the underseen goldmine of wikipedia. If they're unused (both in poorly maintained, and rarely seen), I'd suggest that's due to the internal search not including them by default. Should they be included in default searches? Perhaps not, but I think their visibility needs to be exposed more somehow. If the POrtals WikiProject develops to adequately replace current portals, then I would easily support that. --.../NemoThorx (talk • Contributions) 11:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – just don't see the point of a massive deletion. If some people find portals useful, there is no harm in keeping them. If some portals mislead due to lack of maintenance, there is no problem deleting them individually. Personally I remember that portal-like entities were very popular in early digital encyclopedias, and maybe that's how Wikipedia started using them. They can still be useful, as Wikipedia doesn't have any other "introduction" system to major topics. —Ynhockey(Talk) 12:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. I think this portal is of great help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.54.29 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2018
Oppose Just thinking of that same sentiment myself Agathoclea. I understand how frustrating it is to get help from others (who lets be honest are not really that interested unless its related to politics or economics) in maintaining the portals but we can't be blinkered and remove knowledge just because it seems difficult or irrelevant. These portals are useful for people who are new to a subject. As Seneca said "It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that they are difficult" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.203.128 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2018
Strongly oppose The current system makes it infinitely easier to find exactly what I´m looking for. If the portal system was to be deleted it would make research much more difficult especially for those researching broad topics that have many sub-categories. Many of the support comments are for the end of portals as they are deemed "out of date" or "inaccurate" information, and instead of updating it and contributing they expect others to constantly do the work and update it. If you´re so aware and informed that what´s here isn´t at a good enough standard for you, do your bit! But don´t take it out on the many others that feel strongly that this has been helpfull to them. 20:08, 25/4/18 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avacisme (talk • contribs)
Vehemently opposed Both as a reader and as an editor, portals have played a helpful role in finding articles. You could legitimately argue that a vast majority of Wikipedia content is left completely unmaintained, including most articles (quite a lot of untouched decade-old stubs), but that's not an argument to delete anything, much less delete literally every one of them rather than deleting on a case-by-case instance. But again, poor maintenance is not a reason to delete anything; if I were to humor your proposal by acting as if it was, then we'd delete tens of millions of articles, not the article feature itself. If it's not broken, don't fix it. If it is broken, fix it. Throwing it away without fixing or replacing it is not a solution to anything. This wouldn't be a net positive for anyone in any way. WikiProjects are helpful for writers that want to develop articles in a subject, but portals are helpful for casual readers. I fail to see how portals are a vestigial structure of Wikipedia, but I also fail to see how being a vestige is a valid reason to delete a portal, and I absolutely fail to see how it's a valid reason to delete all portals. I take no issue with sweeping change to the institution if the problem has been correctly identified and the solution is demonstrably better for everyone; this proposal doesn't meet any of those criteria. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 22:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support reform and/or possibly delisting portals, strongly oppose deletion under any timeframe - I have found portals difficult to edit (which probably contributes to their moribund state), and I understand why various editors find them obsolete/out of date. I am okay with either reforming them or removing them from articles and search engine results. I strongly oppose deleting them in any time frame; a few months is not enough as many of the people who built them may be now busy with real life/work and will be unaware of what's going on. Perhaps even a year or so is not enough because the Wikipedia userbase just isn't robust at the moment to perfectly respond to such a request. It's better to mark them as historical because there's no time limit to editing. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Look at Nihonjoe (talk ·contribs)'s Portal:Speculative fiction - He stated he designed that portal to be highly auotmated and needing very little work to maintain. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
26 April 2018
Oppose Please keep the Portal:Current Events: this is my browsers startpage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hundfred23 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hundfred23: Although I object to deleting all portals, a portal being your browser start page could not be a reason. This discussion is about deleting all portals and not just Portal:Current events. Nigos (t@lk •Contribs) 06:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? There are lots of comments above saying we should delete all portals because no one uses them and they are outdated. Here's an example of someone who uses them (or at least one).--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons already stated above, including the importance the Current Events portal has attained over the years. KiteinthewindLeave a message! 07:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The WikiProject is fixing them – A good reason to keep the portals is that there is now a strong and growing WikiProject dedicated to updating them, upgrading them, and maintaining them. Since the Portals WikiProject rebooted 9 days ago, 51 users have joined (with more joining daily). To gear up for the main work ahead of us, we are developing automated components for portals, to make portals easier and more fun to build and maintain.
So far, we've completed a template, and supporting Lua module, that together can selectively transclude desired paragraphs from an article's lead section to use as an excerpt in a portal section. Previously, excerpts in portals were static, and would drift from the original content from which they were copied. Transcluded content from articles never goes stale or forks, as the current version is always displayed.
To give you a sense of the reaction this template is generating, here is an excerpt of a discussion thread from the WikiProject's talk page:
This new template is fantastic. I've added it to the intro sections of the portals on Australian cities (eg P:PER) and it works brilliantly. My compliments to its creators. It can probably also be used in other sections of many portals (eg "Selected article" and "Selected biography"), and, for that reason, will probably make the task of maintaining portals a great deal easier. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so brave. Portal:Adelaide/Intro just got a lot simpler! Certes (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos on a wonderful template. — The Transhumanist 03:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is amazing stuff. I'm going to get to work on using it on the selected content at most of these portals very soon. WaggersTALK 13:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently putting our heads together to develop better ways to handle news sections, "Selected" sections, anniversary sections, and "Did you know" sections. As we do so, maintenance drives will be coordinated to clean these up across the entire portal system, to remove or archive outdated information, and automate those for which it is feasible to do so and that do not have active maintainers. The first maintenance drive is expected to start within a few days.
Concerning "Selected" sections, most portals provide a selected article and picture, and sometimes a biography, item (dog, plant, volcano, spaceship, etc.), and so on. Many portals have only provided one of each, which have never changed. However, some of the best portals provide (either manually or automatically) a different selection each week, or each day, or even each time a person visits the page, keeping its content vibrant. We are looking for ways to improve these types of components so that editors can easily implement them on the portals they work on (if they want to).
Our overall goal is to revitalize the entire portal system, and make it even better, providing support to portals editors, so they can provide readers with new and interesting ways to explore knowledge. Toward this end, we are also conducting discussions on potential future features and components. You are welcome to come join in on all the discussions.
So, please, before you cast your !vote, come visit the Portals WikiProject, especially the talk page, and take a look at what we're doing, and see what is in store for the future of portals. You are also invited to join the team and contribute to their development. Thank you. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 10:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly for the Current events portal, as stated by many others above. Not only is it the best news summary I know of on the Internet, its contents and headlines are also a unique way of seeing that slice of human history since its creation. If that specific portal were to be preserved, I would then have a neutral opinion regarding the deletion of others. --Pyrhan (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a Wikipedian who has about one fifth of their edits in the portal namespace (here's proof), I believe that getting rid of the portal system will negatively impact Wikipedia in multiple ways. First and most obvious of all is that many edits and hours dedicated to improving portals will all be gone instantly. To put in a more specific context, if Wikipedia decides to delete the portal system, then they are essentially punishing those who spent much of their time improving them. Remember what happened to Vine? It ended up announcing its discontinuation, and many users of the site had all of those hours put in for nothing. Secondly, some of Wikipedia's most viewed pages are portals. Those advocating to shut down the portal system are arguing that portals should be shut down because nobody uses them. However, pages such as the history portal, the science portal, the "table of contents" of Wikipedia, the portal for all portals, and the current events portal are some of the most viewed pages on the entire website. Even some portals who get substandard views (around 50-100 per day on average) still get more views than a bunch of Wikipedia's own articles. For instance, the 2010s portal, while has less than 150 views on average per day, still experiences a lot more page views than a good amount of articles on this site. This link to a page view analysis proves this, as I got 5 random articles from this site using the Random Article feature and compared it to the 2010s portal (REMINDER: this portal still gets substandard to standard views on the average day), and the portal still gets more views than all 5 of those randomly selected articles. Finally, another reason why portals shouldn't be deleted on this site is because portals are a great way to linking multiple related topics to one another. Sure, the category does this job just fine, but let's be real here: there almost no average Joe who actively uses the category system. I'm not saying that the category system isn't used, I'm just saying that the average person browsing this site does not use the category system, and is much more likely to use the portal system. If this site is trying to solve the problem of the portals, then I suggest that the site should delete the portals that are in need of heavy maintenance. My proposal is to improve already existing portals, and delete those which are mostly uncompleted. Portals such as the Amsterdam portal, 1940s portal, Coke Studio portal, and other portals which are mostly incomplete should either be completed by a certain deadline, or be deleted from the site, since portals like those hardly get any views and are mostly unfinished. tl;dr - Portals should be kept because it would be wasted time/edits for nothing, many still get sufficient or a lot of views, and they're a good way to link multiple articles from a certain topic together. Instead of deleting the portals, people should improve already existing portals and delete those which provide inadequate information or content. I hope these thoughts get taken into consideration, and have a nice day. Redolta📱 Contribs 13:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been a Wikipedian since 2004, and in all that time I never used a portal as any kind of serious starting point (even as I have always been aware of their existence). On a few rare occasions I somehow found myself on a portal page, I found them confusing, poorly organized, and ill-maintained. If there are any portals out there which are in fact well-designed and maintained properly, I have nothing against keeping those (or reworking them into some kind of alternative) on a case-by-case basis, but the majority of them seem to be fairly useless to the bulk of the audience. Time to let them go.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2018; 14:35 (UTC)
2 VOTES for STRONGLY OPPOSE STRAIGHT DELETION even with a few exceptions, SUPPORT REFORM, USE OF SOFTWARE AND TECHNOLOGY already available, IDEAS TO REDUCE HIGH MAINTENANCE POSTED IN A SPACE, TRAINING OR INTERNSHIP OR SPACE FOR INSTRUCTION FOR READERS INTERESTED IN CONVERTING TO EDITORS, PROPERLY DEFINING "USE" OF PORTALS, ALLOWING EDITORS TO CONTACT WIKIPEDIA IF NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO MAINTAIN PORTAL AND CANVASING FOR OTHERS WILLING TO ASSUME EDITING, INCREASING ACCESS TO PORTALS BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT HOW READERS ACTUALLY USE WIKIPEDIA, such as over the phone, through search engines, through wikipedia search, through fan pages, ARCHIVING OR HISTORICAL AND ENCOURAGING EDITORS TO ENGAGE THEIR EFFORTS IN OTHER TOPICS OR AREAS SUCH AS PROJECTS especially in the same topic as previous portal, ALLOWING NEW FUTURE EDITORS TO REVIVE A PORTAL IF IT REMAINS DEFINED AS USED IN ARCHIVE OR HISTORY (much easier to do if content is archived rather than deleted), GRADUAL WEEDING OF PORTALS NEVER USED AFTER ARCHIVING OR HISTORICAL, ANNUAL EVALUATION OF USAGE AND DELETION OF OUTDATED INFORMATION AND OBSOLETE LINKS FOR ARCHIVED/HISTORICAL previous portals. POSSIBLE INTEGRATION WITH WIKIPEDIA PROJECTS. These and other alternatives are better solutions to the problems identified with portals such as poor maintenance and/or poor usage, than short sited nearly wholesale deletion, and even importing content to areas other than archive/historical would in the long run import the problems. Even archiving/historical will experience these same problems if used alone without implementation of other reforms. There clearly needs to be a system to evaluate usage and maintenance and not keep proliferating ad infinitum. Additionally, deletion only SEEMS to be a simple solution, but technologically definitionally and motivationally (for editors) is much more complex in execution than noted at first glance. Finally, Wikipedia Internationally has dealt with the same problems using solutions other than deletion. MAJOR REFORM OF CATEGORIES ALSO PROPOSED, please ASAP. excuse me (zion) I am primarily a reader and I did not know how to bullet and bold to follow the format, so I used capitalization. (I zion wrote all comments and votes as of april 26 2018 but consulted my brother mullosk via phone, probably after this date he may more sophisticatedly and knowledgeably add his own input.) zionpegasus/eagle in the city; and mullosk43 — Preceding comment added (in two edits) by 67.140.143.169 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC) zion67.140.143.169 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC) zionpegasus67.140.143.169 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC) eagleincity67.140.143.169 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC) my brother: mollusk4367.140.143.169 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC) i am not sure i have a current account, but i did once have one. 67.140.143.169 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2018[reply]
It would be great if you could log in and sign this comment properly, if you have an account (i.e., a username). - dcljr (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My single most used section of Wikipedia is the sidebar of Portal:Current events. (I just found out that the sidebar has its own subpage here.) I constantly use it to keep up on recent election results and on ongoing armed conflicts. This seems to be in keeping with the intended use of Portals: grouping articles to allow readers and editors the convenience of finding multiple articles of a similar theme together. That so many of the most important Portals are so easily accesible form the Main Page is an added bonus. What other alternatives are there? Ugly and disorganized Category pages? Not quite as ugly WikiProject pages that serve a distinct community purpose? --J. E. C. E. (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why should portals be deleted? These portals make it easier for Wikipedians to travel around instead of typing it in search. It is fine the way it is.―YoloMaxi ☎ (contribs) 21:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC) [This comment left by YoloMaxi GT at the bottom of the page was moved to here by The Transhumanist; the word Oppose was added by Dcljr for consistency with other comments. - dcljr (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)][reply]
Oppose Likewise, one of my more frequent sites I go to on Wikipedia is Portal:Current events. It helps me know what elections and current events are going on that I might otherwise miss. Portal:Current events covers news and elections that mainstream media sources might not necessarily cover outside of the Western world. I have minimal knowledge on other portals, but the Current Events portal is very strong in its current form. Thanks, TenorTwelve (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
27 April 2018
OpposePortal:Current events is an excellent source for a global perspective on news. I think it also generates some historical value through its archives. Jicksw (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I only found out about Portals today. Why? Because they aren't well advertised; I hadn't conciousely noticed such a link previously. Having found out about them, they strike me as being extremely useful! Rather than following a string of links interspersed within the text through various related pages, a properly constructed Portal allows me to hierarchically access related articles within a tree structure from one page, which is a vast improvement in regard to my standard method of trying to find/organize information. I must say, the arguments relating to number of edits per page over a specified time period don't appear to be including any information regarding the volatility of the subject matter contained, other than that for specific pages looked at; if the information the page contains is up-to-date, there is no need for an edit; that some of the responders state that while they had not edited the main Portal page for a topic, but had edited pages the Portal linked to does seem to support the argument that for some topics the Portal would be static over long periods of time, without being out-of-date. The question should not be "How many edits have been made in x-time-period?", but rather "Has there been any need for edits, and if so, have they taken place?", which would seem to me be the criteria to apply to all pages, regardless of namespace. Some pages are static by nature, in that there is no change in the matter being covered, while others are in need of constant updating, due to high currency of the matter being covered. Umm, this is slightly OT, but is there a way to identify a page as being a stable/static topic, and that an alert be automatically created if it is edited; that would seem to be of assistance in being alerted to possible POV vandalism of topics where the probability of legit edits is low. JohnBobMead (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Portals are essentially useless, our regular readers don't visit them and don't know they exist. They could be seen as essentially harmless, except they do make some Wikipedians waste time maintaining them, time those individuals could better spend doing something actually useful. Of course, it's a free project, and in the end if someone wants to work on a page that is seen by pretty much no-one, it's fine, but we should try to discourage some of the more wasteful activities, and portals seem to fit in this category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Concerning the waste of time thing, there is now an automation lab over at the Portals WikiProject, where we are designing tools to take the work out of building and maintaining portals. The previous method for building portals was to manually copy and paste article excerpts onto a multitude of subpages that fed into a base page. That is a very tedious and time-consuming activity. Now, we are in the process replacing the need to copy and paste, in the form of automated templates supported by Lua modules, that fetch and display excerpts automagically via transclusion. This design feature is completed, and is undergoing beta testing now. When we are done automating the portals' other functions (like topic selection) we'll have fully automated dynamic portals that will need very little maintenance, with subpages made virtually obsolete or greatly reduced for many portals. By dynamic, I mean fed new material without human intervention once the configuration settings have been made. It's looking like we'll have working prototypes very soon. The big question after that, will be "What features can we add to make Portals really cool (and useful)"?. For example... The portals of the German-language Wikipedia are so heavily automated, that their portal operators can focus on more community-oriented activities. Their creatures portal, for example, has a sub-department where you can post a picture of an animal, and they will identify the species for you. We are limited only by our imagination and our creativity. — The Transhumanist 14:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Transhumanist: I appreciate your detailed answer. Automatization is certainly a good step, and I like the 'ID feature'. Still, we have to consider the big problem of portals being hidden deep inside Wikipedia. As long as 99,99% of our users don't even realize they exist, they may be a cute, cool - and useless due to effective invisibility - feature. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The traffic to Wikipedia's specialty pages seems like so little, until you consider the navigation function. For the vast majority of navigation attempts, (google) search works fine, and leads you right to the article you were looking for. But sometimes, search can't help. Like when you don't know what you are looking for is called. Or your needs are more general, like learning what exists. For those situations, other types of aids are needed. So, Wikipedia's contents systems don't generally compete with search, they are there mostly to assist when search doesn't produce the needed results. They complement search. Search is our navigation work horse, and does the bulk of the work, but it can't reach everything. The content systems extend the users' reach beyond the search system. That's one of the reasons they don't get as much traffic as articles - they are in essence navigation tools, like search is, but for special cases. So comparing them to articles is like comparing apples to oranges. So, having search plus alternative navigation tools is superior to having just search, because you have something else to try when you get stuck.
Concerning tools or service, the closer to 100% effectiveness you try to reach, the more it costs. Search is cheap, and covers 80% to 90% of users' navigation needs. That last 10% to 20% requires custom tools, which takes editing to build, but it is well worth it to readers to have them when they need them. The more effective Wikipedia is in fulfilling users' knowledge needs, the more they will choose Wikipedia as their first stop for knowledge.
With the new improvements (and quality) coming to portals, they may inspire return visits, which would increase traffic to them. And don't forget improvements over the long term. Who knows what they will become in the future? Personally, I like the interactive interface (the holotable) used by Tony Stark and S.H.I.E.D. in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Imagine if portals adapted that to the 2D screen. (There's already a related prototype invented by Elon Musk).[3] But, portals won't be able to evolve into something like that, or something else cool, if we kill them off now. — The Transhumanist 06:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Portals are useful, valid sources of current data/information and, if they are maintained by people who find them interesting enough to exist, there is no point in terminating them. IMHO, Portal:Current events, for example, is an excellent and unbiased news center resource. Hugo Salvado (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2018 (GMT)
Oppose All time, when I am joining the Internet, I am going to read a Portal's news. At least, it is edited by peoples, who donate their time for Wikipedia and I was all time content with this, that I read. Only surprised, that somebody want to delete the Portal or portals generally--Noel baran (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I will just answer with my gut. For some odd reason the Portal for New YORK CITY where I live, is my WP homepage before I login. It is my bookmarked page above all the other links, wiki or potential references, I hold under a bookmark tab called Wiki. I do not want to see this starting point for my entry into the WP world to change based on a cricket match. If you want a debate, find me another Fan Dancer or Flagger who has taken to the stage of Heritage of Pride's Dance on the Pier for a span of years equal to my own. 1991-2017. Do you see my name on a flagger or fan dancee WP page, no. It's just something I do for my community in the town where I live. The art was near extinct, until Randy of LA taught Jeffrey Reichlin in the Fall of 1987 how to build his fluid fans and work them properly. February 1988 at Pier 17 in the Seaport, fans where spun in NY for the first time in many years, as AIDS took far too many and these interpretive dancers who trace their history back to the Trocadero in SF (early 1970's) either put them away for good or they were put away for them after they found a box in their size... and a place to burn it, because that wasn't easy at first. Between 1988 and 1997 there were eventually a total of 16 fan dancers who took to that one stage. How do I know. I hold the fax which I sent to the NFP ensuring they all had access. But I digress. Leave the Portals.Mrphilip (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partial oppose. The portal system has been broken a long time, but deletion isn't really the answer, because that implies mindlessly putting information in view of admins only for no special reason. This is user content and should preserved -- it just shouldn't be promoted with a special Main Page index or given a special namespace. The Portal: space should be reserved for redirects only and everything presently there should be redirected, and after about 5 years the redirects can be shut down if there's a reason to, not sooner. But the content presently there should be moved somewhere - whether WikiProject or user page or some other discussion namespace - and an index to all the portals, at new locations, should continue to exist. Then people interested in the content can keep working on it, and if you have a favorite Portal link, you can bookmark wherever it gets redirected to. Wikipedia has a tremendous internal division between being "not social" and having "portals and wikiprojects and wikiconferences and wiki chapters and so on" and so long as it pursues these divergent goals with excessive fervor in both directions it will continue to have strange flotsam prominently displayed. Wnt (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: The new and improved rebooted Portals WikiProject is fixing the entire portals system with a redesign/upgrade. So, it won't remain broken for long: the new team is designing fixes as fast as we can. It's been just 10 days since the reboot, and we've designed some cool new components already, and you can expect more at a fairly rapid pace. We have some of Wikipedia's best and brightest on the team. — The Transhumanist 13:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance that project seems like a bull session, stuff like people asking whether you can automate DYKs. That's not to say it's a bad thing, but I don't see why having a "Portal:" namespace or the set of Main Page links is necessary for it. To the contrary, I think it's great that people want to branch out and reconsider what portals would be -- the format seems a bit stilted, a lot of work, and maybe people making pages like "My Study List for A&P 1" would be a lot more useful. I think you should be allowed to keep the portal pages (somewhere else, a common WP: space) but with lots of room to play around with them, the no-social-media enforcers should be batted off with a stick, but we should also keep an open mind to whether maybe it is possible to amicably transfer some of the content to Wikiversity and breathe some life into *that* project by relieving some of the restrictions of their rather unimaginative course format. But other stuff is also useful that doesn't fall into their purview, like if you make a "Hot Topics in Physics" portal/news forum where you list a bunch of physics articles and why they're hot now. (That would be a Wikinews prospect but AFAIK Wikinews is hopeless where anything creative is involved; we should keep such things in Wikipedia and practice batting) Wnt (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: Encouraging "pages like 'My Study List for A&P 1'" would seem to run counter to WP:WEBHOST. Portals are not (usually) simple summaries of subject areas (and those that are should be expanded and/or refactored). - dcljr (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a page meant to demonstrate a course curriculum is a little more educational than, say, a page about last night's party, so it may be time for batting practice. Wnt (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I like the portals, I find them useful, and there's no reason to throw them out just because some of them aren't up to scratch yet. The vast majority of articles aren't "finished" either. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I visit the current events portal frequently. I find it to be a broad, neutral, and unsensationalist news source, which is a rare thing to find in 2018. If you want to clean up specific unmaintained portals, that's fine, but to destroy all of them because you can find a few examples of page rot makes no sense at all. I suspect some portals don't get much maintenance because they cover relatively static subjects and don't need frequent updates. dreish~talk 12:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I revise my statement, as after looking further at the portal system, with the necessary improvements I think portals would become easier to maintain, thus allowing them to be up to date and so useful to readers who may want to become avid editors. Wpgbrown (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[Note to readers: Wpgbrown is referring to this. - dcljr (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)][reply]
Solid Oppose I find the portals useful but without them I would likely be running around Wikipedia like a chicken with its head cut off. I would have no idea whatsoever what to do and where to go when I forget which page to search for for a specific topic and I think that others would likely have the same problem, too. Not only is the system useful and more convenient than other methods of finding what you're looking for, it doesn't require you to know what the thing you're looking for is so that you can ask for it directly (which wouldn't be possible if your mind went blank, which constantly happens to me). Additionally, newer users will be at a significant loss for the change if the system is removed. --OdysseusTroy (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the system of portals is often convoluted and needs to be cleaned up at best, the ability to find ALL information on a certain topic is invaluable when researching things, especially when you cannot remember exactly what you're looking for. As stated by others above, most portals are left stagnant due to the lack of events pertaining to their topics. SirGents(talk) 16:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I rely on the current events portal as my most trusted source of international news. Ryan Singer (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no action should be taken before Portals are (re)added to the default search result and we let a few months pass to collect page view data. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 21:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
28 April 2018
Support, as long as the pages are archived and not deleted entirely, though links to them should be removed. Portals became obsolete a while ago. —mountainhead / ? 12:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Other than the Community portal (if it is truly a portal), I don't use portals. When I do stumble across one, it's generally in a sad state of disrepair. However, I don't think the "Delete portals: Y/N?" phrasing of the question is very useful. There are things that are of value in the portal system, so I would support a more careful review of portals that thinks about what services they do provide and how those could be preserved, whether in the portal namespace or by consolidating with other Wiki components (Overviews, Projects, etc.). Overall, though, I don't think portals are functioning as their vision of a grand organizational structure for Wikipedia, so I would oppose maintaining the status quo. Tdslk (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't see any reason to remove the portal system. Some need to be cleaned up, but that's no reason to remove them completely. It's the easiest way by far to find multiple articles on a specific topic. Unless a new, better system is put in place using the framework from portals, I don't see any reason to end the system entirely. Pugchump (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support general deprecation of the portal system / process. Outright deletion (if needed) can come later. Portals have become obsolete a while ago; much of the information on the portals that I did come across was out-of-date. I'm not aware of them being actively worked on (in general). They do not appear to be useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: A WikiProject has been created at WP:WikiProject Portal. This project aims to not only get them worked on in general but use transclusion to avoid being out of date. If this changes your mind feel free to comment, if not then have a good day. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
29 April 2018
Strong Oppose, especially for the current events portal. I'm not sure about my feelings on the other portals, but the current events portal contains historical information that dates back for some time. If you remove the current events portal, than I think those pages should be transferred and/or archived in some way. --Skeeball93 (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these are communities. while some may be inactive, some are not, and deleting all of them seems rash. Maybe Wikiproject Portals should focus on consolidation. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a quick scroll through this page shows an overwhelming WP:SNOW oppose. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that this discussion will result in support to delete it and I don't even see an ambiguous no-consensus keep-by default-scenario. With a discussion as massive as this showing this many Oppose !votes, I'd recommend closing it soon. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 09:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC isn't as simple as a quick-scroll, and it should run its full course. Many of the opposes (and some supports too) involve narrowly focused and repeated points, some of which have been posted by very new users or editors who've swung by from other-language wikipedias. No consensus became apparent fairly soon on, after that its a weightless pile-on; but perhaps an editor will still appear with a useful reasoned point. Cesdeva (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what points can be made that already haven't been made. Scrapping Portals is a reckless restructuring that is antithetical to especially the First and perhaps even the Third Pillar of Wikipedia. It's ridiculous modernization for the sake of modernization and argumentum ad populum fallacies. Given the arguments posted by those in Support as to what should happen after this proposed purge, it's like burning a traditional cuckoo clock and replacing it with a cheap digital clock because the latter is seemingly easier to use and more popular. It's one of the most ridiculous ideas I've seen on this site. Edit: Also I'm beginning to see this RfC as a case of WP:SNOW too.--Sıgehelmus (Tωlk) 16:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well sometimes you have to aim high. There is now an effort to overhaul the neglected portal system, so I'd say the proposal was a success. Kind regards, Cesdeva (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's simultaneously more of a success and more of a failure as a result of this proposal; the growth of Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals was in part a backlash against this proposal as a result of joining it I was motivated to establish my own portal and project. It's in some way a win to make a high-profile deletion nomination based on how portals are neglected if it results in a renewed desire to work on them, which it has. I understand the idea of making a fringe proposal if it's the mentality of "to get to the moon you have to reach for the stars." However, it's also unsuccessful if the nominator genuinely wanted to delete all portals, as the consensus is unambiguously in favor of keeping them. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 19:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with @Cesdeva:'s thought is the base insinuation that there is a problem with Portals themselves besides many being unmaintained. Many here have stated the point that Portals are reliable and incredibly helpful for many people; not just in Current Events but subjects they are interested breaking into.--Sıgehelmus (Tωlk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with your point. There's nothing wrong with portals themselves. As was stated in another sub-discussion here, the main page itself is a portal; portals allow us to create an entire main page dedicated to providing relevant information on a subject that interests the reader. The only thing needed to ensure that portals continue to be useful is that portals continue to be edited by readers. What's necessary is for various WikiProjects to work on their related portals, not to delete or overhaul the system of portals itself. It's not just the current events portal that helps readers. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 21:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand why this portal (Portal:Limited recognition) was suddenly created. I was confused as to why the article List of states with limited recognition suddenly required a portal encompassing it, as I didn't see the point of one. Matters that affect this list have always been handled historically on that article's talk page with little issue. I hope you are prepared for the work required to maintain such a portal, as I do not expect much contribution to this portal by others. It is a fringe subject as it is anyway. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per WP:FRINGE. We need the categories and the navigation templates for vocabulary-level (word) semantics and the portals for sentence-level (story) semantics. Both are needed. Let's not erode Wikipedia before it's mature! We need 25 years before all our brain neurons are "fully connected", and we're not 18 yet :-) Wakari07 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I use the current events portal on a daily basis, and find that it is extremely useful in providing easy-to-access news stories, and makes it so that I don't need to to multiple different sites to find out about current events. I like the setup of the portals in general because they provide clear and concise facts that are easy to understand. --Undescribed (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose portals should be updated, not just deleted because some are out of date. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl, The Portals WikiProject is working on it. We have now developed 2 new templates for creating and maintaining semi-dynamic portals. Template:Transclude lead excerpt is designed to keep excerpts fresh, always showing the current text from the source article (no more static copied/pasted excerpts that can go stale or fork). The second one is Template:Transclude random excerpt, which is like the first template, but allows multiple article names to be included, from which it displays one at random each time the page is visited. Both templates make the use of subpages obsolete for the sections they are implemented on, reducing the maintenance burden. Portal space currently has about 150,000 subpages. Conversion to the semi-dynamic model takes a matter of minutes for a portal with moderate subpage support. — The Transhumanist 00:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-dynamic? This cycles-through a pre-defined list, providing a modest selection. Fully dynamic would take as its source a list that is maintained and updated regularly, such as a category. We are currently looking for fully dynamic solutions, which would result in portals that continually update themselves with new content. For progress on all of the portal development initiatives, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. Excitement is high, and the WikiProject's membership is growing daily. — The Transhumanist 00:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
30 April 2018
Strong Oppose This is because portals are the lifeblood of the system. To ensure that more people use portals, put in better defined links.2001:48F8:402E:1869:146E:ADFD:6FC0:B25E (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: nothing good comes from deleting portals. Portals can be extremely useful and helpful in navigating in certain topics.--◂ épine Ⓥ 03:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. They are valuable and still work toward their original purpose. In addition, they encourage creation and expansion of content. — ERcheck (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Portals serves as a useful guide when reading about a topic. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I'm really sick of discussing this kind of proposals. Delete them all because some of them are not well-maintained looks like killing the patient just because they feel ill. No, no, and no.--JetstreamerTalk 14:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support : Portal system often oppose wikipedians, ending this system is a good idea I think. --Niridya (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Niridya: What do you mean by "oppose wikipedians"? Do you mean the portal system is often opposed by Wikipedians? - 72.182.55.186 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that some Wikipedians "support" Portals and some others "are against" the system of Portals. It is a topic of debate. --Niridya (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But wouldn't that be more of an argument against the proposal to delete all portals? - 72.182.55.186 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Honestly, portals have been a part of Wikipedia and are very useful to me. They provide links to parts of categories and it makes no sense to see them go. newrunner769 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Portals are an integral part of this website and extremely helpful to navigation. A Wikipedia without portals is a Wikipedia that has made its interface more impenetrable and alienated many of its users, both editors like you and I and all others who use this wonderful resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delfadoriscool (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I’ve never had much use for portals myself, but it’s clear that other editors and readers have, and throwing them all out because some are poorly maintained is not the right course of action. Vorziblix (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Major oppose – when you see a struggling Portal, fix it. No biggie. Just do it. Be bold. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - My reasoning for this has been previously stated by many other voters, but I really think it would be a disservice to Wikipedians to delete ALL portals just because some of them are in a state of disrepair. Nanophosis (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the Portals Project has been restarted and is going strong. To make portals more dynamic, it has designed upgrades for two portal section types so far, and is working on upgrading the rest. Plus the new team is working hard on the portals themselves. See its watchlist for the activity on portals. — The Transhumanist 19:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1 May 2018
Oppose, the portals organize the articles in Wikipedia. They help me find things. Comfr (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ending all of them (maybe some can go?) - I am concerned that to get rid of all portals will throw the baby out with the bathwater. I cannot vouch for the usefulness of 100% of them, but I became aware of this proposal a couple of weeks ago when I was looking at Portal:Current events, which I have found to be a very handy portal. (And how else would that information be organized on Wikipedia?) KConWiki (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Portals are not a huge maintenance burden so let them be. Esquivalience (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just today I landed on a portal for the first time in what seems like years, it feels like a better system for a broad overview on a topic than the related page blurb at the bottom can afford. It surprises me I don't come across more, saw the deletion proposal notice and finally made an account to comment. Shlemme (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caution. Each existing portal should be examined to ensure properly relocating the content.--Jusjih (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Portal has important role in Wikipedia and it make it easier for readers to surf the articles related to certain topic in a much easier way than categories do especially for newcommers because categories are down in the pages and don't have icons to attract readers to them like portals so that the attention and flow to portals is much higher than that for categories and so i think its more beneficial to the readers than other surfing related articles methods and if we think in the same reasoning manner here then we must delet small categories with low views! . Regards--مصعب (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the main question. However, as with any subject, moderation or some form of guideline might be required. Support the relevance guideline proposed in section 3.37 by User:Bermicourt. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I read the Portal: Current Events every day for news and now above it they are saying they are going to delete it, they are obviously not useless as over 4 million people have read it in 2018 so far (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is indeed a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Some articles are terrible, some portals are terrible. Should we end wikipedia because of a few bad articles? Is that not what we're being asked of here? Boundarylayer (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I visit the Portal:Aviation page every day to check out the "On this day in history" portion. I consider portals a vital portion of this wonderful online community, and they facilitate the easy sharing of knowledge among Wikipedians. —Editor 357(Talk • Contributions) 22:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2 May 2018
Slight Opposition If we were to delete them all then there wouldn't be any easy way for, say some new, to find out how to get to a certain article, an article that is hidden under about two-hundred other articles. I think that [some] should be kept to allow an easier experience for newer people. who don't know about the articles. -Clujikostu (Talk • Contributions) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWhy Delete a Portal To the Community forums on Wikipedia? I'm no expert, but If People still use Portals, Why delete them?--Tails Era --Voltaire — Preceding comment added by The sonic channel 1 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Serious WP:USE issues will arise for common readers if portals are to be deleted. 203.139.28.241 (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason to be deleted, in my opinion. OggyOlivia (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE! It is actually quite pragmatic keep portals as they are a leeway to access relevant info, and the main page is also styled like a portal. ---DÆMÖN MUNDANE++ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DÆmÖN MUNDANE++ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only few people knew how to navigate inside portals and most of them are outdated. PH 0447 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Editors' time could be spent more effectively on increasing the quality of articles and maintaining the articles themselves rather than maintaining portals. There's no need to reinvent the wheel- Google and similar structures already exist and are effective in aiding navigation and finding of articles. Lookunder (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The people are outdated or the portals are outdated? --Paul McDonald (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Common sense. The most visited portals should be kept, but the majority of them are out of date, not visited by readers, and useless. ThePlatypusofDoom(talk) 16:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is now no argument anymore because all Portals are going to be kept up-to-date with the {{Transclude lead excerpt}} - template.--Broter (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fail to see how anything is gained by removing the portals. Are they taking up too much space on the internet? Is Wikipedia's service provider asking us to delete files? Folks who don't want to use them can ignore them; those of us who like them can continue tinkering with them. Simple win/win. —Dilidor (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The selected quotes, pictures, articles, etc placed on these sometimes focus on the obscure, and would violate WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV were it placed in the overarching article. Some treat these as a POV fork. These are also redundant. With the "see also" sections, infoboxes, categories, navboxes, and wiki-links (which now have mouse over previews), I feel the portals add no value to Wikipedia. As to the how, I would start by preventing any new portals, then gradually remove the portals on the basis of editing inactivity. Digdeepertalk 17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. WP:NPOV is also a guidline for Portals.--Broter (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and if it were, then it would be an editing issue instead of a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald and Broter:. Thanks for your thoughts. A genuine question: Is it appropriate to add comments after editors rationale in this section? I'm not certain I've seen this before. I wouldn't mind adding some feedback above to some of postings myself, however I'm concerned that the section will become bloated or that this may violate Wikipedia ettiqutte. Thoughts?Digdeepertalk 18:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll up and you you'll see it's fairly common. "RFC" means "Request for Comments" which to me implies a discussion... and that's about the only way I know to do it in a text forum such as this. As to is it "appropriate" ??? Never really thought about that!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.Digdeepertalk 19:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portals are going to be forever up-to-date with the {{Transclude lead excerpt}} - template.--Broter (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This will mirror the current lead, it doesn't change the content. How is having stale portals any better than "see also" sections, infoboxes, categories, navboxes, and wiki-links? Digdeepertalk 19:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portals provide a better interactive experience than "see also" sections, infoboxes, categories, navboxes, and wiki-links. "see also" sections are only some articles, infoboxes give only information about one subject, categories are not used by the average reader and navboxes use Portals and are in a relationship with Portals.--Broter (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many Portals are dynamic and show changing content.--Broter (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I read the Portal: Current Events every day for years. If made obsolete, a new option would be preferred. 47.203.211.199 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally like portals, as I consider them like "You may also like" pages. They may also make the reader able to reach more articles of the same subject. And maybe even editing them in order to improve the said articles. In addition to be visually appealing. --Espilio (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3 May 2018
Oppose ending the system entirely. I fear that would be throwing the baby and the bathwater out the metaphorical window. However, the namespace does need pruning - perhaps some stricter criteria for what merits a portal need to be hashed out? Richard0612 09:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support in general. It's clear that most readers aren't using portals, they take a lot to maintain, and so many are out of date that it's hard to think of good reasons for keeping them. The editor energy currently going into portals would be better spent otherwise. No objection to creating something new to replace them, but in their current form, they're dead weight.--Cúchullain t/c 13:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose There is no value in deleting content. I would support limited deletion of portals that are not being actively maintained and have not aged well, and I would also support a moratorium on creating new portals. But outright wholesale deletion is not a good idea. I have did significant work on portals in the past. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deleting the portals, this is the place you can navigate through various pages, and helps users to update and write content. - ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varmapak (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Portals have long been a well-respectable source for exploring other relatable topics via single articles. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No suitable alternative exists for portals that presents the information in a concise and easy to navigate format. Any attempt to produce such an alternative would just wind up creating portals again. I would accept some reform in how portals are used, but they are too valuable to do away with in their entirety. AlexEng(TALK) 22:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4 May 2018
Oppose I pretty much agree that this should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as someone who has occasionally worked with portals, I understand the problems that they are facing, but deleting all of them is not the solution, I am free to consider deletion of some problematic portals, though. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason to delete. If you don't like them, then don't read them. Some are being used and that's enough to not throw out all. Royalbroil 00:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hi, im a reader, not an editor. Somehow i stumbled upon this discussion and after reading, thought i would offer some feedback from a reader. I mostly use an ipad to read wikipedia and switch it to "desktop" because i like it better. Maybe im not a typical user. I tend to look something up like "porcupine", read that article, get intrigued by something else, click on a link and then other. I wound up on a page about Madagscar. I love delving deeper into topics and can spend hours reading articles on wikipedia. That said, i love portals because it makes it easier to find indepth info on whatever im interested in that day. I didnt even know about portals until one day i discovered a portal link in the box at the bottom of an article. I now look and i dont see many links to portals. I think if the links were there, easier for users to find, they would get more traffic. Im not a fan of outlines although i do use them. I think portals are more user friendly and comprehensive. Maybe some portals need to be deleted but i dont think you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Reading this discussion did give me a better understanding and appreciation of the work involved in maintaining wikipedia. Maybe im not a typical user. I do have an insatiable curiosity about the world and everything in it. I love wikipedia. Thank you all for all your hard work and your efforts to make this the great resource it is, whether you oppose or support this RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:49:0:88C1:9943:A3D8:AE55:6997 (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC) [The word "Oppose" was added at the beginning by User:Dcljr (me) for consistency with other comments. - dcljr (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)][reply]
Oppose Portals can be improved.They are a great Feature. They need improvement in a more structured way.Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 04:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mass deletion of portals. I think it could make sense to implement something like Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for portals. Orser67 (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - This is a terrible idea that will cripple the explorability of Wikipedia. 24.20.122.141 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose, portals are important infrastructural part of Wikipedia which also has historical and social value. They also can be seen as parts of WikiProjects system which is also important. Proposals to delete something historical and important, with many people's contributions, occur regularly and seem to be generally unrelated to improvement of Wikipedia, but just related to desire to "delete something I didn't like". There were such proposals as to "close all Wikinews", "close Sebuan Wikipedia", they all failed and just wasted community's time. Because the correct approach, if someone see an important wiki-thing they dislike, is how we improve projects/portals, not remove them. --ssr (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is reasonable to ban further attempts of any mass-deletions at the scale of "all portals", "all wikinews", "a whole active wikipedia". People begin to produce giant conflicts instead of writing articles. --ssr (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose There is no value in deleting content.--Semenov.m7 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose It has interesting news and keeps us informed. There is no point in deleting this. If people don't like this, don't read or ignore this section. That simple--Hovhannesk (talk) 3:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I think they're a useful way of organising information on a particular topic and act as a handy in-subject directory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.134.13 (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2018
Oppose As a reader, I want to throw in a word of support for Portal:Current_Events, which I have referenced almost daily for years. It provides a global and unbiased perspective as well effective temporal and thematic organization -- a vanishingly rare gift on the clickbait-happy internet. I believe the world will be worse off if it is deleted unless a comparable replacement is added.ChFrBa (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5 May 2018
Oppose Portals are convenient and easy to use. As you can see I am an end user. I have no idea on how to comment here so this is where I placed it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.157.5 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC) [Note: This comment was left on the talk page by 108.51.157.5 and then moved to here by User:Dcljr (me). I added the word "Opposed" for consistency with the rest of the comments. - dcljr (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)][reply]
Very Strong Oppose A. No reason to delete content that can be improved. This is akin to AfD'ing an article that just needs some CE. B. Many portals are extremely useful. C. Some portals definitely may need work, but they at least provide some deal of navigation for topics that may otherwise be difficult to access. --9563rj (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remark:Neutral I personally think Portals are a good idea, but their implementation is all wrong. I see Portals as a way of linking similar subject matter. For instance, if I clicked on Portal:James Bond, I would expect to find anything relevantly related to the subject matter listed in a clear and easy to navigate manner. Portal:James Bond is a good example of what I expect a Portal might look like because it is well laid out with relevant matter. But, the few times I have ever clicked on a Portal link, I usually just see a great big mess of virtually unrelated matter, barely navigable.
If it is decided that Portals should be kept, then I suggest they are in need of a serious overhaul. It is for this reason that I'm 99% more likely to click on a ==See also== than a Portal. However, I do like seeing that Portal icon identifying articles as belonging to a particular subject, thus suggesting there are other topics of interest I might wish to read.
Support - They serve very little purpose and are difficult to maintain with many out of date, I don't think they are necessary. SSSB (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have never found a portal to be useful in over 12 years of being a Wikipedian. Flibirigit (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit:. You do not like Portals, therefore you want all Portals deleted and the work of thousands of editors in vain?--Broter (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Portals help organize lots of information and events for ease of people who want to use them. It is a useful feature that provides navigation in an extremely large web of articles. TheSubmarine (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose 1. No reason to delete content that can be improved. I have added WikiProject information to many thousands of article talk pages, improving the ability of editors to find information on project information. Recently added pages to the Jersey project, taking total from 800+ articles tio 1180+ articles, and letting me create and imporove articles on Jersey and the Channel Islands 2. Some portals definitely need work, but they at least provide connections to topics that may otherwise be difficult to access. I have done a lot of work on several projects, including Insect, Madagascar, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. 3. Projects allow me to work with other editors with the same interests. Four and five years ago, I worked on Guyana articles with another editor. We find each other on a Talk page. 4. We talk with each other, ask and answer questions, and improve Wikipedia on Project pages. Please let us continue.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Partially - It´s ok to end them, but I think that their contents should immediatly be converted into a corresponding "Outline" article, with topics, lists, everything in plain text to help people who want to dig into the subject. Ogat (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support with some regret. Almost every one I have come across are so out of date that they are misleading to readers. The very few that still function as intended could be brought into article space somehow. Regretfully as a lot of work has been put into them and there was potential. We just lack the manpower to keep these functioning and too often they rely on one dedicated individual, who may retire or move on. Marking as historic is fine if editors don't want to delete them outright. There is a certain historical charm in keeping these trapped in time for future generation to find. AIRcorn(talk) 21:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Partially As a random reader watching this, low-level portals could happily go away: eg the Australian Cars portal. But the Cars portal, and the Transport portal, which are much broader, could remain. 222.154.227.183 (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6 May 2018
Oppose - I can see both sides of the argument. But in my opinion the portal in this case is useful at the main page for finding specific articles about current topics etc. Thats my take on this.BabbaQ (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose I created an account just to voice my opinion. As someone who reads the Current Events Portal everyday, I was horrified to find out it is in jeopardy. Please consider the thousands of people like me who would never of created an account to voice their opinions on this matter. cshy (talk) Sun May 06 00:43:46 2018 UTC
Partial support - Keep well-maintained and useful ones (such as the perennial example Portal:Current events). Mark infrequently updated ones (another perennial example: Portal:Prehistory of Antarctica) as historic so any content can be salvaged by WikiProjects, interested editors, etc. As a general rule, I think portals should be few, but broad in scope. Looking through the mishmash of arguments, it seems most Opposes are either 1) many editors' work will be lost (this is a textbook example of begging for mercy), or 2) they are useful to readers (a legitimate argument to keep some portals, but most don't get viewed a lot). There may be no deadline, but it's not realistic to expect the system can be substantially improved. Teratix (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix:. Look at Wikiproject Portals. There the system is substantially improved.--Broter (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose Why are you trying to destroy a piece of art that has been made and not damaged? Even if you want to be deleted, the history of these pages will never be erased in the direction of Wikipedia politics. I find this request totally irrational. --İncelemeelemani (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose The portal system is an integral part of the Wikipedia experience. Removing it because you don't want to work on it is counter to everything Wikipedia stands for. --Auric talk 11:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose I believe that Portals are an integeral part of Wikipedia, because they've always been here, and removing portals would take a big chunk of the original Wikipedia away. A second reason is the fact that Portals help make things organized. IiTomsx (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've probably got nothing new to add, but it seems like portals are in the process of revitalization, and, while not integral to the success of Wikipedia, are in no way contributing to a coming failure. There are editors who are now willing to maintain, so it makes sense to keep. Eddie891 TalkWork 13:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I 've never found portals useful. Other tools of the wiki, such as categories and the "See also" section are way more easy to browse and offer much more information. In the times of mobile browsing portals don't serve a purpose. Let the users that have spend their time in these pages, be more valuable categorizing articles and providing in in wikidata. ~~ ∫uℂρЭℝ0υĜe 14:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Portals have been useful tools for many users, and they have been part of Wikipedia for years. Just because some editors do not use them does not mean that we should delete them. If we listened to each and every individual editor and only kept the parts of wikipedia that they found useful, there would collectively be nothing left of the site! David Straub (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose* The Current Events Portal is one of the most useful sources of current events in our world. I use it every day to see a non-biased plate of information. Closing all portals is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.246.218.27 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:SENIORITY: the "newest editor, with the least edits, may have the best idea or the most relevant point of view."--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'May' and 'editor' being the operative words. This is a niche and 13 year old issue, comments from newly registered users are unlikely to have significant reasoning, despite the broad assertions they make. These ephemeral 'editors' (readers in editor's clothing) won't have to deal with the portal system once they inevitably bugger off after this RfC. Cesdeva(talk) 11:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7 May 2018
Weak Oppose I think the creation of portals was a good idea, and I think that they can definitely be helpful. However, I do agree with many of the concerns with keeping portals that have been mentioned in the original post as well as many of the "support" comments, such as no longer being maintained, being a spam target, etc.--SkyGazer 512What will you say? / What did I do? 00:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Portals are fundamentally just stand-alone nav boxes in an encyclopedia that has way too many nav boxes already. The community spends much too much energy on chrome, relative to the energy it spends on bona fide encyclopedic body text in some areas. Portals are part of the problem, not the solution. In active, well-covered subject areas they're never up to date. In inactive, poorly covered areas they only suck the oxygen out of the place. Damvile (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons listed by other users above. The Portal namespace should not be deprecated as described in the nom. While the system of Portals might possibly need to be revamped a bit, deleting the namespace itself wouldn't be the right course of action. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although I should clarify. I oppose deleting the portal system altogether because culling the portal namespace would be a better solution. Older outdated and unmaintained portals should indeed be removed if they are no longer useful, or at least archived as historical/deprecated. There are plenty of active and useful ones that we should keep, and many more that could be brought up to date and made useful again. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals is a great start on this effort. I also think this needs more than 30 days for people to come up with a complete solution that everyone can get behind. — AfroThundr(talk) 14:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to weak support - I don't really use portals at all, so I don't really care if they go away. And as many people stated, most of them are in disrepair and aren't doing their job. But I'm indifferent. Either way works. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I think that the system of portals assists with wiki navigation, and allows users to quickly look through certain topics. While it may be a bit old or outdated, users can help and expand the portals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTurboChampionshipEdition (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I support reform, but I believe Portals can be important introductions of a certain field of knowledge and, therefore, they should stay. Besides, merging them with Wikiprojects makes no sense to me, since the latter is not supposed to be for the reader, but for the editor. Wikiprojects shouldn't display valuable content that can't be found elsewhere. I thereby oppose the deletion of it, but I commend the initiative for the renewed maintenance efforts it inspired. - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obsolete, poorly maintained, unnecessary and makes us look unprofessional. Served a purpose once but times have changbed and we should change with them. Amisom (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can probably include everything a portal can add in templates. A reader will probably not be searching for portals. We should focus more on turning key articles into "portals" of a sort. WikiProjects, on the other hand, are still necessary, albeit neglected. However, there needs to be some sort of gradual transition from having portals to not having them, as they still contain very valuable content. Inatan (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Support I myself am confused to the purpose of portals Tayear (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does your confusion translate into mass deletion? -- Mentifisto 21:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase. I think that the purpouse has became unclearTay's ear (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I can see that out-of-date and poorly maintained portals are an issue, many cannot suffer from that problem (e.g., math and science are slow-changing fields at the encyclopedic level). Many more could be kept up-to-date with some basic implementation of bots. I used to have the Earth Science portal as my homepage (now I don't really use a homepage for reasons irrelevant here). I occasionally use the Geology portal to find the active wikiprojects because I can never remember which ones exist. I also used portals when I was a student to find random articles when I needed current events or random topics within a certain scope for class projects. Part of the lack of user-ship for portals is probably that the people who could most use them, such as students and teachers of particular subjects, often do not know they exist. Also, the argument that the views are low for the number of links is problematic to me. I see portals more often than I see the Main page. I have never clicked on the portals from the main page because I go to the main page to go to the main page, not to go to portals. I do occasionally click on a portal from a topic page, particularly topics that correspond directly to portals (e.g., Geology and Earth Science). But I often don't even realize there is a portal link on pages because of where it is placed.Elriana (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - so first it was RD and now this, what's next, main page? Is it forgotten that this is all digital and so doesn't take much space? That people can contribute however they wish and it's not mutually exclusive and these can be ignored and mainspace focused on? Destruction is so much simpler than creation. -- Mentifisto 21:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support I think that so long as there's a good plan in place for moving most portals to other places, this is a good idea. I liked the proposal in the discussion section to move all Portal:XXXX pages to Template:PortalXXXX as a way of deprecating. I also think that there are certain portals that should be kept around? Maybe a better solution would be to delete only poorly maintained portals and establish a process for creating portals that requires community support (something like the process to create WikiProjects). - - mathmitch7(talk/contribs) 01:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Haven't been at the portals, but shame they're leaving. Xyaena 01:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The portals are very useful for the respective subjects. I often use them to browse topics. Polarmaps (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The portals are useful for both readers and WikiProjects, especially those with Featured Portal status. There are definitely ones which need either drastic improvement of transfer to the pages of the WikiProject involved. However, there is no rationale for wholesale deletion of all portals. Voceditenore (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose: Portals are useful ways for people to seamlessly find related information. IQ125 (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose: There is a lot of info I never would have known existed without portals and the mini portal boxes at the upper right of many pages.--174.130.35.148 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This has been a useful exercise, in that it has (a) brought people together to discuss what they think portals are for, and (b) has breathed new life into several portals through editors giving them attention. There may be some useful points in the reams of text above to be incorporated as guidelines into WP:PORTAL. But at the end of it all, should we delete all portals? Absolutely not. And it's time to put this RFC out of its misery too. — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose: While some portals maybe outdated, we should clean them up rather than just deleting them, since they contain a wealth of invaluable information and are easily navigable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendall1287 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't do a lot of additive editing on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how difficult it is to upkeep the portals, but I thoroughly enjoy and use the portals when browsing through Wikipedia. They are helpful in gaining a grasp of certain topics that might branch into many things. Edward Versaii (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would be a very stupid decision to put a end of the system of portals. Wikipedia should continue with the portal system in order to avoid confusing topics and it's enjoyable to use a portal. Odnailro (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Portals are very useful for me. Davey2116 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like many others in this discussion, I use the Current Events portal almost every day, and I also visit the Featured Content portal sometimes. I have never been hindered by portals, so I do not see a need to remove them just for being poorly maintained. Yeticarlken (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9 May 2018
Oppose I like portals as they help me find interesting articles about a given subject. Poor maintenance isn't a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I never found portals to be particularly useful, and I have pretty much ignored their use and function as a whole over the last 10 years here on Wikipedia. Yes, I would say that portals can sometimes contain valuable information for Wikipedia editors and users, but I see no reason why this information could not be migrated into a relevant article/talk page/category/template, or a new article/talk page/category/template generated from existing portal content. For very active, heavily utilized, and functional portals such as Portal:Current events I see no reason why this functionality cannot be absorbed by a similarly named Wikipedia:Current events, especially since a portal such as this is so heavily integrated into the main page of Wikipedia itself. I have never found a function of a portal to be so useful that it cannot be replaced by another aspect available on Wikipedia. The overwhelming majority of them are stagnant lists of stuff that are not maintained or looked after. (e.g. Something I just picked at random: Portal:Laser.) - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10 May 2018
Conditional Support But only if there is an alternative to things like Portal:Current events which seems like a very effective use of the Portal construct. I use Portal:Current events daily as a way to be inspired by current events to determine which Wikipedia pages to visit, and by definition it is evolving content so I don't see how it could become a conventional topic page instead. But if a viable alternative to Portal:Current events is made possible, I do understand why most of the time portals are not needed or effective. - Yuzisee (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Oppose I strongly agree with everything that has been written before by editors supporting "Oppose"; I can add that I save on my computers most of portals' main pages, and all the main pages of the other wikimedia projects for at least 15-20 days every month, if not more.Brain (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Broadly, I am in favour of keeping the portals. The rational behind Wikipaedia is that it provides not only information but access to information. Portals are excellent starting points for many people who use them to start reading, then, by by following the different links, end up where they need to be. However, the point about portals is that may not know where they need to start, as their enquiry maybe too vague, but the portals are excellent starting points for vague enquiries. --77.58.164.140 (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Most portals is outdated and not many users access it. Search and category list is replacing Wikipedia portals. Wikipedia portals have to go. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:1928:2C1C:C9F1:9870 (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Most users don't use them but some clearly do, and even if they are kept those who don't want to use them don't have to. So I don't see a valid rationale for mass deletion. Rlendog (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Portals are a great way to interlink articles for readers, browsers and editors! --Marshallsumter (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support closure of portals and not-wasting resources anymore. Russian translator (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The current events portal is an excellent synopsis of daily news, I read it almost every day. Donald Rennie 2:04 pm PST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.165.48 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11 May 2018
Strong Oppose The portal system has ALWAYS served a purpose (For me both editing & reading). Not much else to be said. AryaTargaryen (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen[reply]
Oppose per Gerda Arendt - people do genuinely work on them so why delete them? I rarely use them, granted, but they are useful to some editors here. Patient Zerotalk 08:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some exception would need to be made for the Community portal. This has been getting over 10,000 views daily since it was linked as one of the three exits ("Start helping") from the New user landing page, introduced in conjunction with ACTRIAL. The Help Out section is essential and should be kept as visible as possible. Parts of the Community bulletin board are dusty, but just need more regular maintenance: Noyster (talk), 15:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as this Community Portal isn't even in the "Portal" namespace, I don't believe it would be affected either way. Good page too keep in mind, though. ~Mable (chat) 15:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I did think of that, but I also saw that they're not in portal space, and wouldn't be affected. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Also, it is entirely different from general portals, being editor facing only (which is presumably why it is in WP space not portal space) and does an okay job of helping editors Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...And of course even if there is the occasional useful portal, we can easily make an exception -- possibly with a move to a better namespace. What are the top ten most-visited pages in the portal namespace? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say 90% likely the top 8 are the ones on the main page, at the top right. But like I said above, I don't think people actually find the ones on the main page useful either, they just click it randomly Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a pageview graph of those main page portals, anyhow - extremely interestingly, they group into 3 clear bunches Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the top-visited portals are those linked from the left sidebar, Portal:Contents and Portal:Current events and, to a lesser degree, Portal:Featured content (pageview graph). The arguments for deleting the other 1500 portals may not apply to these. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I forgot about them. These seem like they'd be fine in wikipedia namespace, honestly, and would be exempted; they aren't really like the other portals at all, and just seem sort of dumped there because they vaguely explore something Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Current events is a very active portal and should be moved into a different namespace if all Portals are deleted. NixinovaTC 04:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter: To set everyone's mind at ease, please add an amendment to your proposal (at the very top) exempting Portal:Contents, Portal:Current events, and Wikipedia:Community portal. Also consider exempting Portal:Featured content as it is the front page for the various "Featured" content production departments, and has a link on the sidebar menu that appears on every page of Wikipedia. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 13:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter:@The Transhumanist: In addition, since there seems to be at present significant opposition to outright deleting the namespace and all related pages, maybe there could be some clarification that deprecation/marking as historical (as opposed to outright deletion) is an option too. Some of the oppose votes seem to be more due to the outright deletion proposal rather than or not just because of a support of the portal system. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain whether how exactly one should amend a proposal while it has received significant comment - Narutolovehinata5 feel free to add a note like "Note: Certain portals: ...have been suggested for exclusion; other options instead of deletion has also been suggested" or something along the lines of that, keeping neutrality of course Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC) and @Transhumanist: too Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would seem rather inappropriate were the nominator to suggest altering or adding to the wording of the RfC in this way now that it is running, and numerous people have expressed their views. Would that be with the hope of better securing the desired outcome? Was not the removal and relocation by the nominator of previous comments also intended to keep the proposal clear and concise? Nick Moyes (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If the current portal system ends, and the portal namespace disappears, presumably this would not prohibit certain active WikiProjects from creating a portal-like page within the WikiProject space, correct? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the main thing is that they wouldn't be linked from articles - wouldn't be reader facing - and thus wouldn't be at all like the system currently here. Thus endingGalobtter (pingó mió) 17:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Broter I do understand that people have spent a lot of time on these, and that is is frustrating to see one's work deleted. However I don't see that portals help much with navigation - since they produce random articles, that isn't really navigation; outlines like Outline_of_science do a far better job. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the existing portals.--Broter (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I invested so many hours into portals. Please keep the existing portals.--Broter (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of Portals which were created by myself or very much improved by myself:
Compromise? Perhaps we should "mothball" or eliminate portals which haven't been edited or maintained for a certain length of time. Pegship (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should only delete the portals which are not maintained.--Broter (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I wouldn't oppose keeping them in wikipedia space - there's no particular reason to prevent people from harvesting the portals if they feel it is useful; and some could be useful to move into the main pages of wikiprojects as a "face". Beetstra I think it'd be better to store them in wikipedia space, free for people to use if there's anything valuable (or not). Easier than force delinking and full protection IMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Broter, you can move any portals you have created to subpages of your user page. Some subpages get a lot of traffic, such as my WP:1AM page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could phase them out by a) prohibiting creation of new portals b) PRODing each portal giving anyone who cares a week (or more) to salvage anything useful. c) shutting down any remaining portals in 3 months. Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brainstorming: This is a good opportunity to radically re-think the Portal system, which isn't working well under its current inception. Feel free to pitch in with some alternatives for a simple mass-deletion. Here are some ideas:
Convert them to links to WikiProjects. This would help readers become editors without the need to route them through the Talk page and a collapsible banner first.
Turn them into Reference Desks for specific topics. While article Talk pages are strictly WP:NOTFORUM, I believe that "off topic" discussions between readers and editors could benefit both groups. We'd get an idea of what readers really want to know outside of our sometimes rigid system of articles, and readers would become contributors before they even know it.
Turn them into links to Outlines or Indexes to serve as centralized "See also" listings per topic.
Automatic listings of Featured content grouped by topics. See Bluerasberry's comment above (cf. Galobtter's for an opposing view).
Limiting the number of portals should help concentrate our efforts. Suitable sets could be those featured on the Main Page, some of the top categories at Portal:Contents/Portals, those corresponding with Featured articles categories, or Core topics.
Some more wild ideas? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If portal pages are moved/created in wikiproject namespace (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Foobar/Portal) then this should (1) only be by or with the agreement of the wikiproject and (2) only be a single page (e.g. not the 45 pages currently in Category:Book of Mormon portal). DexDor(talk) 20:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would something else replace the links on the main page? It seems like a waste of space to leave almost all of the top banner empty. KSFT (t|c) 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The mainpage is full of information. A little whitespace would be good, or make the rest of the box Wikipedia ... wider and thinner. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey yes, this could be a great opportunity to update the 12-year old main page (only half-kidding!) Aiken D 21:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Top 7 portals: I think it would be useful to list here the top 7 portals, those that have recieved over 1,000 pageviews a day in 2017. Perhaps we can learn something from them, or focus on replacing/improving their function —
Those are 7 of the 8 portals on Main Page. The 8th there is Portal:Society which is number 8 in page views with 665 / day. Portal:Food with 429 / day is the most for portals not on the main page. linksto:Portal:Food currently says it has 8,045 links from mainspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Major takeaway - put a link to something in the best position possible on one of the world's top visited pages and it only gets 665 to 3000 odd hits a day => total rejection by the public of this useless content. There is NOTHING wikipedia can do to drive more traffic than those 8 links. Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to find out how many real links go to a particular page as opposed to links because it was added to a template? For example, 1-bit architecture has a huge number of links to it,[4] but if you look at the pages that contain the links they are almost all because it is included in Template:CPU technologies and don't give an accurate picture of how many people are interested enough in 1-bit architectures to link to it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is possible, but It's somehing I've wanted to know for many years too (unrelated to the portals).--Pharos (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a more comprehensive query, and besides the higher-placed pages that are not conventional portals, the stand-out of those not linked from the Main Page appears to be Portal:Dance, which had 2,227 / day pageviews in 2017.--Pharos (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:Dance was one of my random examples earlier with only 1,421 views in the past 30 days, meaning 47 per day. The page views graph since the first data in July 2015 [5] shows a jump from around 50 views per day to around 2300 from October 2016 to January 2018, and then back to 50. I don't know the reason but I suspect it's automated views and not humans. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think the idea of turning them over t relevant projects is workable at a time when so many projects are inactive, just as the portals are. The fact that a small number are still being maintained is a credit to those doing so, but it doesn’t change the fact that the system as a whole has been largely abandonded. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Projects can remain inactive and dont directly impact readers. portals can have an effect on readers. portals need to be either complete, as in not needing maintenance, or maintenance, or active work to improve. projects are forever. different animals. i advocate simply having Featured portals be linked to more visibly, and other portals linked at end of article. since portals are highly edited, they should be reviewed periodically by a dedicated editor to make sure they are up to snuff. if not, we should be able to mothball them easily.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding it being more effort than it is worth - at minimum this would be blanking templates that link to portals/removing templates like {{portal}} from mainspace; then marking portals as historical; this wouldn't be much effort that I can see. Then we can save fiddling about it, and prevent other people from wasting their time for the next 10 years on portals Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Step 1 - take the portal links of the mainpage and Delete all the portal templates. Readers will not find the portals after that and we can roll up the actual portals whenever we get to them. Dead wikiprojects are another topic for another discussion. Legacypac (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From use PrimeHunter's script, I see there seems basically 0-1 links per portal in mainspace that are not from templates. So it should be simple to use bot machinery to remove all portal links from mainspace, and then marking 1500 pages historical shouldn't be hard either. Most visible non-mainspace links are from linking portals in wikiproject banners which can be removed by removing the |PORTAL= parameter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone thought of keeping a decreased number of portals, which are highly used and of higher quality? They still serve a purpose and are better than an outline. feminist (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be in haste to ditch the portals. Those who say "let them eat outlines, or indexes" should be aware that there over 1,500 portals to 755 outlines and 660 indexes. Many such popular topics as Football, Cricket and Dogs have a portal but no outline or index. Moreover, in all the topics I have looked at where all three types of navigation page are offered – a portal, an outline, and an index – the Portal receives the most page views of the three. I won't bore you with a table but this holds for such a range of topics as Philosophy, Engineering, Film, Forestry and United States. If we don't have the resources to maintain everything, what needs to go may be the outlines and indexes, which between them reproduce the work of the category structure: Noyster (talk), 13:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two kinds of pages on Wikipedia: pages people look for and pages people stumble upon. Portals, Outlines and Indexes are almost exclusively in the latter category.
For such pages, page views are determined by visibility: how many incoming links are there and from where. With Portals, we have capitalized screen real estate that will be simply wasted if this proposal results in a mass deletion and unlinking operation. The Main Page, See also sections of countless articles, navigational templates, and WikiProject banners all give visibility to Portal links and that's where all the views come from. Even if we do away with Portals, we could use this visibility for something else. In my comment above, I suggested placing Outline and Index links where Portal links are now. We should definitely think about how to make the best out of these links. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Example of a Portal which should stay on wikipedia is: Portal:Right-wing populism
Example of a Portal which should be deleted on wikipedia is: Portal:Left-wing populism--Broter (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the left-wing one is definitely not maintained, but yeah, if anything, the bias that would result from one portal being deleted but not the other is an argument against selective deletion/archival and for unilateral action on all portals. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a first step, I would suggest removing all links to the portal namespace from the mainspace. This would essentially remove portals from the encyclopedia proper and out of the sight of readers, relegating them to the status of "projectspace" pages. The portals themselves would then be allowed to remain for at least 6 months to 1 year so editors and respective wikiprojects have time to preserve any unique content not present elsewhere etc. Particularly useful portals could be preserved as wikiproject subpages. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My first preference however, would be removing all links to the portal namespace from the mainspace, then marking all portals {{historical}} as has been suggested above.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The points I made above are no longer applicable because they were made when it appeared this proposal would pass; it now appears it will not. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - if portals are to be discontinued, will there be anything that takes over from their job? Namely (from WP:PORTAL) to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas. I guess Outline of X and templates at the side of the main article do something like this job, and possibly much better than a portal. Is that the idea? — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the impression I've had. I've used a portal maybe two or three times the entire time I've been here, but I use those templates pretty regularly and "Outline of..." articles whenever I want to access a lot of articles on a topic really quickly. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Love the "outline of" pages, hate the templates. Look at 1-bit architecture. Instead of that huge wall of links at the bottom, Wouldn't it be nicer to have a simple link to Outline of CPU technologies, and have that page contain the wall of links? What percentage of readers who are interested in 1-bit architectures are looking for a see also link to SUPS? I would say that the answer is "zero". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to having both. Whichever format I find easier to read depends on the subject and how much caffeine I've had. Sometimes I have an easier time with tables, sometimes with lists.
Since the idea of automation has come up elsewhere in this discussion, I imagine it wouldn't impossible to write a template that'd turn an "Outline of" article into one of those templates. Like, some sort of mark-up that doesn't show up in the article, that you wrap around entries that are supposed to show up in the template, that's look something like {{Subst:OutlineEntry | (line number) | [[Article Title]] }}. Then the template would just be {{ (template name) | 1=[[Article|(name of first row)]] | 2=[[Article2|(name of second row)]] }}. That should be far less work to set up than automating portals. Hell, I could probably work out how to how to do templates for an Outline-to-Table dealy, and the coding nightmare that is WP:BINGO is an anomalous highpoint for me. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, outlines are very different from portals.
Outlines are basically a structured list of links. If you don't click, you don't understand anything. Also they are completely static.
Meanwhile, portals show snippets of articles, interesting facts, images, etc. Also, they are dynamic, as each section rotates automatically. They offer a completely different way to explore the millions of articles. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that editors currently maintaining portals may not be aware of this discussion. Can someone create a neutrally-worded edit notice for the portal namespace? And if we want to hear from readers, maybe even a namespace-specific site notice. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a reasonable idea - what do people think of adding to Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Portal? I also wonder if the editnotice should exclude Portal:Current_events and its subpages (which are probably the most active portal pages..but wouldn't be affected by this proposal), Portal:Contents, and Portal:Featured_content from the editnotice Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea. While relatively few people remain active in portal contribution, nevertheless there should still be the courtesy of informing them or at least letting them be aware of this discussion. We need more input from regular portal contributors so that their voice can be heard, and at the same time their feedback can be used in implementing whatever consensus this discussion results in. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 15:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting portals is beyond pointless, we could end the use of them without deleting anything, the effort this deletion is taking is way more than what it would take to ever maintain the ones we already have.★Trekker (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question In the first place, how technically feasible is it to delete portals? It seems like a lot of work and honestly sounds like a waste of resources, when archiving and moving to the Wikipedia space (both for active and non-active portals) sounds like a more practical option. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we find a new home for some portals that are well maintained. The obvious one is Portal:Current events would could end up as Wikipedia:In the news/Current events. The current events portal is widely viewed, receives lots of edits by many editors, and complements mainspace by effectively serving as a giant list of events. It is used to identify possible entries for WP:ITN/C and editors often also use it to identify information that can/should be added to mainspace articles. As such, it actively improves mainspace. I don't know much about other portals but I imagine similar cases could also find homes. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is - there are eight linked words and 'All portals' in a corner on the top of the MP - so how many people notice them?
Perhaps the subsidiary question - given that 'a proportion' of Wikipedians (regular or occasional) are involved with starting, developing or improving particular categories of articles, for whom the various portals are, or are potentially, relevant means of navigating Wikipedia, how should the portals' presence be highlighted and/or made user friendly? Can they be variously developed so that the imbalances/absence of coverage on the MP regularly commented on can be addressed to some extent? To what extent should under-achieving portals be highlighted, so that contributors come to their rescue? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I share that concern. Open France and try to find the link to Portal:France. Tip: it's at the bottom of the page inserted in a navbox, with a minuscule font size. Hardly visible at all. I think that links to portals have hardly "capitalized screen real estate". --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to address the purpose of portals and the maintenance effort involved. They typically look like topical mini main pages. Some are well integrated with an editing community or a WikiProject, some others are fairly static. From a maintenance point of view, in my personal experience, only the portal pages about editing / collaboration / drawing people into editing are a lot of work, for example Portal:Germany/Things you can do, a page that used to belong both to the wikiproject and the portal, or Portal:Germany/Did you know showing Germany-related DYKs for longer than they appear on the Main Page. Everything else took quite some time to set up but is fairly trivial to maintain, for example the 380 pages that male up Portal:Germany/Anniversaries/All. The main problem with Portals is exactly the same as with Wikiprojects: we do not have enough active editors in many smaller topic areas to create a feeling of an active editing community. Work on supporting and expanding editor subcommunities is often unrewarding, but sorely needed all over Wikipedia, to turn it into a friendlier place. Some Portals used to be part of that community work. I would like to see some positive suggestions how to improve Wikipedia instead of a discussion about destroying a huge amount of work, which is more likely to cause editors to quit than to focus their effort elsewhere. —Kusma (t·c) 13:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Krug identified, years ago, in his excellent book on making useful websites, the principle of giving different kinds of people different ways to get in to what THEY are wanting on the site: deleting all portals because some are derelict is abuse of the people who need a portal-type-central-hub from which to explore ( because we can't visualize star-topology into knowledge the way some other people can ).
obliterating everyone's resource just because some find some examples of a kind of resource to be unacceptable to them, is called bullying: when men "protect" women by blocking women from having equal-validity, instead of honestly-protecting women's validity by fighting off glass-ceilings, that is an example of people obliterating someone else's resource ( men obliterating women's resource ). Just because you/someone doesn't want some portals doesn't justify obliterating ALL OUR resource. Some are derelict for a time, if they drift too far from currency, then there should be a system that 1. flags this, so any/all concerned parties can see/know this & understand that if it gets too out-of-date it will be a portal labelled derelict, 2. there should be auto-updating scripts ( oh, this link is to a page that got renamed? autofix the link, OR auto-flag it for some human to correct ), etc... The /actual/ problems include intermittent-interest, complexity in site causing drift between pages to become costly, etc, but the resource that the portal pages can provide ISN'T provided through search, because search _doesn't give you overview and context and interrelatedness_ ( this is the same problem as local businesses being wiped off the map because there is no Browse My Town site by one's village/town/city/county, whereas anyone wanting to find something CAN find it at the biggest online joints: browsing one's town used to be done physically, but the local representative/governments didn't bother making an internet equivalent, and now complain about the economic loss that is a consequence of their inaction! Another side of the same problem is that human memory works through prompting context, so if someone tells me to just remember everything I need to remember & search for them, but human memory works through context-prompting, and I am NOT ALLOWED context to browse in, then my learning is crippled! No, search isn't a complete replacement for context-rich browsing! ) Namaste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.75.207 (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2018
Automated portals
The most common complaint about portals is that they have an insane ammount of maintenance required, and very few users willing to engage in it. And the problem is that we have hundreds of portals, each one with its own set of subpages, and each one is a domain in itself. So, a possible solution: why not automate and centralize the work? Take for example the featured article J. R. R. Tolkien. He may be a suitable featured article for the portals on middle-earth, biography, literature, speculative fiction, etc. Under the current system, each portal has to make their own "Portal:(name)/J. R. R. Tolkien" to place the blurb that will use. And also watch if the article loses the featured article to remove it, or add it when it gets featured. But we may have a single "Portal/J. R. R. Tolkien" general subpage, with a general blurb, and add tags to it to instruct the bots about the portals that should include it. Same for the page for image blurbs, quote blurbs, etc. That would greatly reduce the number of pages, keep them organized at a single place, and most of the work would be done by bots.
A second idea would be to restrict the topics that may get a portal to those truly diverse. A portal for music, or a music genre, is justified, but a portal for a certain band can hardly be. Add a requirement of "At least X articles in scope" and "at least Y good or features articles wihin the scope". Less portals, less pages to mantain, and easier to deal with. The fandom of Z wants a portal, but there are not featured articles enough? Then make those featured articles, and then the portal. Cambalachero (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been proposed above, and while it might solve the editing inactivity problem, it wouldn't solve the Portal system's other major flaw: outside of just a few portals (mentioned by Andrew D. below), the vast majority barely get any views. Even the ones with a high number of views might be better off in the Wikipedia namespace anyway. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like: Some portals (such as Portal:Horses) were well set up at the time (ours was named a featured portal in its day) but there does need to be some automation via templates, such as to automatically update DYK, FA, TFA, or even GA-class articles that are tagged for the project or portal into appropriate rotating queues, adding a category tree based on a core parent cat, and so on. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of automated portals to reduce maintenance. If you look at P:MDRD, the Selected picture and Did you know? hooks are set up to rotate randomly every time the portal is refreshed. I think spreading this idea to all portals is a good idea to keep the portals with minimal maintenance. Dough4872 20:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does reduce maintenance work and slow the degradation of less-maintained portals, but there are tradeoffs. In one of the sections below there are editors complaining that portals are hard to edit for users who aren't familiar with templates. --RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I set up Portal:London Transport so that the lists of featured articles, good articles, etc. are automatically updated weekly. A series of sub-pages are updated by User:JL-Bot and the bot's outputs for each of the lists are collated together using a set of string trimming and cropping templates to format them in an attractive manner - see Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Recognised content/bot list and its sub-pages. It's not pretty, but it could be standardised for use on other portals and it means that the lists are never more than a few days old. The random selected articles, biographies, pictures and DYKs are relatively straight forward as there are templates specifically designed for this purpose. --DavidCane (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I would support some kind of automation of portals should the status quo remain, I'm concerned that it might not be enough to solve the problem that the vast majority of portals aren't getting a meaningful amount of views. It would help solve the editing problem (in that the currently inactive portals would get some love from editors), but that would affect the editing end and not the viewer end. What would be a suitable proposal in order to help promote portals and increase their readership? I know many articles have links to portals but in most cases it doesn't seem to be enough, so perhaps additional steps could be made here. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 I know this thread is very long but please see my "oppose" comment above. I'm suggesting automating not only the portals themselves but the linking to them from all relevant articles, and also de-emphasising the term "portal" which may not mean much to a lot of the lay readership: Noyster (talk), 12:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm skeptical that will be enough. Take the case for example Portal:Anime and manga, which is linked to in several anime-related articles. In the past 30 days, it's gotten a mere 6,871 views (or an average of about 222 views per day). It may seem like a lot at first, but that's far less than what either anime or manga (thousands of edits per day). It also gets far less pageviews that most airing series and even series that have finished airing. Even if Portal:Anime and manga was linked from every single article, it might not make a difference considering it's already linked to from most of the popular articles of the project. I know there are counterexamples to this from other projects, but my point is simply that links to Portals don't seem to be enough to promote them well; there probably has to be another way. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the proposal to increase automation is meant to improve portal quality, which is a major concern. Of course it won't increase page views overnight, since that's another major concern. Each issue requires separate solutions. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of automated portals, I have a lot of experience with them on the Spanish-language Wikipedia. I have helped a lot to develop sports portals, anchored in Portal:Deporte, Portal:Fútbol and Portal:Automovilismo. They all share the same templates and article snippets, as do their subportals by region and discipline.
Each portal has a competition calendar of the week / month. Sportspeople appear on their birthdays. Several editors have copied and pasted them to create new portals with minimal effort. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If portals are to survive, then they indeed must be automated. There's no question about that. "Automated" means that it will have to dump all the manually written wiki syntax and HTML and transition to being true software, most likely a MediaWiki extension. This will have to happen sooner or later. Maybe in a year, maybe in ten years.
The question of whether they should survive. And the answer to this question must be answered by defining the portals' purpose. What are they for? To make information easier to find? To showcase nice images or featured articles? To acquire new readers? To acquire new editors? To coordinate the work among the current editors? How will their impact and fitness to this purpose will be measured? (And yes, similar questions can and should be asked about WikiProjects.)
I don't have answers to these questions. I hardly ever use portals (and WikiProjects) myself, but I can imagine that they will be very useful if these questions are answered well. If nobody can answer these questions in a convincing way, then portals (and WikiProjects) should be phased out and eventually deleted. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Main page link traffic in 2018
This proposal to destroy all portals seems to be based on the misconception that they are not used. Here's some actual stats which refute this nonsense. It's a list of the pages currently linked on the main page, ranked by their views in 2018. I've only listed the top 100 as they seem adequate to make the point. One can see from this that the portal pages get plenty of traffic and that this is comparable with other pages. If numbers are what matters then there's a better case for deleting other WP pages such as Wikipedia:Village pump. Andrew D. (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To give a fair overview, could we please see the above table containing only links that have been on the main page for six month or more? Comparing current movies and events with permanent mainpage links is comparing apples and oranges. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, every single one of the portals listed in that table is either on the main page or the permanent sidebar. Of course they are going to have massive pageviews. --Izno (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The top item bolded as a "portal" is Wikipedia:Community portal which is not a portal and not included on this proposal. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the list, edited to show only those pages which have a regular link on the main page. It seems clear that the portal traffic is comparable with other standard features such as the Help desk or Introduction to Wikipedia. These links have all had thousands of readers since the start of the year and so the claim that they are not used is false. Of course, the main users of such links will be new or occasional readers rather than we veterans. But those users are not represented here in this discussion, are they? Andrew D. (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the word "free" on the main page gets roughly 100,000 hits and an uninteresting link like "Local Embassy" gets roughly 20,000. And how many hits does the main page get? I want to calculate what percentage of visitors click on those two links. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a link gets traffic does not mean it is getting “used”. Viewing a page does not equate to using it. Page views is not the only argument in favour of making portals obsolete. Aiken D 15:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was going to say the same. I'm not choosing sides, but the tables above say "readers in YYYY". I assume you mean pageviews, which is not the same thing. One reader could reload the page 100 times, and that's 100 pageviews, yet still the same person. Fly-by edits (that aren't through the API) also get counted as pageviews, even the editor may have read nothing more than a diff. Pinging Guy Macon in case you want to revise the wording — MusikAnimaltalk 20:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to delete inactive portals then fine, but don't try and blanket them all as unused and obsolete as this isn't true based on editor comments here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC) In my opinion even the inactive ones should be marked as historical rather than deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon anything linked up there, be in a blank page or a portal would get about the same views (and especially if they were also linked in a few hundred/thousand pages, and a few hundred thousand talk pages) - views from being on the main page I don't think signify too much other than random clicks as I said in my support Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there statistics that compare "logged in" with "logged out" users? I suspect that a huge portion of the visitors to portals are Wikipedia editors going there to maintain them as opposed to readers randomly looking at them. --B (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we've never really explored the reason for the huge popularity of Deaths in 2018 (beyond plain morbidity). We have similar articles that I'm sure just as many people would be interested in, but which do not receive prominent links like the recent deaths one does. We can intuit these topics via Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items and the current events portal. We should provide main page links like:
I think this is relevant in questioning the purpose of subject-specific portals, as they often stray into a focus on recent events rather than serving as a contents page. If we properly link in our existing mainspace pages that cover recent events at a high level then this allows us to redefine portals as areas of long-term curation and contents provision only, rather than time-consuming elements like recent events. We should be leveraging the latent interest in current events to push editors to our content on that. SFB 13:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about Portals that are exempt from this discussion or otherwise kept?
It seems that there's consensus or at least significant support to keep at least some portals: notably Portal:Current events and the like. Assuming the proposal to deprecate the Portal namespace passes, what will happen to these pages? Will the Portal namespace be kept for them alone, or will they be moved to another namespace like the Wikipedia namespace? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the issue... nobody is thinking these things out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? Like I suggested above, the wikipedia namespace seems fine for these, seeing as they are barely like other portals, and the moves shouldn't be too onerous to do Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are part of Wikipedia's core navigation system:
I've replaced the list to a more convenient link to prefixindex, that also doesn't burden the page more. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move the useful pages to Wikipedia namespace. Remove the Portal namespace completely. Everytime someone brings a Portal to MfD the discussion runs along the lines of "we dislike portals but we wamt to deal with them all, not piecemeal. As long as Portals are allowed to exist we should keep this one." So here we are - discussing them all. Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this. Wikipedia namespace is targeted at editors and is mostly used for maintenance and discussion, so it wouldn't make sense for pages that readers use to be located there. The portal namespace, however, is more reader-targeted, similar to article namespace. Master of Time(talk) 06:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. I do not see the basic validity of moving what is clearly reader-oriented content to the administrative space. It goes against the very purpose of namespacing. SFB 14:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is one special portal that I watch and maintain: Portal:Example (I also keep an eye on Template:Example, Help:Example, Book:Example, Module:Example, etc. -- mostly reverting vandalism and dealing with misplaced talk page messages). If all other portals are deleted or moved into a different namespace, Portal:Example should be deleted. If a single portal is left in the portal namespace, Portal:Example should be left as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If portals are deleted, please move all the topics pages from subject portals to the outline WikiProject, for harvesting
Remarkably little has been said about what portals do or should do. At present, they largely duplicate the functions of the Main Page, but for a subdomain of Wikipedia. These include boxes for a featured article; a featured picture; Did You Know; related portals; On this day/In this month; In the News; and related content in other Wikimedia projects. They also can have links to related WikiProjects and a list of suggestions for how editors can contribute. Not all portals have all of this content, of course; it depends on the energy of the editors.
So, in essence, the Main Page is a portal. Should we keep it? If so, why should we delete other portals, which serve a very similar function? If there is a benefit, say, to displaying a Featured Article on the Main Page for a few hours, then isn't there an added benefit to displaying it periodically on another portal? RockMagnetist(talk) 17:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Radical idea, but (like YouTube for example) the main page could be a personalised portal, where you’d have links related to your own interests. Of course if you aren’t logged in, something would need to go there instead... Aiken D 19:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aiken D: I like your idea, although I don't know how it would be implemented. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Main Page, but replace the portal links with links to the nearest equivalent categories. Lojbanistremove cattle from stage 22:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Main page encourages content - featuring on it is a something that people make articles for. Not the same for other portals. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move the Main_Page to the Portal: namespace (maybe Portal:Home) as default for logged out and new users, and then add an ability that allows users to set any other Portal: as their personal "Main_Page". This would certainly up the quality within the Portal namespace. Editors or groups of editors would work together to build the best alternative home pages. Imagine a portal for administrators, linking to various maintenance areas and alerting them to backlogs. Or just being able to set a home page devoted to a topic area you find interesting to edit in. This may not be 100% personalized, but it could build communities around the portals as the interested users keep them updated. That seems to me what they were for, we just have not been doing enough to bring people to the portals in a natural way. -- Netoholic @ 10:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like deleting the main page is perpetually a forbidden fruit that people raise as a necessary consequence of every proposal in any way that anyone can imagine is necessary. Why does this crazy idea get proposed so much? I wonder if at Google or Amazon or whatever their developers always talk about deleting the main page. Deleting the main page is starting to seem like a sport or perennial proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately my attempt to promote the Main Page to Featured Portal status didn't work out so well. FallingGravity 08:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portals are essentially a main page tailored to a specific subject, making them very beneficial. I see no good reason to delete them. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 09:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to delete, or at least demote, our prize spot for video game advertisements, by this point I'm for it -- but you may find opposition from entrenched commercial interests. Wnt (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Research that hasn't been done yet
There have been a few hundred deletion debates for portals. What were the decisions and what were the reasons for them? My impression based on a short survey was that portals are generally kept if they have been constructed properly and don't largely duplicate other portals. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the activity on a portal? Someone commented that Portal:Arts has only been edited twice in 5 months; well, the Main Page has only been edited 13 times! The content of portals is actually in their subpages; the Arts portal has 341 subpages. It would take a lot of effort to determine how much all those pages had been edited, but perhaps someone should do that before they argue that portals are not maintained. I can offer one anecdote: Over the years, I have edited Portal:Earth sciences 13 times, but its subpages 111 times. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd really like to know when making decisions like this is what the readers think. The readers are a silent majority whose desires we are left guessing with very limited data. We know how many page views portals get, but we don't how much time readers spend there and what links they click. This is undoubtedly data that the WMF has serverside. More sophisticated qualitative questions like what do the readers actually think about portals, what do they want, also go unanswered.
In the event that portals will be discontinued, I'd love to see some actual research into what kind of features readers are missing. It would be crucial for the project to find that interface where readers become interested in editing. Portals were supposed to be that, among other things, but I doubt they ever met that goal. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact editors need to edit subpages and templates to work on a portal is structural reason they will always be a problem. I'm over 100,000 edits and only last year I started to figure out how to change a portal. It's not intuitive like regular wikipages. They are also a weird mix of public facing content, and backend to do lists. The overviews provide limited value, often skimming the surface of a topic using only commonly known info most readers would know already. Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is more an indictment of the software than of the portal concept. Yes, they are tricky to edit, and require a fair amount of work to learn how, so discouraging maintenance by people who were not involved in creating them, This is not so much a reason to abolish them, as to consider simplifying the system. But is it worth the effort for the advantage gained? I really don't know, and doubt if anyone else does. everyone is guessing. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 18:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What will replace portals?
When we want to find something on/in Wikipedia we need a guide, an index, someplace to start. That guide has to be logically organized. Language, Literature, Mathematics, Science, Social Science, History, Geography, Computer
Science, etc.
AgentCachet (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those few portals that are useful and maintained can be turned into "overview of" or "outline of" pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Doesn't that simply move the problem to "overview of" or "outline of" pages? If that can be controlled by XfD, why not portals? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "the problem". The discussion above has established a strong consensus for the following:
[1] The vast majority of portals are abandoned, poorly maintained, seldom used, and better served by other kinds of pages.
[2] A very few portals (and things called portals that are not in portal space) are worth keeping.
Individual XfDs don't properly address #1. Nuking every single portal with no exceptions doesn't properly address #2. Leaving a few portals in portalspace will encourage the creation of new portals, bringing back the issues we are seeing now. Thus the final solution will almost certainly involve mass-deleting (or possibly fully protecting and marking as historical) the vast majority of portals and moving and/or renaming the few we decide to keep. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing this "strong consensus"? This discussion is ongoing and has yet to be closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything that looks like a strong consensus, and if one considers the objections to the proposal and the middle of the road positions, it looks more like there is a lot more to the subject than simple summaries - there are a range of issues not even considered in the attempt at summarising.JarrahTree 14:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, there are currently 94 Support !votes and 61 Oppose !votes. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...said everyone who was in the process of not getting their way in an RfC ever... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you have repeatedly admonished other users, Guy, please WP:AGF. - dcljr (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC) — Oh, and WP:CIVIL, while we're at it. - dcljr (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to lack a clear understanding of what "good faith" means. WP:AGF does not mean "never disagree" or "never criticize". It is entirely possible -- I would even say common -- for someone to be acting in good faith and yet be wrong, as I believe that you were above. I am sure that you -- in good faith -- believe that !votes (please note the "!", which is shorthand for "not votes") do not count, but the actual policy says "While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor." Now had I claimed that you are deliberately misstating our policy on !votes, I would have been assuming bad faith on your part. Recent examples of assuming bad faith in this discussion (not by you) include accusing other editors of "purposely driving off contributing editors" and claiming "this is a deliberate attempt to do an end run around our processes". So what I am saying is that I think that you are wrong, but I am not claiming that you knew that you were wrong and deliberately wrote something that you know to be untrue. In fact, I am not even claiming that you being wrong is an established fact, just that in my opinion the way you characterized NOTAVOTE is not supported by the actual text of that policy. So please stop accusing others of violating AGF when there is no evidence of any actual assumption of bad faith. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the right wording here is Passive-aggressive behavior. You are telling editors to assume good faith (which is good) but at the same time accused me of adding toxic material to the above conversation along with a side remark about WP:NOTAVOTE which is how a lot of discussions end up resolved. I wont go further into this as we are going off topic here and recommend this discussion be hatted as unproductive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, you should post calm, reasoned arguments supporting your position instead of accusing others of violating AGF when there is no evidence of any actual assumption of bad faith. Again I suggest that you study what the phrase "bad faith" means, with an emphasis on how it is entirely possible to add toxic comments and exhibit other undesirable behavior in good faith. By "toxic comment" I include glomming on to a legitimate comment posted to a user who unambiguously failed to assume good faith, engaging in a classic Tu quoque fallacy (again, no assumption of bad faith; I am assuming that you legitimately believe that your use of the tu quoque fallacy is something other than the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning), and accusing others of violating AGF when there is no evidence of any actual assumption of bad faith. Again, not every bad action is done in bad faith and not every criticism is an assumption of bad faith. I would also note that I am not the one who keeps bringing this up, and that if you stop making false accusations about me I will have no reason to respond. So just stop. Don't respond. Drop the stick. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, please review all of your suggestions to other users regarding their behaviors in this discussion and then consider how you could apply them more consistently to yourself. - dcljr (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must be incredibly dense, since it seems to me that "overview of" or "outline of" pages can just as easily be "abandoned, poorly maintained, [and] seldom used". Editors who have poured their time and energy into portals will simply pour their time and energy into "overview of" or "outline of" pages instead. The only differences are namespace and format. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't see any difference between a very small number of "overview of" or "outline of" pages and a huge number of Portal pages? No difference at all other than namespace and format? Try again. Can you think of anything --- anything at all -- that is different between "a dozen or so" and "many thousands"? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I see that difference. How do you propose to maintain that difference for the long term? Are you proposing that editors should be prohibited from creating more "overview of" or "outline of" pages? Let's assume not, so we will have accomplished nothing in the long term. As I said, editors who have created, developed, and abandoned portals will simply create, develop, and abandon "overview of" or "outline of" pages. If most portals are in fact "abandoned, poorly maintained, [and] seldom used", then take most portals to MfD or propose some one-off process to fast-path that one-time effort. After that, anybody can take an individual "abandoned, poorly maintained, [and] seldom used" portal to MfD. But I don't see the point in eliminating portals. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...or your predictions regarding the future behavior of editors could turn out to be wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Outline pages actually provide utility by linking relevant pages in a topic area. Portals don't really do that, and are not comparable Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Are you really saying there are "a dozen or so" outlines and "many thousands" of portals? Someone in this discussion arrived at the figure of 1500 for the number of portals, while I get about 800 outlines using CatScan on Category:Wikipedia outlines. Of course, if some portals were converted to new outlines, the latter number would increase. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 1500, not many thousands. I misremembered. The number of existing outlines is irrelevant. Looking at the discussion above, it looks like we have a dozen or so (maybe even two dozen) portals that pretty much everyone thinks should be retained in some form -- possibly converted to outlines. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not redirect the portals to the eponymous category pages? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because portals serve a different purpose than categories and the other navigation pages. Each portal is intended to be a "Main page" for its respective subject, with "topic tasters" (term coined by Nick Moyes) to sample the local intellectual fair. Portals are a place to sample the content of a subject the scope of which goes beyond a single article. For example, the subjects Mathematics and Geography have thousands of articles covering them. Portals dip into that coverage, like a magazine or themed website would. Bessy the Cow would not have a portal, because there'd be only one article about her. But, on many subjects, Wikipedia's coverage is immense. The best portals are dynamic and serve up a new dish every time you visit. Like the Main page. — The Transhumanist 01:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important discussion, because much of the aggravation of portals is that it is trying to be many things to many people - a showcase for DYKs and specific articles rather than being an index of the topic per se.
Related question: is Portal: Science a better index to science than Science? If so, why, and which page's structure is to blame for that? Wnt (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orderly decommissioning
I agree with the idea of decommissioning portals, but not mass-deleting them. And I think enthusiastic editors should be given alternative venues. Probably most portals can be decommissioned in short order, which would solve most the bad/obsolete content problem. The way I would handle this:
Tag all existing portals with a "portal decommissioning" template
that tells editors they can keep the portal open if they remove the
template, but that any portals with the tag remaining after say, 7
days, will be merged into other pages and turned into a redirect.
Editors who want to keep a local portal open could continue to do so, but any portal that falls into disrepair can get re-tagged for decommissioning.
Main content articles like Science, History, etc. would replace the portal links on the main page. These are already high-traffic gateways into these topics, and editor efforts should be concentrated on improving those.
I think decommissioning of individual dead portals can be handled by groups of interested editors as a normal part of editing, and doesn't really need the blessing of an RfC.
As for where all the stuff currently on portals should go, I'm happy to leave that up to the associated WikiProject or the editor doing the decommissioning, but in general, I would suggest:
Content aimed at editors (e.g. "Things you can do") should be merged into WikiProjects.
Article snippets found on portals should just be deleted. Duplicate text is problematic because updates cause copies to go out of sync, and interested readers can get the most up-to-date content on the article page.
Featured pictures should be merged into main articles, outlines, or sub-articles as appropriate.
Anniversaries should be merged into timelines, or presented in main topic articles (anniversary infoboxes?) if an automated solution can be used to keep them rotating.
"Featured content" lists should be deferred to WikiProjects, where it is probably already tracked by the assessment system. It does seem like this categorization is more useful to editors looking for content to improve, than it is for readers to find content they want to read. I expect people generally just dive deeper into whatever subtopics they find interesting, and whether that's Featured or Class B doesn't really matter. If we want to promote high-quality content to readers, I'm open to that but it should be super low-maintenance. I think we should use the existing tracking system, for example Category:Science articles by quality. Note there's a directive on those categories not to link them from articles, so this would require a general policy change which we don't need to tackle before decommissioning lists of featured content that are no longer updated.
"Did you know" content can be deleted or merged into a new special section on main topic articles. Or maybe something like navboxes at the bottom, which can by default be displayed closed? This is mostly a way to publicize new articles; we could also just defer that to the assessment system and automate creation of lists of new articles.
Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, so news content isn't a requirement. Maybe it gets users into reading content they otherwise wouldn't, but I'm sure more people just Google something after hearing about it on the news and find the Wikipedia article about that topic. Per-topic news that's actually kept up to date is a good reason to keep a portal alive, or it could be moved to the WikiProject to alert editors where to focus attention. If no one puts in the effort to post frequent news updates on a topic that's a good reason a portal should be decommissioned.
Main topic articles are already a good gateway into major subtopics, the category system, and should link directly to any outlines or indexes.
In general, any page (like an outline or index) that only links to articles (as opposed to copying the intro), and doesn't have cntent that needs to be rotated to avoid looking stale (like "Did You Know" or news or "featured" content) is going to have a much harder time getting out of date. In general, I would only expect outlines to become out of date if Wikipedia articles on the subject are created or merged or deleted. I agree there's an argument to be made that outlines, like portals, are duplicative and not worth maintaining, and I think the answer there is to redirect them into the category system, which is much more automated. Personally, I work hard to keep the category system well-organized, because we need to have at least one topical organization scheme, and this seems like the most universally accepted and useful one at the moment. But that is a topic for another day.
-- Beland (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contents of depricated portals could before deletion and redirect be moved to 1) article content (see also sections), 2) indexes, 3) outlines , 4) templates, 5) WikiProjects. On a final note, there really is no good reason to keep both the portals and WikiProjects. Some of the two systems better go, merging with the other. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that such an orderly decommissioning (especially marking historical and delinking) can happen out of individual initiative, since it's easily reversed where it happened to be inappropriate. Of course it's better to start from the abandoned portals. --Nemo 16:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What will replace portals are better portals. The new and improved Portals WikiProject is currently designing dynamic features that can be used to improve portals and the portal browsing experience. We've also been contacted by the German Wikipedia, which has pioneered some dynamic features in their portals. Things are looking very interesting at the skunk works that the Portals WikiProject has become. Check out its talk page and join in on the fun. Testers are needed! — The Transhumanist 01:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look atNihonjoe (talk ·contribs)'s Portal:Speculative fiction - He stated he designed that portal to be highly auotmated and needing very little work to maintain. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal seems like the best solution to me. It allows for an orderly discussion but also a merit-based look at each individual portal. If a portal is not worth keeping, delete it. But if it clearly has value, such as a main topic portal (e.g. Portal:History), we should keep it. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before we proceed any further, we should ensure that all the relevant WikiProjects are informed as they are usually responsible for maintaining the portals and many use the portals inter alia to helps identify, improve and create new articles. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no practical way to halt the proceedings. People will post their opinions as they show up. Notifying the corresponding WikiProjects is time consuming, as you'll have to identify each one individually. I know of no automatic way to do this. — The Transhumanist 05:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bermicourt do you have any evidence that Wikiprojects really use Portals to "identify, improve and create new articles?" I've never seen any Wikiproject do any such thing, but I'm not looking at every wikiproject. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have, but how would anyone know who else does? I don't think it could be recorded anywhere. I do agree that WikiProjects are interested and affected parties and therefore must be notified. Is there not a WikiProjects page that lists all the projects or a category that a bot could work through? · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 08:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Transhumanist. I'm saying let's notify the WikiProjects - who are key players in this - as soon as possible on their talk pages. Not to do so would be irresponsible. Interestingly I've just seen notices under 'Article alerts' on some project pages, but they've been added in such a way that watching editors aren't notified. Is that a way of saying we've notified people, but in a clandestine way that they mostly wouldn't notice, I wonder? Clever.
@Legacypac. I'm not listing all the projects here, you can check them out yourself. But as a member of several projects, I can tell you that's how they're used. But just to offer two random examples, WP:WikiProject Geography, part of their aim is the "development the navigation aids dedicated to geography" and then lists "Geography-related portals" as one of their navigational aids. Later on participants are referred to Portal:Geography to improve the scope of geography articles. WP:WikiProject United States declares as its aim that "this project was formed to coordinate the development of United States related articles and help maintain the United States Portal."!!! Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No see my comment above. Not only is there no consensus for change, WikiProjects are very similar to portals in terms of activity and ability anyway, and unless you go around Wikipedia with your eyes closed there’s no way you’ll miss this RfC with the amount of places it’s been advertised. Aiken D 10:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire. Portals and WikiProjects are complementary; they support one another. Of course, both projects and portals need to be maintained, but no-ones suggesting we delete all projects just because some have become inactive or ineffective for a season. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the argument (and it is a good one) is that some wikiprojects are abandoned and/or useless but that most portals are abandoned and/or useless. Thus any solution to the useless wikiproject problem will have to be more nuanced than thye "nuke them all, move the dozen or so that are useful" solution to the useless portal problem being proposed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also see my arguments (and that of others) in the "Survey" section above. Deleting all of the portals would simply be too disruptive to the entire Wikipedia Project itself, in plenty of ways. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While you are entitled to your opinion User:LightandDark2000 you are not entitled to your own facts. Removing portals is hardly a new idea - it's been discussed for years in varioius places including a page started by User:SmokeyJoe and every time a portal is brought to MfD. There is nothing DISRUPTIVE about a well attended RFC that when closed, I hope will end a 13ish year old experiment that many believe has failed. Comparing deletion of new pages under development to old low traffic portals is not a very valid comparison. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are not "my facts." The facts I presented are quite objective, only the analysis I used to back up my arguments are "my own." By the way, all of our various arguments are largely our own opinions, including what you just said. Declaring that the portals are a "failed" project is subjective in itself - it's quite debatable. The portals probably need to be overhauled, but that's definitely not reason enough to just delete them outright. We can't go around using WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOBODYREADSIT, WP:NEGLECT, or any such rationale as grounds for deletion. I believe that marking up old/archaic portals as "historic" and/or a major overhaul of the portal system would be much more appropriate as opposed to simply deleting them all. By the way, the portals are still very much a work in progress, especially those that are frequently being used or maintained. Another thing to note, we still need to assume good faith in this discussion, instead of attacking other editors or their opinions. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I was responding to your various recent comments all at once. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this survey
The discussion in this section was mooted when the RfC was moved to this subpage to stand alone.--John Cline (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems that this RfC will become "one for the ages", and that it would serve much better, in such a role, if it were published as a stand alone project page and transcluded here. It's not too late, or too hard to accomplish, and it needn't be rushed. If no one objects, I am inclined to see it through. If others agree, please suggest a few page names for consideration. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning gathering the names of relevant WikiProjects, and posting to them, using AWB and an editor... 1) You could make a list of all portals, and then regex convert the names to WikiProject names. 2) Then you make a list of all WikiProjects. 3) Then you use the list compare feature on AWB to produce all the names that are on list 2 that are also on list 1. That won't give you all the WikiProjects corresponding to portals, but it should give you most of them. 4) Then you feed the resultant list into AWB and prepend a notice to each. 5) You may need to do a second pass, to regex a name marker for the portal to the portal name in the notice. — The Transhumanist 13:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"[This RfC] would serve much better, in such a role, if it were published as a stand alone project page and transcluded here"
Actually, I think that all Village pump discussions should be published with that format. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mobile view and portals
The portal links are not visible in mobile mode. Instead of portals and other hand-curated navigational tools, the mobile versions have a fully automated "related articles" section (usually showing pages you are not interested in). If that valuable space could be given to portal links (or other human-curated navigation aids) instead of this gimmick, we would probably see a lot more portal views. In any case, if portals are kept, we should make them more visible in mobile mode, and encourage improving their layout to look better in mobile. BTW the Android app is an especially horrible way to view portals, as it seems to have its own ideas how to use image resizing to make everything look bad. —Kusma (t·c) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, at the Spanish-language Wikipedia I have converted several portals to make them screen size responsive. For example in Portal:Fútbol, if the desktop browser window is narrow, the two columns merge into one. The mobile version of the page appears as one column. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That works here too, at least for Portal:Germany. What I am missing is links TO the portals in mobile mode. —Kusma (t·c) 16:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More links is not the answer. Take Portal:Bacon which has just 1300 views in the last 30 days. [7] even though it's got nearly 1000 inbound links [8] Bacon alone has over 49,000 views [9] in the last 30 days. Editor interest is damning too. Portal:Bacon has less than 30 watchers (ie so low the system will not tell us) while Bacon has 389 watchers 29 of which have checked recent edits. Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the number of links is a problem as much as their lack of visibility. Portal links are very unobtrusive, and have to compete with the millions of reference links a typical article has these days. —Kusma (t·c) 14:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Afterwards
Assuming this proposal passes, I would think the Portal:Contents, Portal:Current events and two portals not in Portal namespace, Main Page and WP: Community portal would remain. If all other portals are deprecated pending later deletion; I should think that the Main Page should be moved into the cleared out PORTALspace, and the Community Portal as well. Also, all OUTLINEs should be moved into PORTALspace to replace all the portals, since they are if anything the same thing in a different format. And all INDEX pages should also be moved to the empty PORTALspace. "PORTAL" would then be our navigational pages namespace.
-- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative solution
As aforementioned several times in this discussion, portals could be merged into their respective Wikiprojects in order to simplify maintenance of pages and address both editors, members of the project and readers. Useless information shall be removed in both, but the Wikiprojects' main pages should be adapted for navigation. This shall gather members of a project, editors and readers (potential editors) in a common aim: to improve articles of a project and a theme and contribute with sources, their knowledge and more. At this stage, I am just proposing this action --Railfan01 (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that as a solution in name only... I'm not involved in "every" project nor "every" portal... but the projects I am involved in that have portals are maintained by enthusiastic editors on those projects already. This seems to be nothing more than a page move from PORTAL: to WIKIPROJECT:... am I correct?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald: I perfectly understand that portals aren't abandoned by editors everywhere — and this is good news as it benefits to the encyclopedia − but it seems reasonable to me to reduce maintenance and, supposing that readers are potential editors, to make the Wikiprojects' main page as a navigation tool for readers and an opportunity for the readers to contribute in their domain if interested, and improve articles if willing. The Wikiprojects' main page could be a place for navigation and and editing in a same subject. Concerning the nature of this proposition, I think it should be made by merging Portals into Wikiprojects. --Railfan01 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that's already done. There's a WikiProject page for those interested in editing and contributing, and a WikiPortal page for those interested in research and reading. It would not make sense to have the same page serve the purpose to reach both. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football is a place for editors and Portal:College football is a place for readers. While I grant there is at least in this project and likely many others a significant amount of cross-over (both readers and editors) I don't see how it could help the encyclopedia to have the same place for both. If a project wants to make a portal, then let the project make the portal. If they don't maintain the portal then someone can propose it be deleted and then we can discuss it like we do everything else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald: In some cases, the Portals are well maintained by editors. This means that, instead of deleting ALL portals, which I think is not beneficial to the encyclopedia, moving the least maintained Portals and creating a redirect may be beneficial to navigation, to bring the portals closer to their Wikiproject. Thus, I understand that the solution I proposed is not to be used in every situation. --Railfan01 (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible to consolidate some portals where there is overlap or the topic range of one is a subset of the other. Fewer portals would reduce the workload of updating, and more obscure portals might become more useful and get used more often. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 07:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Portals are content pages, not back office pages. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don' t understand. If all portals a very well cared of, why is this discussion even here? I proposed this to avoid deletion --Railfan01 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just noted two comments among those who are against the deletion of portals. One complains that the deletion would "annoy a lot of volunteers"; the other one says that a portal "also acts as a place to find people that has same interest as you". It seems that many put users' personal whims before the project of Wikipedia, which is to build a good-written and sourced encyclopedia, and they interpret Wikipedia as a sort of social network. This is very discouraging. Portals may have contributed to this, and this is another reason for their total elimination.--2.37.216.231 (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is more likely that WikiProjects contribute to and reinforce social network aspects of Wikipedia. I suspect people are confusing WikiProjects and Portals in some of the above !votes. The best portals are those that have a large listing of featured (and good articles) to showcase to readers. Plus editors willing to do a little bit of maintenance now and again. One thing that might rejuvenate portals is to have them featured on the main page. Much like featured lists are. Though that would require resurrecting the featured portals process. I do also get a sense in this discussion that some people who prefer outlines and indexes would like to see these replace portals. But they are different things. It all reminds me a bit of the sometimes uneasy relationship between lists, categories and navboxes, as described at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Portals are essentially a form of navbox, with images and more of a structured layout. Regarding the history, it is worth reading the views expressed 12 years ago in 2005 at Wikipedia talk:Portal/Archive 1. The first section there is particularly ironic in light of this discussion:
Anybody willing to make a Computer Science wikiportal? :) [...] I could make it but someone would have to maintain it... [...] As with anything else here, if you build it, they will come. (February 2005)
Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it rather discouraging that some people seem believe you can build a good written and sourced encyclopedia without happy authors and social interaction (and providing space for that). Similarly odd seems the notion that portals would be an obstacle to well written and sourced encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with allowing voluntary authors some whim if that serves to retain them and foster (needed) social interaction as long as it doesn't impair the project goals.
To put it this way the notion that Wikipedia is not a social network as well and the encyclopedia can be build without without providing a social network on the side seems rather outlandish to me and completely ignores human nature. Wikipedia doesn't differ from facebook & co by not being a social network but by being a very particular social network with a rather specific goal (creating an encyclopedia).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly second what Kmhkmh said; people are not robots! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is a distinct question. Our great mish-mosh of talk pages of editors and articles, village pumps, wikiprojects and other fora indeed work as a social network with a narrow focus on helping the encyclopedia. The network operates badly due to trying to apply encyclopedia software for the purpose. That's why we have all this silliness about four tildes and outdent and ping templates and do we alternate between your talk page and mine or do it all on mine. And yes, portals are a small part of the social network. I'm on the side that says they do so little, that our needlessly complex social network ought to be slightly simplified by transferring their good work, such as it is, to Wikiprojects. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can never be a complete non-social network as it is also a collaborative encyclopedia. Editors communicate and work together to get articles improved, and discuss ways to make this place better. This is still social communication... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The comments by IP:2.37.216.231 are clueless (which is rather obvious by the WP:SHOUTING). The portals are for readers, and they are read (although some think they should be read more), not to mention, editors are readers, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portals do not include links or profiles of users (not the ones I'm aware of, anyway), so they are not meant to help finding users about some topic. That doesn't mean that a resourceful user can't use them for that purpose (the editors of "Portal:Foo" are likely interested in Foo), but that also applies for article history, wikiprojects, certain templates, good and featured article discussions, etc. Cambalachero (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to point out that Wikiprojects "also act as a place to find people that has same interest as you". There is nothing wrong with that and "no" they are not a social network either. MarnetteD|Talk 02:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't nearly enough of a social network these days, and I think it would be helpful to focus on improving the social aspects of Wikipedia in order to improve editor retention and recruitment. Back to the topic: in my view, an ideal portal should (like an ideal main page or an ideal article) help to turn readers into editors, but that reflects my upbringing as a 2000s era Wikipedian... —Kusma (t·c) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Facebookization This argument is sooo misguided. If you think you are not part of a social network, you should go home and sit alone in your basement. If someone comes to look for you at some point, you are part of a social network. If no one comes to look for you, you are not and you should seek help. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh! What's occurrin'??" Please DO NOT COME LOOKING for me in my cellar. I'm too busy adding links and "cn" tags to thousands of obscure Wiki articles!! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]
"The best portals are those that have a large listing of featured (and good articles) to showcase to readers"
Portals are not lists. They are multimedia pages, with article snippets, interesting facts, images, calendars, etc. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's comments are very discouraging. Users are supposed to interact with one another positively, not ensure that there is no interaction between anyone. Nigos (t@lk •Contribs) 08:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion at a glance
I attempted to move this RfC in order to allow for a more structured discussion of the various points and counter-proposals raised. This was reverted and, on reflection, I understand that it wasn't my brightest ever idea, in light of certain implications I hadn't really considered. Anyway, I've revamped the page as a kind of assortment of snippets from the conversation that appear most salient to bring to the attention of anyone joining the discussion at this stage. This can be found at WP:FPORTALS (no pun intended).--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right now this discussion is all over the place, I see no practical replacement proposals here nor do I see a centralized discussion on what the aftermath would be. I hope this is closed sooner rather than later as too broad so that we can dissect the responses here to come up with solutions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm concerned how it can be properly closed when the time comes. I shudder to think that one person will be tasked with determining consensus on this. Could it be closed by committee?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a good way to go about this would be to announce the discussion will be closed at a certain time and the responses reviewed afterward and another discussion will then take place at a set time about only the content of the responses that proposed changes to the current system along with maybe an overview or summary of the support and opposition. This will permit the list to shrink because a lot of people will have proposed the same thing in slightly different wording. At the next discussion, boil down the proposed changes until something workable emerges. Repeat as necessary. 66.76.14.92 (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC) @Newbiepedian:@Knowledgekid87:@Paulmcdonald:[reply]
Agree with "locking" "delisting" [edit: see my next comment below] the discussion at some point (perhaps May 8th, one month after it was opened?) and then multiple admins taking a significant amount of time to digest the various arguments put forth. I don't know if this has been done before ("closure by committee"), but given the sprawling nature of the discussion up to this point, surely a simple "this is the consensus" or "no consensus reached" kind of closure is not going to be sufficient. Whatever the outcome, I can't see how followup RFCs could not be required to clarify the path forward, so the emphasis in closing should be to create precise statements that could be discussed in one or more future RFCs. (Groan.) I support the idea of multiple admins being involved because (1) I'm not sure it's even possible at this point to get a single "disinterested" and "uninvolved" admin to even want to work on closing this, and (2) passions seem to be running high on "both sides", so having at least two admins involved who have already expressed opposite views on the proposal itself might help to alleviate fears that "one side" was being unfairly ignored or "misunderstood" in the closure process. In particular, then, I suggest that an admin who leans toward "support" should summarize the "support" arguments and one leaning toward "oppose" should summarize the "oppose" arguments, and then patterns of consensus in the larger discussion could be considered based on this shorter, more focused list of arguments, possibly with the help of one or more puportedly "neutral" admins. Of course, this process runs the risk of devolving into a long "admin-only" RFC, so everyone involved would have to be careful to limit themselves to summarizing and weighing the relevant arguments and not relitigating them. I do not envy whomever takes on this task. - dcljr (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is only a difficult task with passions running high because the proposal forces editors into an unhelpful, polarising "on/off", "yes/no" debate, whereas there are intermediate options that should have been offered. I don't think any editor who's looked at a selection of portals thinks the status quo is the right answer. While there are many portals out there which are high quality, frequently visited and useful to readers and WikiProject teams alike, there are also portals which are incomplete, out-of-date, poorly designed and not maintained. Intermediate options might include some or all of the following: completion, improvement, redesign, better processes, quality control, inviting 'overseers' to maintain portals and, yes, deletion of some portals. Neither "on" nor "off" is the right answer here and the vote stalemate backs that up; so the administrator(s) need to work out how best to take this forward in a way that seeks to address the issues raised by the deletionists whilst giving the inclusionists reasonable certainty that the effort they have and will put in won't all go up in smoke. Bermicourt (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. BTW, this RFC doesn't need to be "locked", as I said above, just "delisted" (by removing the {{rfc}} tag). Apparently this will be done automatically by a bot at the 30-day mark (which is fast approaching), unless someone "extends" the RFC as described at WP:RFC#Ending RfCs (see the stuff about "Legobot"). - dcljr (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page, Mdann52 said: "I will review this once the 30 day period is over". Not sure if this is going to be before or after the automatic bot-closure happens… (?) - dcljr (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're not getting rid of portals, are we?
Please share your opinion above under "6.1.2", "Section break - --> CONTINUE SURVEY HERE <--". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Portals are a big part of Wikipedia. They always have been. Or at least for me. The site has remained visually the same since the first time I used it in 2010, and from my knowledge it was like that even before. Don't get rid of the portals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tin_Can (talk • contribs)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Test and transition
Portals provide a service, with over 16 million page view last 12 months for current events alone.
If the objective is to eliminate the name space a solution needs to be offered and a keep or discard seems an obsolete discussion.
Transitioning all "Portal" to name space "Template:PortalXXXX" could be one?
Thought, comments queries.The Original Filfi (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate note, which may make the above harder, can the news pages port to wikinews? removes duplication of service, such that it is.The Original Filfi (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean current events portal is an exception, that can be moved to Wikipedia space - it is very different from other portals Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
!vote !tally
TOTAL !VOTES !COUNTED AS OF 2018/04/18 08:23 UTC:
Strong support: 3
Support: 126 (132 inc. strong & weak support)
Weak/Somewhat support: 3
Conditional support: 7
Neutral/mixed: 3
Weak/Somewhat Oppose: 6
Conditional oppose: 5
Oppose: 115 (177 inc. strong & weak oppose)
Strong oppose: 56
Other (alternative proposal, mostly deprecating/making portals historical): 20
Really, in this discussion it is hardly worthwhile counting !votes headed "Support" or "Oppose", when there is such a wide variety of opinions in !votes of both types. You'd have to count all the permutations of Keep/delete/mark historic/move to another namespace vs. All/most/depending on page views/depending on frequency of editing/a few/none: Noyster (talk), 11:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Votes found, using CTRL+F, as of 05:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC): 265 "Support", 259 "Oppose". Seems to be quite divided. Nixinova T C 05:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but that doesn't factor in those who voted to support things like archiving rather than outright deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a large number who have something like Oppose delete, support reform etc. The base motion looks to be losing significantly - we might get actual consensus on no delete, the issues (and probably NC) come when the poor assessors consider whether we should take up archiving/historical etc.
Personally I think judging things like this can be so hard (particularly in terms on non-specific yes/no rulings) that it should be an aspect of the 'Crat tasks - have 2 of the 23 do the considering. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't been updated in 7 days. Is anyone going to count them? If not, I can later. Vermont (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As of the end of April 24, it's approximately 156 supports vs 234 opposes (all variations included). — The Transhumanist 13:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My own count is within a few of The Transhumanist; as I did it manually, it is possible I missed one or two. I suspect that Nixinova's caught the words 'Support' and 'Oppose' from within the statements themselves, as well. Icarosaurvus (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As of May 6: 454 Support, 374 Oppose. So slightly more supports, but overall pretty equal (1:1.21 ratio). Nixinova T C 06:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mislead people. When using CTRL+F function: 422 Oppose, and 358 Support. It's not even close. Polarmaps (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ctrl+F isn't a reliable indicator - it counts all uses, for example, in "Support this, oppose that" or "Oppose this, but support that"...198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a manual eyeball count of Support and came up with 169. I didn't count "oppose" -- I could have mis-counted, but I think we need to do more than "CNTL+F" -- IF we are interested in counts of !votes. However, consensus does not mean the same as majority.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CTRL+F definitely isn't a reliable factor - vast hoards of us would cancel ourselves out, let alone multiple mentions etc etc. However it is beyond me how Nixinova managed to get those numbers (as of the 6th). In any case our thoughts of NC may actually be wrong, I think this might go Oppose. That however is based purely off !vote numbers, I pity the poor admins (I really hope there are several who do it, or 'crats) who have to do a proper analysis of justified arguments. The really interesting bit will be the consensus points aside from the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. I did a CTRL+F as well, but in the source text, with searches for "Support", "Strong support", "Weak support" and "Conditional support", always preceded by '''. Same thing with "Oppose". I didn't count a few "Keep". The result is quite different: 192 support, 291 oppose. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu? 15:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever closes this will have to do a manual count. IJzeren Jan, I got quite different results today. I also used CTRL+F in the source text for the entire section Survey: Ending the system of portals. I used only oppose''' and support''' as search terms and a search that was not case sensitive. I got 315 Oppose, and 172 Support. Note that several of the "Supports" were only partial and opposed complete removal of portals. The same with some of the "Opposes" who supported deletion of some portals. Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right! I have to apologize: the results I got where the opposite from what I wrote first (fixed that now). But indeed, the counting has to be done manually, and to be honest, I feel for the poor slob whose task that will be. On the other hand, perhaps counting won't be necessary, since a child can see that the oppose !votes outnumber the supporters. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu? 17:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly everyone will want to know the figures, given how "blurry" all the answers are. A good read through to work out what else has been determined is necessary (albeit horrific - enough to drive an admin off users), actually counting the "votes" isn't too massive a part of that. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, I have no idea where Nixinova is getting those numbers, but they're way off. Support doesn't have a lead at all, much less a lead that substantial. Master of Time(talk) 04:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something needs to be done here
From the looks of things, it seems that there isn't consensus to outright delete the Portal namespace entirely. It does seem clear though that, regardless of the outcome of the discussion, it seems that things will have to change for Portals and some kind of reform needs to be done.
The question here is: what can be done to improve the Portal system? As has been mentioned several times above, automation may help on the activity end. However, while that would help the activity end, it won't necessarily solve the viewership issue. So my question is: what suggestions could be implemented to encourage Portal viewership? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 04:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True. In the French, Wikipedia, where Portals are quite used for navigation, more links direct to the portal. Indeed, Portal bar templates are more used and are often present at the bottom of pages, whereas in this wiki, Portal bars do rarely appear on pages. Other measures promoting portals and giving portal links may be used in order to repopularise Portals, including updating them regularly. --Railfan01 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Railfan01's point, the usual guidance for placing portal links in articles on enwiki is to put them in the "See also" section of the article. But where there is no "See also" section - the case for the vast majority of articles - there's no agreed location for where to put {{portalpar}}, so it's usually left off. WaggersTALK 14:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and Railfan01: There is no viewership issue. Portals are an internal feature of Wikipedia and they get their traffic from within Wikipedia, rather than from external search engines. Traffic has grown since the beginning of portals, and have remained fairly steady for the past few years, varying on a portal-by-portal basis. If and when portals get an upgrade to become more dynamic, that will likely inspire repeat visits, which will increase their traffic even more. To explore the traffic of the portals, try the Pageviews Analysis tool.
So, the solution is to revitalize the portals, and then we will likely have the Field of Dreams phenomenon: "If you build it, they will come." — The Transhumanist 09:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should look at other language Wikipedias and figure out where portals work (and why) and where they don't. Then we'd have a hint of what we need to do. Whatever we do should include thinking about what things look like on mobile. —Kusma (t·c) 11:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Portal bars should be used differently, as an other bar over categories. Also, the possible viewership issue could be resolved by actualising and improving the portals constantly, not allowing stagnation.--Railfan01 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and regarding stagnation, I think automation is key. Automatically refreshing content and automatically selecting good/featured articles from related categories are both things that could be automated, and it seems the crux of the problem is with those two tasks. WaggersTALK 08:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, automatically refreshing content would help enormously. Phlar (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlar: Though some things can be automated on a portal, some others can't. for examples a 'recent events' section in a portal cannot be automated, because some stylistic manipulations need to be done on the events' formulation (synthetisation)--Railfan01 (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But a News section can be automated through wikinews categories, for example Portal:Religion includes a News section that pulls content from Wikinews:Category:Religion. Of course, if the wikinews category content is stale, then the News section in the portal will also be stale, as is the case with Portal:Taiwan. Phlar (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that French Wikipedia uses only portalbars, not the small links we more commonly use. Portalbars are more visible than our portal links. In both French and English, the standard place for portalbars is the foot of the article. Perhaps we should change our practice so that it's the same as French Wikipedia. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahnfrend: Good morning, It seems to me that the actual {{Portal bar}} template may have a few problems. Instead of enlarging as more portals are added as in French, the template squeezes everything in a line. This should also be fixed before using the template. --Railfan01 (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is asking the wrong question. "Portals not being viewed enough" is not a problem that inherently needs solving. What is the problem we are trying to solve? My guesses:
It seems like they were trying to encourage editors to work on articles on topics of interest, but that's what WikiProjects are for.
Help readers browse articles on a topic? The category system does that more comprehensively; what would be the ideal UI for that?
Get familiar with a topic? Are high-level topic articles better for that? Would bringing in Wikinews feeds on a particular topic enrich articles?
-- Beland (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: I perfectly understand your point of view, but the original discussion said:
Portals are moribund. The lost their relevance about ten years ago, at least. For every portal, there is a parent article that does the job better. Rotating grabby stories and pictures are nice, but they are not in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. Instead, they are barely viewed content forking or WP:OR
, mentioning viewership as one of the issues with portals (see original text here --Railfan01 (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To resolve possible viewership issues, I propose some portal of the day section on the main page--Railfan01 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of the Portal namespace entirely / International affairs
Wikipedia is an international projekt. IMHO it is impossible to decide about the deletion of the Portal namespace entirely here, because this would have effects on all international wiki-projects. Greet from Germany --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each language wikipedia controls what namespaces it has as far as I know - that deletion would be just for the English Wikipedia. (e.g, some Wikipedias have a WikiProject namespace etc) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry after having diskussed with you that There is no expiration date for consensus. at User_talk:Galobtter#Your_"nomination_for_deletion"_of_portals I get very careful reading your words accompanied with "as far as I know" or (did you check) "Not really."Portal:Contents and the history of consensuses might have been overseen. Regarding this this RFC could have matters of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Sorry this is my own private feeling about it. I left a request to clarify history at talk:Tim Starling. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The portal namespace exists on some wikis and not others, that won't change. --Nemo 16:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr
This page is, at the time or writing, 480,473 bytes long. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm afraid I think this discussion has gotten too protracted to have any kind of coherent outcome besides "no consensus". Whoever closes this could probably try to skim through the discussion and identify some paradigms: what were the most common arguments, and what might be a better question for a more focused future discussion? But I don't see any consensus for a coherent action arising out of this mess. Mz7 (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Do not ever start deletion type discussions on the Village Pump"? —Kusma (t·c) 08:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From my attempt to read the discussion, it seems that the main complaint is that portals are often not complete or properly up-to-date. But - in general - neither goal is attainable. [No citation - but think of the difficulty of getting a full and accurate history of almost any interesting topic.] So if we back off from that, the question is "do the portals serve a purpose?". If they do, I suggest they should be kept. There can then be questions about how to improve them - and - possibly - what warnings/disclaimers to put on them to remind the users that they aren't complete or fully-up-to-date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.153.203 (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a draft at summarizing this discussion. (I'm agnostic on the issue of Portals: while I've rarely used them, that is because I simply don't think about them.) I've read much of the discussion, & have found some good points & insights worth sifting out of this mass.
First, what this discussion should address is that the overwhelming majority of pages in the "Portal:" namespace aren't being used (based on number of views, as compared to the relevant main article); the overwhelming majority are no longer maintained & either are outdated or serve as magnets for vandalism. (This assertion is based on numerous anecdotes; while the assertion may be true, I need to repeat here the old saying "The plural of anecdotes is not data.")
Some have addressed the issue that many are not maintained, which implies that keeping them up to date may attract more readers. (Or it may be that because these web pages are not viewed, there is little interest in maintaining them. A "chicken or the egg" problem.)
One point brought up is that we have little hard information about how our users go about finding the information in Wikipedia. (There are enough professionals in library sciences/information systems out there that I would expect some studies exist. However, despite trying to identify at least one off & on over the least 10 years, I haven't been able to identify any.)
Several commenters have raised the issue that Portals have been superseded by other Wikipedia features. (Identifying these features would strengthen this argument.)
Even amongst those who would remove them, there is significant disagreement over how to do it. The original proposal implies that all of these portals would be deleted fairly promptly. Some have argued that they should be marked with Template: historical, in part because they are evidence of Wikipedia's own history. (This overlooks a notice on that template, clearly stating that it should not be added to Portal web pages.) Others, who concur with marking those pages as historical, add that some Portals still ought to be deleted.
One issue those against removing Portals seem to overlook is that Portal webpages do not contain unique content. Portal:Cricket is not Cricket, & contains no current information that cannot be found in another Wikipedia article.
One issue those for removing Portals seem to overlook is that there are some pages that can be considered a Portal that should not be deleted, such as Main Page. (Transhumanist listed many of them.)
If Portals are kept -- some, most or all -- how do we ensure they are maintained? This is an important issue, & Tom has pointed out how on de.wikipedia they use automated sub-pages to show new pages. Portal:Philosophy has a list of 52 "Selected philosophers" it cycles through.
Lastly, if Portals are kept -- some, most or all -- how do we make them more visible to users?
I'm certain I overlooked many equally valid or thoughtful points in this lengthy discussion. But I hope this will either assist another Admin in closing this discussion, or help to direct discussion towards a consensus. (Even if this proposal is rejected, or the discussion closed as "No consensus", more research needs to be done on this. Making our audience's work to find information easier is part of the job of writing an encyclopedia.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the attempt to start to summarize the discussion, llywrch, but I'm a bit concerned about some of your statements that seem to be "editorializing" more than simply summarizing. In particular, you start out the first point with "what this discussion should address" and then describe one particular line of reasoning that was debated early on in the discussion. No single line of reasoning should be considered "what the discussion should address" in a proscriptive sense, and if you meant it more in a descriptive sense, then I disagree with the implication that it has not been addressed. And then your "seem to overlook" comments (both of them) strike me as somewhat… I don't know… irrelevant? Many commenters have mentioned that portals replicate (/contain summaries of) article content, and, indeed, that is a hallmark of the very idea of a portal. How is that something "those against removing Portals" have overlooked? Similarly, almost everyone who has commented about the Main Page, Portal:Current events, and/or Portal:Contents and its subpages, have acknowledged that they are very different from the rest of the portal pages, and should be exempted from deletion—in fact, that strikes me as the one thing about which any kind of true consensus has been arrived at: almost no one wants those to be covered by this RFC. So how is that something "those for removing Portals" have overlooked? Sorry for sounding so negative here. Like I said, I really do appreciate your taking the time and trouble to write up this summary. If you had phrased those particular items more "neutrally" as things that have been said, rather than seeming to make a "value judgment" about them, I probably wouldn't have bothered to comment. It just worries me to see these items in a summary from an admin when I know it's going to be an admin (at least one) who will have to close this RFC, potentially with a summary of the main points of consensus or lack thereof. - dcljr (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right about inadvertent my editorializing, @Dcljr:; however, my added comments were meant more as a teacher's comments on a paper she/he is grading. In closing this discussion, one can take one of 2 approaches: either count opinions as votes & decide the matter as a "yes", "no", or "no consensus"; or weigh the arguments & judge which arguments are the most persuasive. (Either approach has its strengths & weaknesses.) If I judge the arguments for their persuasive value, I will at least need to point out their weaknesses. And arguments on both sides have flaws.
I wish to state for the record I have no opinion about whether to keep or get rid of Portal pages. (I seem to have reached a point with Wikipedia where I have no strong opinion on matters like these any more, as long as decisions are reached in a rational & fair manner. I don't know if it's because I've been here so long & have become jaded, or that I've come to trust the process. Maybe a little of both.) If the rational result is that we keep them, that is good. If the rational result is that we get rid of them, that is also good. But in trying to understand which might be the better result, I can't help but bring my own opinions into the mix based in part on my own biases, but also based in part on my own 15 years of Wikipedia experience.
Now you are correct that the discussion can be seen as having moved from simply keeping/deleting Portal pages. This leads to a twofold problem: first is that if the discussion is no longer about that, then the RFC must be closed; the second is that there must be a new statement to start an RFC. Your response is the first acknowledgement that keeping/removing Portal pages is no longer the subject of this discussion.
As for my "neutrality"... One problem I kept encountering in this discussion is the lack of objective, productive facts. Over the years I have witnessed this disrupt several potential consensuses on matters. The present discussion began with more-or-less objective facts about page edits & page views, but then drifted off into less quantifiable matters such as these numbers prove that Portal pages have failed. By "fail", do we only mean that users no longer look at them, or can we properly infer Portal pages are not useful to readers? One must argue there is a connection between the two; maybe Portal pages are useful, but not used because they are not well known. Or maybe there is a connection between the two & I just cannot see it.
This leads one statement I made, which I believe is an example of the "editorializing" you object to -- "One point brought up is that we have little hard information about how our users go about finding the information in Wikipedia. (There are enough professionals in library sciences/information systems out there that I would expect some studies exist. However, despite trying to identify at least one off & on over the least 10 years, I haven't been able to identify any.)" (italicized for emphasis). I admit this touches on a hobbyhorse of mine: that the Foundation is far more eager to spend money on technological shiny objects than to spend it on studies that help contributors -- such as how information is best presented in reference works. We have no yardstick to measure if or how we are making it easy for readers to find the information in our pages, nor does it appear anyone at the Foundation is even aware of this issue. Without studies about this issue, we have no facts or expert opinion to properly argue whether keeping or removing Portal pages is the right thing to do. That should be the bedrock we build our arguments on, not the skill of individual Wikipedians at persuading each other -- which is how this RFC currently will be closed.
All of this is why I prefaced my summarizing of this discussion as a "first draft". I admit I have missed many important issues in this discussion, & admit the next to attempt to summarize it will modify what I wrote. But this discussion has skated over a number of important points that need to be considered. One is the lack of any real information about how reference works should be organized. And until those points are addressed, I suspect there will be no durable consensus on matters such as the value of Portal pages. -- llywrch (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I think if I pressed this any more, we would just be going around in circles. Suffice it to say that I was not objecting to editorializing per se, but editorializing in a way that didn't seem to be justified based on the existing discussion as I see it. (That being said, I certainly have not read every single comment that has been made in this RFC, so I can't say my view of the discussion is in any way authoritative.) Regarding your "little hard information" comment, I did not, and do not, object to that at all. - dcljr (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A last thought. Summarizing this discussion may be premature: people are still responding to the original proposal, meanwhile others are working on various solutions to save Portal pages. About the only closing decision that could be made, IMHO, is to close this RFC to further support/oppose votes & encourage interested parties to address the issue, "Since Portal pages will not be going away soon, what should we do now?" (At the least, doing that will save interested parties from slogging thru over half a million bytes of discussion.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For readers of this section who have not slogged through the sections above: see also some related comments in the "This discussion at a glance" section (above) and "How to close" on the talk page (also about how/when to close this RFC). - dcljr (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has content
As I keep following this discussion, I continue to come back to the essay WP:NOTHING, stating that Wikipedia is not about "Nothing" --it has to have content to exist. Sure, stuff gets deleted, but this proposal is just going way, way, way too far.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about this proposal changes the fact that "Wikipedia has content," is "not about 'Nothing'," and will continue to exist. -- ℜob C.aliasALAROB 22:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if we remove all portals there will still be content--but this discussion is about taking out a lot of content because some editors don't use the pages where the content resides. It's a large step of bulk deletion and it still reminds me of the nothing argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may appear that way by the light of a burning straw man. -- ℜob C.aliasALAROB 15:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but there's no reason to be uncivil about it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it ain't broke don't fix it
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There is no 'useless content' in an encyclopedia. Thus, some content, such as portals, may not be used by all, but is still part of the encyclopedia. The Portals are causing no problems. Everything can be improved. So why should we delete them? --Railfan01 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
might as well comment here as anywhere. portals are curated pages, designed to introduce a reader to relevant content. this requires, and thus benefits from, a human editor that can make editorial decisions SEPARATE FROM ASSESSING NOTABILITY AND VERIFIABILITY. A portal editor is thus like a newspaper editor, who arranges the paper to fit their editorial preferences and knowledge. our main page is such a portal, highly formalized and rule bound, as is appropriate as its literally the face of wikipedia. other pages are good the same way a good newspaper editor help readers, or a good librarian or bookseller helps book seekers. removing any such curating function from WP reduces the potential quality of the project by a significant amount. failures of curation of such pages doesnt invalidate the concept. i maintain Portal:San Francisco Bay Area. if i leave it, i will simply mothball the "did you know" and "recent events" panels, and it will remain valid indefinitely. it reflects my editorial preferences, within WP guidelines (selected articles have either a high article rating or importance to the topic, etc). its my chance to be an editor in chief. if i do a poor job, the portal can go to someone else, i can of course share. The IDEA of curated content is vital to any knowledge base. museum curators make sense of museum contents. if a museum simply was a huge hall of objects, with new ones added at the end of the hall, with colored lines on the floor linking people to related displays, they would be much less user friendly. Portals have the potential to allow people to help people navigate, more so than navboxes (if done right, they dont provide context for what is most relevant or interesting), and of course projects, which readers should not be aware of at all (i thus oppose merging portals into projectd space)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portals could be left as they are and well maintained by Portal editors, as well as updated and promoted throughout the encyclopedia.--Railfan01 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, for some people it is broken. --Nemo 16:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Approach: Reduce Portal Maintenance
It's clear that a major driver behind this RfC is the poor state of some portals. This happens when the maintenance required exceeds the editor horsepower available. There is no issue with portals that are 'high maintenance' if they are well supported by a team of editors (usually from the relevant WikiProject). But if they are 'high maintenance' and few editors are helping, they fall into disrepair. The solution is not deletion, but reducing the maintenance level to match the resource as mentioned above by @Dough4872:@Jcc:@Railfan01: and @Paulmcdonald: amongst others.
There are ways to do this; let me name just one. Many portals have an 'article of the month' or 'image of the month'. Once created, they need to be refreshed monthly. If this is done manually, it won't be long before editors forget to do this. However, I came across a clever system on German Wikipedia that allows articles and images of the month to be created in advance and automatically uploaded. This means you can create them, say, a year ahead or even to just create 12 articles/images and put them into an annual loop. Of course the simplest solution is not to have weekly- or monthly-changing features on a portal, but just a link to the topic's main article.
Portals can be kept simple and low maintenance, yet still act as a great navigational aid for readers and invaluable tool for WikiProject teams. Bermicourt (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was the case with Portal:Christianity. I myself improved the portal to show images in a dynamic style and not every month. This change can already be made on the english wikipedia.--Broter (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a lot of simple ideas for streamlining the curation and maintenance process. thanks for insisting we consider this area. i use lots of random functions i found at portals, to keep it fresh.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 in germany we use bot-maintained-subpages for portal-sites. f.e. this to show new articles on de:Portal:Berlin Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Broter - a very good point raised. When this amorphous beast of a RFC concludes with a "no-consent" in a couple of weeks, I'd be strongly pro a follow-on RFC regarding how to make portals work better. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might it not be helpful to create a place editors could reference and view ways in which to reduce the high maintenance of portals? Also our thought has been editors need to be able notify wikipedia if they are no longer able to maintain a portal, and either canvas to obtain more help, notify of the reason that they temporarily may be unable to continue maintenance so they might in effect "vacation" and find an acceptable substitute editor within that time period, or indicate that they are permanently unable or uninterested in continuing--in which case a canvas could be made to find a new editor or editors. Then of course, if no one is interested in editing and maintaining a portal, then its content could be archived, in which case only a periodic review to remove outdated information or obselete links would be needed if an assessment determines the archival material is being widely used. Naturally, there needs to be clear and clearly stated definitions for whether a portal is popular or widely used. Then too, if a new editor for a popular archived previous portal does become available much later, then the archive exists for the basis of resetting up the portal. Oh, and in the case that it seems editing of portals is considered too complex for say an interested reader and viewer to become involved in maintaining their favorite portal, then could training or a training place or space be an acceptable solution? (or perhaps even a sort of internship with the current editor/editors or leaving editor?) Also as users/readers (which is probably evident by now) we do not find portals easy to even find. Certainly if we come to wikipedia through a search engine then we rarely encounter any link to a portal. Phones (android or otherwise) poorly support portals, and are increasingly the way users interact with internet including wikipedia, due to sizing issues which we see someone has stated are solvable (another item to be placed in the space to help editors). If we are using the wikipedia search then again we are rarely directed to relevant portals. In fact, most often to utilize portals we have to know they exist and then navigate to the main page or have to discover they exist by accessing the main page or find them through fan based pages. We also have to say that navigating to the main page is not the usual manner in which we or most readers we do know tend to use wikipedia, so perhaps more study needs to be done as to how accessible portals even are to readers and improvements made there. Please excuse me if these suggestions already exist or have been tried in the long course of this experiment with portals. And any misuse of terms is purely my own fault.(zionpegasus eagle in the city) As to the current dilemma that thousands of portals exist and many are poorly maintained or not currently maintained at all, then probably it would be easier for editors to contact wikipedia concerning their portal (I am suggesting editors be contacted) and then any editors that did not contact wikipedia, then wikipedia could contact them to determine if a portal is actively edited or needs to be archived. Or probably even easier, simply prominently post a notice of intent to archive by a certain date unless contacted by the editor/editors (and if the content is archived as opposed to deleted, then if a sole editor was on vacation or sick or something, then content for the portal would still be available). And naturally apart from that is the problem of portals which are never used (hopefully after access has been improved for readers.). No easy solutions there as editors might still be engaged but if no one is interested, then of course there is no reason to keep an unused portal. Also an active editor of an unused portal might not be interested in editing more widely used portals if he/she has no interest in other more widely popular topics. By the way our "vote" is to keep portals, but to address identified problems in more useful ways than complete (or really nearly complete) wholesale deletion or even importation elsewhere (because we do believe this will merely import the same problems in the long run). 67.140.143.169 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC) zionpegasus eagle in the city and my brother mollusk43 67.140.143.169 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possible massive loss of editors
I have committed myself to never edit wikipedia if all portals are deleted. I think many editors who have built or very much improved portals think the same. I am shocked at the disrespect which is shown at my work. I think many editors will leave wikipedia if all portals are deleted. There would be no value to our work anymore. Portals are an important gateway to transform readers into editors.--Broter (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can see a bunch of editors leaving if this were the outcome as broken morale is an issue. -Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but threats to leave have never been a valid reason to make or not make any particular decision. Furthermore, the deleting of people's hard work, though unfortunate and potentially morale-draining, is sometimes an outcome that occurs in deletion discussions. Again, it's not a valid argument I'm afraid. — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments to avoid in deletion discussions are for the most part arguments to avoid in any discussion. — Amakuru (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editor loss isn't really a factor. New blood could easily replace those who leave. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could? How many new editors do you think join Wikipedia for the long term? [10] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Knowledgekid. Knowledgekid, the number of new users listed there might also include vandals, socks, and what not. So the number of "REAL" new users coming to Wikipedia are most likely to be less than what is stated on the link that you provided. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia may lose some veteran editors, but as we know, new ones will replace them. As for me I will stay even if the portals are gone. Felicia(talk) 00:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone leaves merely because of losing a portal page, they were most likely not prolific contributors in the first place, and/or did not care about Wikipedia's overall mission. If you are willing to abandon Wikipedia entirely because of such a decision, then perhaps you would have been pedantic while you were here. I can't honestly see that it would have such an impact.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave this site if Portals were scrapped, without question nor hesitation, and I don't believe I am pedantic at all. I have seen enough sites been subjected to terrible streamlining and ugly redesign the past few years.-Sıgehelmus (Tωlk) 18:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add that WP:FLOUNCE #1 is an essay, and #2 would usually apply to a single editor who wants to "ragequit". Its never good when you lose a massive amount of editors if this is the case here as it can take a long time for new ones to learn the ropes of Wikipedia and keep them interested. I wouldn't quit over the issue here but see it as a net loss for Wikipedia (unless you think something can be gained by getting rid of the portals). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say that editors who have devoted lots of time to portals will have their enthusiasm for editing knocked by the removal of portals from mainspace. Some of the comments above are simply impolite about this. A much better approach would be to encourage this group of editors to transfer their talents to things like helping Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines, which serves a somewhat similar purpose for article navigation. Note that the [viewerships for outlines and portals are quite similar and both suffer from a lack of standard integration into the wider mainspace. There are definitely improvements to be made in reader navigation and I'd encourage anyone involved in Portals to start thinking about that more broadly, regardless of the outcome. SFB 17:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, portals and outlines are quite different and serve different purposes. Portals help discover content (in a somewhat unstructured and random way similar to the Main Page), while outlines provide systematic overviews (more similar to categories). I find outlines unimaginably dull and fairly pointless, while well-made portals are fun to look at every now and then (just like the Main Page is, which I never use for navigation, only to look at news and DYKs). Compare outline of literature with Portal:Literature and tell me whether you really think they have the same purpose. Back to the question of whether editors will leave: I would certainly consider deletion of Portal:Germany, which I wasted quite some time on back in 2006/7 as quite a kick in the teeth. It would probably make me even more grumpy and more opposed to the direction Wikipedia is going in than I already am. It certainly won't rekindle my enthusiasm. While this discussion isn't likely to end up recommending deletion of the portal space, the level of support for the proposal is rather depressing. It is great to see that at the same time, some people are trying to improve and revitalise the Portal space, a much more wiki response to "portals suck" than just deleting them all. —Kusma (t·c) 19:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also considering leaving Wikipedia if portals are deleted and that is not meant as a threat, it is simply frustration at so much work being wasted. What will be next? All stubs? All lists? All settlements below 10,000 people? As for the comment that veteran editors will be easily replaced - that's wishful thinking. I've created over 5,000 articles, mostly translated from German. There just aren't that many out there with that level of effort and the translation skills. Since much of the criticism is around pageviews, portal quality and how long since someone last edited them, if we applied the same deletion criteria to the rest of mainspace; most of Wikipedia would disappear along with many, many editors. The answer is to improve the weaker portals, not mass delete them. This discussion has resulted in a big impetus already to do that. Bermicourt (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, and the point that portals are useful to some is I think a valid one, and why this proposal doesn't seem to be succeeding. That doesn't mean a threat to leave is a valid argument against the proposal though. Make an argument on the merits of the proposal, that's what's been done, and why it's been shown that portals are useful. But don't argue on the fact that people will leave alone. The community won't be blackmailed that way. — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of portals to other navigational tools
In the case of Germany, the portal is much more viewed than the main category or the Outline page, see [11]. Is this typical? Does this mean we should delete outlines and categories instead?? —Kusma (t·c) 16:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. And as I said above there are thousands of mainspace articles that don't have many views, aren't complete, haven't been edited in a while, etc. We don't delete them, we use WikiProjects and their associated portals to improve them. I've created dozens of articles based on the gaps that a portal indicates. Bermicourt (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could kill Wikipedia
If the proposal counts for all portal pages, this will basically shoot this site in the foot. We'd be removing an organizational backbone that could have devastating effects. Also, if the current events page is deleted (as it is a portal), that sets precedence that ALL major and vital pages can be deleted - including the main page. So basically, deleting all portals - not just the useless ones - would basically kill this site. So I highly suggest we don't go through with the proposal, at least in full. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirbanzo: please don't open up new sections just to repeat or expand on things you have already said elsewhere. Try to place your comments in the most relevant already-existing section of discussion. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some hyperbole here, but this has to take the cake (as a side note, the main page being deleted wouldn't affect the site much either; if you'd note, 99.99% of people come here for the articles) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think main pages are expected on websites. Even if say most people come for individual articles, people will go "WTF" if they see a blank main page. Also it's good to know if there are significant numbers of editors thinking of quitting over decisions like this, because you'll know what the potential "cost" is of doing something. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was meant to show a worst-case scenario. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another alternate idea
This is clearly headed for a “no consensus” result. Although I supported the proposal, I can see that there are some people who are really passionate about portals and put a lot of work into them. I can also see that a large number of portals are neglected and unused. I would therefore propose an alternative solution:
We establish some sort of bar for what constitutes an “actively supported” portal, based on activity from before this discussion as every one has had some activity since this started
Any portal not meeting this bar for activity will be marked as historical but will not be deleted
Users who wish to revive any of the historical portals must achieve a consensus to do so at the village pump, as is already indicated on {{historical}}
That’s it. If it looks like this is something people can get behind we can close up shop here and hold a new RFC to determine what the threshold of activity will be and get one of you automated tool wizards to figure out which portals qualify and which do not and tag all the inactive ones, and we’re done. I think this is a good middle road where we don’t pretend all portals are working and helpful, but don’t sweep them all under the rug when they are being supported and used. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this to the proper section, originally added at bottom. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether I agree with this or not, but three points come to mind
"Base on pre-RFC activity", it's not that I don't understand your reasoning, but the RFC might actually have rescued some portals, which might be lost if they were stopped and had to be re-authorised. While the RFC-provoked activity would slow the clearing of non-active portals, I don't think that is particularly bad (we've made it thus far), and comes with some negatives
Obviously you left it open to be considered, but what are some early thoughts on "actively supported"? Is it (unique) views, edits, etc? And what level of such?
Presumably a rotating 6 months would be a logical time period for this activity (whatever is agreed, in both category and scale) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, I suppose we could change that to “edits discounting those directly related to this RFC.” On the other points, my goal here was to see if there is any interest at all in such an idea, and then have a follow-up RFC in the future to pound out the details. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense, to discount adding the RFC notifications. I'd be interested in the RFC - although I have more interest in a RFC to discuss changes needed to improve portal usage & quality. The two are not mutually contradictory. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely plausible alternative idea
Why not just merge projects and portals that are centered around a same or similar topic together. Many people are actually confused about the difference between a portal and a project. That is for new users. This would make things look a lot better as well as more organized. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those who are confused probably aren't working on projects to improve Wikipedia. The project is a team of people working to promote and improve articles in a given area. They have a project page with largely administrative information on it, which is in Wikipedia (WP) space. By contrast, the portal acts both as a navigation aid and to promote interest in the topic in mainspace, but it also helps project teams to build a coherent set of articles around a topic and may flag up e.g. wanted articles, articles for improvement, featured or good articles.
That said, I think there is a variation on your idea, which definitely be worthwhile and that is to ensure every portal is clearly linked to a project that is committed to supporting it. Let's not have 'orphan' portals that no-one is responsible for. Bermicourt (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: could you link to some examples (talk page discussion, other page edits) illustrating this confusion of which you speak? - dcljr (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portal talk:Plants is full of threads from people asking questions that would be better answered at the WikiProject Plants. Since 2006, activity at Portal talk:War is largely unanswered questions that would've been quickly answered at WikiProject Military History. Same with Portal talk:Video games (although many of questions were reposted on the project). People are getting confused by Portal talk pages with few watchers. Plantdrew (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Hmm. Seems to me, the same thing could be said of a lot of talk pages around WP. There is often a more general, better-watched talk/discussion page that users could appeal to (if they knew about / noticed it) to get their questions answered. Perhaps a concerted effort could be made to include warnings in portal talk pages pointing to other places where things could/should be discussed (especially non-portal-related things—Portal talk:Mathematics uses a "custom" messagebox for this purpose, although I'm not sure how effective it is). - dcljr (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing in general
If there is a necessity for portals as a method of navigation then it is because of the poor quality of category tagging. Attempting to explore a subject through the category links is an exercise in frustration since they are ad hoc and often incomplete. Leaving it up to users alone to create a taxonomy of a field of knowledge - and surely that is what a category list is - has been a failure. It must be possible to apply the standards of basic formal ontology and categorize any given article automatically or at least have a set of criteria for categorization. With those criteria it might be possible to have other methods of navigation, such as graph databases. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 06:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, folks, RFC about deleting the category namespace next! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) It's not that portals are necessary to navigate; it's just that some users like to use them that way. The state of the portals have nothing to do with categories. And, frankly, this RFC has nothing to do with categories, either. Finally: what comments are you responding to here? By segregating your comment into its own section, no one can tell why you are talking about this. - dcljr (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portals WikiProject Update: Portals – The Next Generation is almost here
There's all this technology that has been added to Wikipedia and the software that runs it (MediaWiki) over the past few years that is just laying around not being used. We are finding resources, that we already have, that can rapidly solve our problems with portals. That is happening, as I write this...
There are three things we are currently working on over at the WikiProject to add to portals:
Self-updating excerpts, that always match the article they were taken from, so that the excerpts never go stale or stray as a content fork. Done This has been provided as a very easy-to-use template. The portal editors who have tried it so far are exclaiming that it makes portal maintenance and creation much easier. We are now looking into adding more parameters to allow editors to configure it in additional ways.
A way to automatically select articles for display. The German Wikipedia uses extensive bot support for its portals, and it looks promising that something similar could be implemented here to power portal display boxes.
Newsfeeds. Some portals here already have a type of newsfeed feature, so this looks promising too.
Installation has already started on some portals, and will soon be extended to most if not all portals. And, rather than a one-off maintenance pass that may never be repeated, this is an "installation" of portal "software" that runs on its own. Spot inspections of portals should be able to tell if they are working correctly. We will also be setting up a place where people can report malfunctions and problem portals. In addition to this, we have set up a watchlist at the WikiProject page to allow others to easily monitor all of portal space without having to load 150,000 pages into their watchlists. So you can watch and see all the fun we are having.
Not only will the components mentioned above help transform existing portals, they will help build new portals too. They are easier to use than manually copying and pasting text, which was the method being used before this.
I hope this boosts your spirits, as it has certainly raised ours. The level of excitement throughout the portals department is ecstatic.
Feel free to stop by and check out what we are all up to. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 04:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to see what is going on with portals?
View the watchlist (split into 4 parts) and click on Related changes in the sidebar menu.
It contains all the pages in the portal namespace.
On April 21, discussions and development were begun on the design of automated components.
On April 22, the first newsletter was sent out.
As of April 24, the WikiProject has 40 members, and has been growing daily. — The Transhumanist 13:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, transhumanist. I think we should keep the idea of portals, and think about how some simple tools could a) provide a unified format that is easier to create + maintain, and b) help migrate old portals to the new format, and merge different unmaintained portals together into larger-granularity ones. – SJ + 03:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... this isn't helpful. There shouldnt be overlapping deletion discussions here so would go for Speedy Keep until this thing closes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm not sure I agree that individual MFDs for portals should not happen while this RFC is going on. I would oppose a mass MFD of, say, hundreds or thousands of portals, but 3 of them? That seems fine to me. - dcljr (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment focusing some discussion on a few pretty much randomly chosen examples should help things. Even many of the keep voters think some of the abandoned portals should be pruned from tje system. Here are a couple more to consider:
Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should they be moved into draft space then, until completion? Kees08 (Talk) 04:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Under Construction' tag isn't much of a defence; Quiditch, for example, was put together in a partially-completed state in 2014 and then let to rot. If it's an unfinished draft of a portal, it shouldn't be live like other portals. --PresN 12:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pls. keep in mind that deletion is the wrong way to handle similar cases. If, they have to be moved to Category:Wikipedia history --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the 5 portals nominated for deletion is as live as any other. Inappropraite canvasing has now occured by Transhumonist here [12] tonalert the editors he recently handpicked to work on saving portals. He is also trying to shut down the nominations as out of process. If - as many believe - many portals need to go, the ones nominated for deletion are a good start. No one can say they were no individually examined. Had they been moved to draft or built in draft they would have been G13'd long ago. Legacypac (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: The link in Legacypac's comment was referring to this, which has now been changed. - dcljr (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)][reply]
That isn't inappropraite canvasing as the message is neutral. Do you have a problem with the "(active now!)" bit? It was placed there to draw attention to other editors for the ongoing discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording to the familiar "Article alerts" in wide usage. Will add the automated function to the WikiProject page when I have more time, though the {{WikiProject Portals}} templates are now in place. — The Transhumanist 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC is a deletion discussion, nominating all portals for deletion. It is inappropriate to be up for deletion in 2 places at once. It's double jeopardy. There's even 2 deletion discussion notices on those portals. — The Transhumanist 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually no policy that forbids individual deletion discussions for certain pages while a discussion to abolish this kind of page altogether is ongoing. I, too, was intrigued by this argument at first but on closer look it is not convincing, as long as those MFDs are focused on the individual portals nominated and the amount of nominations themselves are not disrupting. Just avoid spillage from the RFC to the MFDs and focus on the individual portals' reasons for existing. After all, if the RFC ends in "keep portals", individual portals can still be deleted and if it ends in "delete portals", all those would have been deleted anyways. Regards SoWhy 17:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that there is also no policy that an individual page cannot be nominated twice at the same time at MfD either. It is simply not allowed. Due to double jeopardy (two chances to execute the defendant, I mean, delete the page). The WikiProject is working on solutions to improve all the portals, and now we are forced to explain those solutions in 6 places (currently, there are 5 MfDs on portals with substance), instead of just here at the RfC, where they all have been nominated for deletion. It's double jeopardy, through and through. — The Transhumanist 01:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really "double jeopardy" because there is no policy that says that a page that was kept once cannot be deleted after a new discussion. On Wikipedia, there are literally infinite chances for a page to be deleted. Also, if I started an RFC advocating the deletion of all BLPs and the ban on creating any new BLPs, would that really mean that for 30 days, no BLPs could be deleted using other processes? I know that this example is absurd but that's the point: The question whether a certain class of pages should exist in general has no bearing on whether individual pages should exist under current policy. Individual discussions should focus on individual problems. That said, such nominations should obviously not happen just because this RFC is possibly not going the way some people have expected it to go and waiting for this RFC to end before starting any more such discussions would be a good idea in terms of saving editors time and avoiding duplicate discussions. Regards SoWhy 09:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an article can have {{CSD}}, {{PROD}}, and {{AFD}} tags at the same time. The latter two together are rare, as usually the PROD is replaced by the AFD, but it does occur from time to time. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 01:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And an RfD on Portal:Random Legacypac (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just wanted to add that every MfD above ended up as Keep or No consensus. We need a solution to the problem before we move on to deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One, the belemnoids example, was moved to userspace so the creator could continue their work on it, but this is otherwise accurate. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for Portal
An alternate solution to poorly maintained portal on narrow topics can be establishing “Notability” / Significance criteria for Portals which currently does not exist.
Since WP strictly enforces notability criteria for articles, it only makes logical sense to have at least some minimum criteria for portals.
There can be several approaches on how notability can be established, like:
. The core portal topic must be at least a Level-3 Vital Article.
. There must be minimum X number of Featured / Good articles that can be shown on the portal.
. The portal must be a level 3 or 4 sub-portal of the portals linked to the main page.
Please feel free to add why this may or may not be a good idea, or any alternative thought on how the “Notability” / Significance criteria can be established. Arman(Talk) 04:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the idea in principle, but not in the specifics suggested above. Portals need to be understood as merely "Topic Overviews" or "Topic Tasters", and we should make them far more visible in Hatnotes, DAB pages, See Also and, especially, in Search results. As "Topic Tasters", they should exist only to introduce users to a broad subject area or theme at any level, and in a manner that single articles spectacularly fail to do. So, it's breadth and depth of subjects covered that is really important, not the current quality assessment of individual components. Have a minimum number of article linked from it, by all means, but do not require each to have a predetermined quality grading. This applies to Levels, too, I suspect. Portal:Mountain and Portal:Alps are at different levels, but they each serve as good, visual Topic Tasters to a very broad range of detailed content. Most importantly, they reach out and link sideways across other content at varying levels. So maybe judging Portals by that ability to link sideways is key here. As I'm not that familiar with the Wikipedia:Vital articles and their Levels, I can't offer more specific suggestions. But Portals are not Articles, so judging them by single article level doesn't seem appropriate. It's their function as a Topic Taster (and making them findable in the first place, and therefore functional) that should count towards an assessment of notability. If they don't give an overview across a wide range of subjects then they're probably not likely to be deemed noteworthy. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's tempting, I'm not sure notability is the right criterion as it's quite subjective and will result in energy-sapping discussions. What is more critical is the willingness of WikiProject teams to commit to supporting one or more portals. That's pretty easy to assess. If they do, the portal should be well maintained and high quality. If they don't, it could be a candidate for deletion if the quality is poor. Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I very much like the suggestion to view portals as "topic taster" pages. I essentially agree with Bermicourt that quality should be enough as a measure whether we should keep or delete a portal -- for topics of fairly low notability (say, my local shopping mall) it will be really hard to make a halfway decent portal. But if somebody succeeds in creating an appealing and balanced portal, we don't gain by throwing it away. —Kusma (t·c) 19:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedia makes this easier by having guidelines on what definitely constitutes a valid portal (they call it 'relevance'), e.g. countries, major sports, capital cities, and saying that the rest should go through an approval process. I've translated (and slightly tweaked) their guidelines here. Maybe we could do something similar. Bermicourt (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am against notability guidelines. The Quality of a Portal is important. If the Quality is high enough, I do not care about notability.--Broter (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "notability" is the right measure either. I do think we need to have some kind of guideline or measure in place to make sure that portals do not get too granular.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These "relevance guidelines" are a good idea. In response to the concerns expressed by the last two users above, there's no requirement for us to make to guidelines rigid (per WP:IAR, if a rule prevents us from making a good, relevant page, well then ...). Actually, there is no reason to delete the portals whatsoever - we should use the same criteria as for Wikiproject pages - namely, if the pages are not well maintained or frequented but fall short of being "entirely undesirable", they can be tagged with {{WikiProject status|inactive}} or a (new?) variant thereof. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we perhaps agree that at minimum a portal should:
be related to a notable topic (i.e., one with an article that is not likely to get deleted)
have a parent portal (so, no "orphaned portals") [edit: except for a small number of "top-most" portals — see discussion below]
Portals lacking these features could be tagged for refactoring (i.e., to be about a more general topic if #1 or #2 is the problem) or further improvement; in extreme cases, they could be deleted/archived. Obviously, plenty of opportunity would need to be given for interested editors to satisfy #3 before it could be used as justification for deletion/archiving. The details of "implementing" these principles could be worked out later, but I think "portals worth keeping" should satisfy these three conditions. Right? - dcljr (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3 seems good in principle, but in practice WP:NODEADLINE is a thing to consider and currently there is no policy which allows for deleting articles (or any other pages) because they are a "work in progress". No. 2 is good, but when pushed to its limit it becomes an infinite regress - of course, its possible to make "exceptions" to this "rule" for top level portals. Nevermind - No. 2 is good, too, assuming it can be linked reasonably (and without being an excessive split) to a parent portal (given that there is indeed a "parent of all portals", Portal:Contents/Portals). No. 1 is perfectly acceptable, though. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, for #2 I was implicitly exempting the "top-most" portals—say, those currently linked to from the Main Page, or, as you point out, those that are / could be listed as the most general portals on Portal:Contents/Portals. - dcljr (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems silly to me to require that a portal be about a notable topic. If it's not about a notable topic, then the links in the portal will all be redlinks because any articles in the portal would be deleted at AFD... but then again... okay it still seems silly, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer Arman's criteria. 2 (once amended) seems absolutely critical. 3, while not vital, seems a fairly minimal standard to require. 1 actually might be a little under-strict: as noted, non-notable articles shouldn't be there, and if they aren't, it will just be redlinks. Should some qualitative requirement (not nearly as high as seen in the first mooted set) be needed for the primary article? E.g. a tested B standard? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the minimal standards by dcljr. This should be required for every Portal!--Broter (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this. Under the above criteria, we could trim a significant amount of tiny, neglected, and unmaintained portals, and make our jobs of curating the rest easier. Having better guidance on when a portal should (or should not) exist is something we should work on. These criteria would be a good start on that. — AfroThundr(talk) 20:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald: From what I see, no. 1 is indeed obvious, but it should still be stated clearly (something like "General guideline: there should already be at least a few (more than one) well-developed (not necessarily FA or GA, but more than start or stub class) articles about the topic") so as that it is clear in everyone's mind (even those who haven't discussed it here at the RfC). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it certainly wouldn't make sense to have a portal without at least 4 or 5 (at least!) articles to put into it. Having a "B" standard for the primary article and some general bit for a few more entries at least seems reasonable. (I don't think anything like "at least 3 more C or above articles" will help encourage portal upkeep!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is being done about portals right now, as we speak...
While this discussion has been raging on, here is what has been going on behind-the-scenes...
Currently, there are 1500 portals, comprised of 150,000 pages in portal space, the rest beyond the 1500 being subpages. Most of those subpages contain an excerpt, copied and pasted from some article. Such excerpts never change, and they go stale over time (no longer matching the original source material).
The Portal WikiProject was rebooted on April 17th, and has grown to 68 members. We've been busy redesigning the portal model so that all those subpages will not be needed.
The design concept called "selective transclusion", which is used for migrating excerpts (moving them to the base page), does so by displaying part of an article the same as a template. An added benefit of this is that it also keeps them fresh, by always showing the current version of the content that is transcluded.
We are also working on ways to make excerpted content, and listed entries, dynamic, so that the material or links shown automatically change over time without the intervention of an editor. Selected articles, could be set up to change daily, for example, to present a different article each day. This can even be made to show a different article every time a user visits the page. Currently, we can do this from a set list. We're trying to make it so that the list is updated automatically from an external source that is regularly maintained.
Other automated solutions are being sought or developed for each section type of portals. To automatically update and archive news, did you know entries, and so on.
Once we get a fully automated design worked out, it will be applied to all the portals that do not have dedicated maintainers. This will reduce the amount of maintenance they need. A single editor will then be able to watch over far more portals than before, ideally, with each portal taking up only a single page in portal space.
The Portal WikiProject is dedicated to updating, upgrading, and maintaining the entire portal system and every portal in it.
Come check us out, and if you like what you see, feel free to join. — The Transhumanist 05:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closure imminent
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's the 1-month mark. Requests for closure has been notified. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know one of the closures had in mind to keep this open longer, but in my opinion a close would get us started on next possible steps to take. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like oppose already has a substantial lead on support, so I don't expect that leaving this open for longer will result in any change to the outcome. At this point, whoever is going to close this RfC can focus on the details of said closure. Master of Time(talk) 20:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing this at present. We have decided to keep everything open in the meantime to allow discussion to continue, as various constructive discussions seem to be ongoing. Mdann52 (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not envy the editors who are tasked with closing this discussion. I've reviewed a good chunk of the supports and opposes, and I find that those who favor deprecation are far more persuasive in their reasoning (in the interests of disclosure, I support phasing out portals) – however, unless I've miscalculated, they appear to be outnumbered by those who wish to retain the current system. Kurtis(talk) 21:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The number of users against the destruction of the portal system is at least twice as high as the number of those who wanted to destroy the harmonious and interesting present-day current system. Therefore, it is better to count. The advantage of supporters for maintaining portals is evident and impressive, which portals can shut down. If someone still wants to destroy the work of others - this is not the case. One can not disregard the thoughts of hundreds of users to meet their own ambitions or depriving complexes. The Transhumanist do you agree with me?--Yasnodark (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasnodark: You are correct, they cannot disregard the thoughts of so many editors, because those thoughts are and will continue to be backed by action...
Portals are a resource, that we can transform into something even better. Portals are only limited by the creativity of their developers. To get rid of an innovation area, an online laboratory like this, is as misguided as it is short-sighted. It is an opportunity to leap frog, that should not be taken lightly. And, in that spirit, we have editors who are determined to take portals to the next level, and beyond.
The proposal to delete portals did a disservice to Wikipedia in two ways: 1) it wasted editors' time with invalid justifications -- most of the reasons given for deletion were irrelevant, not based on policy. No amount of votes backed by invalid deletion arguments should be allowed to win. (See the instructions at Wikipedia:Closing discussions, which explains that "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." That pretty much covers most if not all of the supporting arguments that were presented.) 2) Those who supported deletion of portals simply fail to see their potential. But you can't build upon something that isn't there. If we keep the portals, we can fix whatever problems they have, and improve them beyond what they are. Who knows what portals will transform into over time?
So far, the new team at the Portals WikiProject has discovered a bunch of interesting automation tools just laying around waiting to be used. It turns out, that portal developers over the years have made new toys for us to play with that they forgot to tell everyone else about. In addition to those, we've been developing some more. The 1500 portals that we have take up 150,000 pages in portal space — all but 1500 of those are subpages. That is a lot of pages to maintain, just for 1500 pages of output. We are working on automatically generating material on the base pages, to make the subpages obsolete. Even as we are developing this new sleek generation of portals, we are thinking about what the generation beyond that will be able to do.
If we are simply allowed to continue, we'll update, upgrade, and improve portals beyond what they are today. And you can help too. Just think "I wish portals could ________." And fill in the blank. Then, share your wish with others at WT:WPPORT. You might be surprised by your wish coming true. — The Transhumanist 06:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reviewed most of the arguments, and find those for deletion less compelling than those for retention. Many on both sides are nothing more than "I don't like it", but there you go... Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 16:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support phasing out portals....but see its clear they will be retained for the near future. --Moxy (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, have you changed your mind? — The Transhumanist 19:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the "survey" part of this RfC has now been closed (as of 23:43, 12 May 2018), so any further "meta" discussion about it should focus on "lessons learned" rather than "counting votes". - dcljr (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many comments (especially those coming from the notices on top of portals) were exclusively about deletion, or about some specific portal. Each issue at hand should be considered separately, because on some there was wide consensus. --Nemo 13:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really do hope the closure focuses on next steps and, as Dcljr put, "lessons learned". There's clearly an enormous bloc of editors who think the current system (if you can even call it that) is badly broken, pointless, or even a net-loss drain on editorial productivity and goodwill, while another large pile of people are convinced that, in general, portals are a resource, an idea lab, and various other things, that must be repurposed or (some are convinced) retained exactly as-is. The middle ground is clearly somewhere in the land of "it's a resource, but we need to make it more practical and useful". I would imagine that getting there is going to take several more RfCs, and thus guideance on what to RfC next would probably be useful. It's been my direct and observational experience that when a big brouhaha like this goes down, a closure that doesn't specifically call for one more more next steps leaves the conflict in limbo indefinitely (e.g., WP:ARBINFOBOX vaguely suggested that the community come up with what it wants to do about infoboxes, and it didn't happen, so we ended up with WP:ARBINFOBOX2). Any time there's two entrenched extremist camps and a bunch of middle-ground people, closers should take pains to enable the middle-grounders to collaborate toward a solution, and basically just write off the extremists on both sides as outside of the consensus bubble. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Onwards, into to the future...
The main outcome of this RfC was that it inspired the relaunching of WikiProject Portals, which is in the process of revitalizing, rethinking, redesigning, and revamping portals.
Trasladado de Wikipedia:Bomba de agua de pueblo (propuestas) § RfC: Poner fin al sistema de portales
Remark: Neutral I personally think Portals are a good idea, but their implementation is all wrong. I see Portals as a way of linking similar subject matter. For instance, if I clicked on Portal:James Bond, I would expect to find anything relevantly related to the subject matter listed in a clear and easy to navigate manner. Portal:James Bond is a good example of what I expect a Portal might look like because it is well laid out with relevant matter. But, the few times I have ever clicked on a Portal link, I usually just see a great big mess of virtually unrelated matter, barely navigable.
Agree Current events is a very active portal and should be moved into a different namespace if all Portals are deleted. Nixinova T C 04:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Done This has been provided as a very easy-to-use template. The portal editors who have tried it so far are exclaiming that it makes portal maintenance and creation much easier. We are now looking into adding more parameters to allow editors to configure it in additional ways.