Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:00, 10 November 2019 editBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits del← Previous edit Revision as of 03:43, 10 November 2019 edit undoBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits Procedural note: NA1K is gaming the system. They supported the delisting of WP:POG as a guideline, but are trying to cite it in support of their actions as "schema for advisement" ... three words of pompous folly which means almost exactly the same thing as "guideline".Next edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
:If Bermicourt genuinely believes that the portal is a comprehensive navaid, then it has clearly failed. With trivial pageviews, it is clearly not helping anyone to navigate anywhere. It's not hard to understand why it has failed: it is on a standalone page. Navboxes work well because they are (or should be) transcluded on each article in their set, so that readers can navigate directly between articles; this standalone navbox lacks that convenience. :If Bermicourt genuinely believes that the portal is a comprehensive navaid, then it has clearly failed. With trivial pageviews, it is clearly not helping anyone to navigate anywhere. It's not hard to understand why it has failed: it is on a standalone page. Navboxes work well because they are (or should be) transcluded on each article in their set, so that readers can navigate directly between articles; this standalone navbox lacks that convenience.
:There is currently no ], and this portal could be used as the basis for building a navbox at that title. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC) :There is currently no ], and this portal could be used as the basis for building a navbox at that title. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
* '''Procedural comment'''. I strongly object to the nominator ]'s opening comments {{tq|While ] is now a failed proposal, it is still utilized as a schema for advisement about portals and in MfD discussions|q=y}}.
:] was delisted as guideline, and tagged as a failed proposal, because NA1K and other editors ''asked'' that be done. Having succeed in their objective, the result that its status now is solely as a document which has been rejected.
:NA1K's absurd phrase '''{{tq|schema for advisement|q=y}}''' is simply three words of pompous verbose folly which which amount to a near perfect synonym for ]. This use of avoidably pompous words such as "advisement" (for "guide") and "schema" (for line) as a crude attempt to deceive other editors is just a yet another way in which NA1K is ].
:The function of being {{tq|utilized as a schema for advisement about portals and in MfD discussions|q=y}} is what ] is for ... but POG is no longer a guideline.
:It is not acceptable to have NA1K being so brazenly duplicitous here, by trying to have their cake and eat it. If NA1K wanted POG to be a document which could be cited as guidance, they should have supported its retention. But having achieved it delisting, NA1K should stop acting as if it was still a guideline.
:NA1K's attempt to treat a non-guideline as an actual guideline makes a nonsense of the whole system of policies and guidelines. And the purpose of using POG here is very clearly an attempt to establish a precedent to bolster the bizarre and disingenuous stance which NA1K has adopted at ]. In that case, NA!K sneakily and stealthily rebuilt a portal into a massively POV structure, hugely biased towards NA1K's own country ... and part of NA!K's defence for their flagrant (and wholly unrepentant) breach of the core policy of ] is that they were following POG, which they quote as if it was an actual guideline. In that case, even the sections of POG which NA1K used do not in any way point suggest the result which NA1K created.
:This campaign of deception by NA1K is disruption is becoming outrageously disruptive. Just stop it, NA1K: if you get a guideline delisted, don't then cite it as a guideline ... and don't think you fool anyone by using by inventing a pompous fool's synonym for guideline: '''{{tq|schema for advisement|q=y}}''' is like some sort of parody of bureaucratic word soup. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:43, 10 November 2019

Portal:Schleswig-Holstein

Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an outdated portal that receives low page views and has not been regularly maintained. While WP:POG is now a failed proposal, it is still utilized as a schema for advisement about portals and in MfD discussions, as per WP:COMMONSENSE:

  • This subject is arguably not broad enough to exist as a standard portal, as evidenced by the overall available content on English Misplaced Pages about it, which can be ascertained at Category:Schleswig-Holstein.
  • In the first half of 2019, the portal has received a daily average of 6 page views, which for portals, is an inferior amount.
  • Maintenance and updating is outdated:
  • All except one of the portal's Article of the month selections derive from 2010, and were simply copied and pasted to new subpages in 2017.

It is my understanding that an option exists for topically-related portals such as this to be moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Germany, as has occurred with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Berlin (see MfD discussion), so that said portals can be utilized by project editors for various developments to improve coverage of Germany-related topics. As such, my recommendation is for this portal to be deleted or moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein. North America 19:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep or move to project space. This is a useful tool for improving and extending article coverage as well as a comprehensive navaid. Bermicourt (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to project space. This too narrow a topic for a portal, which is why it has failed to attract either readers or maintainers, so there is no basis for its existence as a portal. If, as Bermicourt says, it is of use as a tool for editors, then it should be moved to project space.
If Bermicourt genuinely believes that the portal is a comprehensive navaid, then it has clearly failed. With trivial pageviews, it is clearly not helping anyone to navigate anywhere. It's not hard to understand why it has failed: it is on a standalone page. Navboxes work well because they are (or should be) transcluded on each article in their set, so that readers can navigate directly between articles; this standalone navbox lacks that convenience.
There is currently no Template:Schleswig-Holstein, and this portal could be used as the basis for building a navbox at that title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment. I strongly object to the nominator User:Northamerica1000's opening comments While WP:POG is now a failed proposal, it is still utilized as a schema for advisement about portals and in MfD discussions.
WP:POG was delisted as guideline, and tagged as a failed proposal, because NA1K and other editors asked that be done. Having succeed in their objective, the result that its status now is solely as a document which has been rejected.
NA1K's absurd phrase schema for advisement is simply three words of pompous verbose folly which which amount to a near perfect synonym for guideline. This use of avoidably pompous words such as "advisement" (for "guide") and "schema" (for line) as a crude attempt to deceive other editors is just a yet another way in which NA1K is gaming the system.
The function of being utilized as a schema for advisement about portals and in MfD discussions is what WP:Guideline is for ... but POG is no longer a guideline.
It is not acceptable to have NA1K being so brazenly duplicitous here, by trying to have their cake and eat it. If NA1K wanted POG to be a document which could be cited as guidance, they should have supported its retention. But having achieved it delisting, NA1K should stop acting as if it was still a guideline.
NA1K's attempt to treat a non-guideline as an actual guideline makes a nonsense of the whole system of policies and guidelines. And the purpose of using POG here is very clearly an attempt to establish a precedent to bolster the bizarre and disingenuous stance which NA1K has adopted at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport. In that case, NA!K sneakily and stealthily rebuilt a portal into a massively POV structure, hugely biased towards NA1K's own country ... and part of NA!K's defence for their flagrant (and wholly unrepentant) breach of the core policy of WP:NPOV is that they were following POG, which they quote as if it was an actual guideline. In that case, even the sections of POG which NA1K used do not in any way point suggest the result which NA1K created.
This campaign of deception by NA1K is disruption is becoming outrageously disruptive. Just stop it, NA1K: if you get a guideline delisted, don't then cite it as a guideline ... and don't think you fool anyone by using by inventing a pompous fool's synonym for guideline: schema for advisement is like some sort of parody of bureaucratic word soup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions Add topic