This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) at 07:14, 17 March 2019 (→Section 6 Preapproval: @Legacypac). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:14, 17 March 2019 by BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) (→Section 6 Preapproval: @Legacypac)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- This page is for discussion by invitation of the User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria. If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl.
Can we draft a joint proposal
I have labelled this draft as a proposal by me (BHG) ... but an RFC works best if it is drafted by several editors with different perspectives.
So I invite the following editors to work with me to see if this rough first draft could be reworked (or maybe completely rewritten) into something which we could jointly support as a framework which allows fair discussion of all options which seem likely to carry non-trivial support.
- Editors who I think broadly support a cull of many portals
- Editors broadly supporting retaining lots of portals
I hope that the labelling above doesn't misrepresent anyone. My aim is simply to choose a few editors who are currently seized of the matter, and who represent a broad spectrum of opinion.
I have tried not to select "cronies". I have had little interaction with @Future Perfect at Sunrise, but I note their involvement with this issue, and their role in designing the very prominent Macedonia Naming RFC. @Legacypac and I have had major disagreements on nearly everything for the last few months, until we found ourselves agreeing on some issues wrt portals.
I know that I could have invited many more editors who are experienced and involved, but a small group seems to me to be more likely to reach decisions effectively and promptly.
My thinking is that if we can each consensus between us on the design of an RFC, then we could either
- Launch the RFC as what we have designed, or
- Take it to broader design discussion, as was done at WT:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)#Draft_RFC (permalink) in preparation for Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC
I currently have have no preference on which of those paths to follow.
So .. please Legacypac, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Certes and Bermicourt ... can we collaborate on this? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
How many portals?
- How many good old fashioned portals are there now? My guess is a few dozen. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Previous issue:
- Single-page portals: 4,704
- Total portals: 5,705
This issue:
- Single-page portals: 4,562
- Total portals: 5,578
TTH created about 3500 single page plus others created some. I thought based on other data about 1000 other single page ones were created by other users but if the numbers in the newsletter are correct, the 1000 to 1200 includes conversions. Somewhere between 200-700 old style portals have been converted. Many old style portals are unmaintained junk of course. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Section 6 Preapproval
The idea of preapproval may have wide acceptance but the suggested location may be too obscure and low traffic. I can't figure out exactly what happens there. I can't think of a better location. Wikiproject Portals has proven incapable of applying any breaks. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Legacypac Oops! I meant to cite the stub process as example of a pre-approval process, not the actual location. Now fixed.
- Please remember that what we are trying to do here is to identify proposals worth presenting to the community, not to reach conclusions on whether any of us supports the proposal.
- So do you think that this idea is worth including as an option? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Another draft, by DannyS712
@DannyS712 kindly posted on my talk to tell me about User:DannyS712/rfc4, which also covered portals. My discussion with Danny is at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Portals_RfC (permalink).
Danny proposes a very different approach to what I suggest. His draft is directed at proposing a particular outcome, which to me seems contrary to the neutral-question principle set out at WP:RFCST and WP:RFCBRIEF.
Also, I think it is best to start by setting the criteria for what portals should exist ... then when and if there is a consensus around those, consider the next step of how to cleanup or remove those portals which don't meet the criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Portals has failed to establish a criteria. This exchange at AN is enlightening:
The Portals Wikiproject members can't even come up with a proper new guideline for what topics get a portal even when faced with a village pump imposed moratorium. The discussion is all over the place with no focus. Heck they did not even follow their old guideline about picking subjects broud enough to gain reader and editor interest. The only thing they appear to agree on is MORE MORE MORE and using WP:VITAL as a to do list. Their newsletter said they are pushing to 10,000 portals (off a base of 1500 old line portals). Now the number of portals will shrink until and unless they get new guidelines passed by an RFC. Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
That old guideline wasn't generally followed, ever. That's because portals (except those on the main page) get about 1 to 3 percent of the amount of traffic that their corresponding root articles get. In other words, "not a lot". That's because almost all their traffic comes via WP internal links. Almost nobody googles "Portal". So, for the vast majority of topics, large numbers of readers and editors will never be forthcoming, and never were. Out of the 1500 portals, about 100 had maintainers (maintained by around 60 editors), and maybe 20% of them regularly edited the portals they maintained. The WikiProject, and the community, need feedback in the form of hard numbers, in order to get a sense of what will even get used. How hard would it be to make a chart listing all the portals in one column, and their page views for the past month in the second column, and then sort the chart by the second column? That might provide some insight. — The Transhumanist 11:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Emphasis mine. Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)