Jump to content

Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals/Archive/May

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 11:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Western Christianity

[edit]

A portal about Western Christianity. Like the Eastern Christianity portal.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was invalid proposal.--cj | talk 11:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Presenting Wikipedia

[edit]

A portal for giving presentations about Wikipedia

Links to pages providing information about

  • Gauging intended audience
  • Presenting Wikimedia projects; types of presentations; basic guidelines and advice
  • Finding free-content presentations others have given (slides, audio/video, transcripts, papers, other)
  • Answering questions (the traditional and the difficult)
  • Lists of Wikipedian presenters (those with experience; those who have presented on this topic before)
  • Lists of presentations (given by Wikipedians and others about the project)
  • Links to similar pages on other projects (notably Meta)
  • Upcoming and regular events at which Wikipedia would be welcome as a {booth, presentation topic} (see m:Calendar)
  • Policies and basics about the projects : where to find core pages, how to explain core values and practices
  • Do's and Don't's : don't vandalize as an example (and how to demonstrate vandalism by noting what is already going on), do demonstrate dynamic content, do touch on other languages and projects, don't focus disproportionately on conflict...

Links to policy and meta pages

General links about wikis

Many of these pages don't yet exist and need to be created.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 11:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Blogging Portal:Internet

[edit]

This portal would be to do with articles regarding blogs. Look at all article in Category:Blogs and it's subcategories and you'll see the amount you of information you could include. Blogging interests many Wikipedians. Computerjoe's talk 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed there would be an internet portal, and I am therefore changing my proposal to Portal:Internet. Computerjoe's talk 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 11:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jihad

[edit]

I think this is the most important topic of our time and it certainly deserves its own portal. Jihadists commit the most terror attacks in the world and were responsible for 9/11. You watch them on TV every day. Their goal is to kill every unbeliever and to reestablish the Caliphate.

Jack1 18:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC) — The preceding comment was added by 84.146.239.240(talk contrib)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was althougth contentious, the majority supported creation.--cj | talk 11:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Government

[edit]

(9/2/0) There needs to be a portal to group together the many articles and content, relating to the Federal government of the United States (though also inclusive of State and local governments in the United States). This portal would be related to Portal:Politics, Portal:Law, and Portal:United States. I have mocked up a draft of the portal, with possible content at User:Kmf164/United States Government. There are currently 21 featured articles on U.S. government topics, with a number of others listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. A large number of featured pictures have the U.S. government as their source, with other "selected pictures" that could include government buildings, historical images, and others listed on commons:Category:PD_US_Government. Finding current news stories relating to the U.S. government isn't difficult either. As well there could be a feature that lists key current legislation and other happenings on Capitol Hill. A portal provides useful links to background material relating to current events. I haven't yet completed building the list of articles and categories; In addition to government agencies, there are government programs, legislation, politicians, etc. that can be included. As part of maintaining this proposed portal, I would also see to it that Portal:Politics and Portal:United States are kept reasonably up-to-date. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - portals on one country are narrow enough, but a portal on the government of one country is unlikely to attract substantial readership. Worldtraveller 01:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A portal on the U.S. government would have plenty of fresh content, which is key to keep the reader interested, and attract participation. To do this, the "selected picture" (for example) could change weekly (rather than monthly or less frequent, as happens on most other portals). The "selected article" could also rotate fairly often. Also, the portal could highlight content (pictures, articles) that were recently awarded featured status. More importantly, I think, the portal could highlight current news, and help guide people to relevant background topics. Finally, a portal can also serve as a topic directory, which can help people find articles. A portal on just the U.S., (which I'm willing to help maintain), should be broader and cover aspects of the country's economy, culture, geography, history, and much more than merely the government. I think a portal is definitely needed to provide a "thematic organisation" to the vast number of Wikipedia articles on U.S. government topics. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Portals, in my opinion, aren't supposed to be about organising topics - categories do that job. Portals are to highlight the best content in broad subject areas, which will interest a large number of readers. I don't think there are 'vast numbers' of articles on US government topics - I looked through the categories and estimate there may be a couple of hundred. It's not really a 'subject' that a lot of people have a pre-existing interest in - those things are what portals should exist for. For the purposes of organising these articles, a portal is not necessary, and the best US government content is better utilised in the broader country portal, where it will get greater readership and will make that portal much better. Worldtraveller 12:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the number of current congressional representatives (and articles about them) alone is 435, and another 100 articles about each current senator. Then, there are articles on past congressional representatives and past senators, as well as other government officials (current head of each department, and past secretaries), etc. There are also 50 governors and other current and past state and local politicians (e.g. mayors). Then, there are all the various agencies and departments, programs, Supreme Court cases, legislation, current and past elections, etc. I also disagree with your idea that "not really a subject that a lot of people have pre-existing interest in". A broader Portal:United States should cover topics beyond government, such as culture, arts, sports, etc. There is more than enough content covering the government aspect of the United States to merit a subportal. --Aude (talk | contribs) 12:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this really is un-necessary diversification and would set a bad precedent. Portals shouldn't be as varied as articles; they should be collective beasts, covering all facets of a particular subject. To create this portal would to set a precedent allowing portals to parallel articles - which is a Bad Idea. Should there also be Portal:United States Economy and Portal:United States Culture? I just honestly can't see a place for such portals.--cj | talk 13:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly do we lose by having such portals? The topics involved are vast; the portals have enough articles (and hopefully enough interested editors) to be well-maintained; and the servers will not suddenly melt because we have exceeded our portal quota for the month. The point of a portal is indeed to cover "all facets of a particular subject"; but why in the world do we want to artificially limit ourselves to the "top 100" (or "top 200", or even "top 500") subjects here? Kirill Lokshin 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how there would be artificiality in that. Think of what portals are external to Wikipedia: Google, FirstGov etc. It would hurt efforts constrain the proliferation of crap portals, entrench systemic bias, and sectionalise the encyclopædia. Supposing we did diversify portals in the manner you're proposing here, I don't see it working in the present structure. Perhaps we need a way of exploring certain areas of subjects in further depth within the limits of the subject portal, or by having 'contained' hierarchies. Ick, this is getting a bit difficult to articulate..--cj | talk 13:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we just have different ideas of what this entire process is for, then. Of the three goals you mention, I would argue that only the first ("constrain the proliferation of crap portals") is an appropriate one here; issues of systemic bias and sectionalization (assuming, for the sake of argument, that they are issues that we need to actively confront, rather than just waiting out) are rather beyond the scope of the original proposal for this page. Kirill Lokshin 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that systematic bias beyond this process. With my own editing, I have taken some interest in East African topics, but am most knowledgeable about American topics (especially government, given that I live in Washington). This doesn't mean that I support or like Bush (Washington D.C. went 90% for John Kerry in the last election). Rather, I view government as an institution that has been around for 200+ years and will outlast Bush. Anyway, I bring NPOV to all my work on Wikipedia and try not to make it clear which way my own political leanings tend. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Topics such as economy (with globalization) and culture are less country-specific, while government is a topic that necessarily is country-specific. There is a critical mass of articles relating specifically to the U.S. government to warrant a portal, beyond "parallelling articles". I'm not exactly sure what you mean? and why you consider it a bad idea? If there is a sufficient critical mass of articles surrounding any particular topic, along with featured content, people willing to maintain the portal and interested in the topic, then I'm open to there being a portal. I'm more of an inclusionist (Wikipedia is not paper) than a deletionist, so long as these prerequisites are satisfied. --Aude (talk | contribs) 13:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing a crap, unmaintained portal here. You bring up an important point, though about such unmaintained portals. Perhaps another prerequisite for people proposing portals should be some experience working on existing portals, and/or evidence that they would be committed to maintaining the portal. In that respect, I have started working on portals a few months ago during the Main Page redesign process. I see just the problem, and have been helping to address it (as well as deal with vandalism). --Aude (talk | contribs) 13:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think number of articles is at all a good measure of whether something deserves a portal. There are things about which we might have hundreds of articles which don't deserve portals, like, say, New General Catalogue objects, extrasolar planets, asteroids etc. Much more crucial is the broadness of the topic. Astronomy, law, gardening, geology, literature... these are all things which lots of people have an interest in. Portals about countries are interesting to lots of people as well, though there we start to get into NPOV difficulties - there's no way we could have 192 well-maintained portals, so geographical bias is inevitable. Sub-portals for countries is another level of problem still - outside of the US, a very small proportion of readers are likely to want or need a portal on the US government, and probably inside as well - how many people, realistically, do you know who might list 'US government' as one of their interests if you asked them? Bias is further entrenched and a US-centric aura emerges if this one country is given far more attention and exposure than the vast majority of other countries.
I very much disagree with your attitude towards government as a topic for a number of reasons.
  1. For high school students in the U.S., government/civics is a required subject. (as are biology, history, mathematics...) Topics like astronomy and gardening are not required courses, if offered at all. In my experiences on Wikipedia, I notice that many students including those in high school utilize Wikipedia, and something on government would be useful to them.
  2. A glance at the New York Times gives another indication of the importance of government, as a topic. "Washington" is a key section in the New York Times. As a for-profit company, the New York Times has to publish content that interests its readers, as apparently "Washington" does.
  3. Another indication of government as an "interest"... if you go on websites like Match.com, you would see "Political interests" listed as one of the Hobbies/interests checkboxes, alongside "Cooking", "Gardening", "Video games" and others. "Politics & Activism" is also a key topic on Meetup.com.
So, clearly government and politics is an interest for many people. As for bias, it's the same bias as occurs in news coverage in major media outlets around the world. The Sydney Morning Herald does not give the same amount of coverage to all 192 countries. For example, the three stories listed at the very top of the Sydney Morning Herald's world news portion of their website are about "U.S. government" topics. On http://news.bbc.co.uk/, the two of the three stories at the top of the page are also about "U.S. government". So apparently there are some people out there interested in the topic. It's fine if you are not. I'm not really interested in astronomy, either. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a Google search of the term, "Astronomy" and it turned up 348,000,000 results. A Google search on the specific term, "U.S. government" returned 355,000,000 results. Now, there are many synonyms and alternate search terms for "U.S. government", such as "United States government", "U.S. politics", "American politics", "Government of the United States", etc. that one could also search. Maybe Google and the Internet as a whole is biased? probably, but also a reflection of the fact the United States is listed third in the List of countries by population. A portal on U.S. government/politics would help organize articles and topics in a way that helps people find information. There is a reason top portals are linked prominently on the Main Page, I don't get it why you object to making it easier for people interested in the U.S. government/politics to find information on Wikipedia. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, clearly government and politics is an interest for many people - yes, I totally agree, and a Portal:Government and politics would surely be of interest to a substantial number of readers - it would clearly be worth having. You imply that US schools teach about government and politics generally, not just specifically US government and politics, and the match.com example similarly shows that people are interested in the general phenomenon of government and politics. I'm objecting to needlessly introducing systemic bias and making portals narrow. It's a bit absurd to claim I'm trying to stop people finding out about stuff they're interested in, and you shouldn't assume that I couldn't be interested in something I'm saying shouldn't have a portal. A portal is not a tool for 'helping to organise articles and topics in a way that helps people find information' - categories are for that. Worldtraveller 10:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from the Wikipedia:Portal page, from a year ago when the concept of portals was developed.
Wikiportals are Wikipedia pages intended to be the main pages for Wikipedians interested in a specific area of knowledge, helping both to find the information on the specific topic and to develop articles connected with it. [1]
This is fully what I'm intending to do. And, yes, US schools teach about US government and politics, not "government and politics" generally. And by looking at the New York Times and other media sources, they clearly have much material specifically on US government and politics. In order to counter systematic bias, I recommend that Wikipedia recruit more people who are experts on African topics, and other deficit areas. I would be delighted for these deficit topics to be better covered on Wikipedia. However, I sincerely think that countering systematic bias is beyond the scope of this portal approval process. --Aude (talk | contribs) 11:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the New York Times has news about the US government. British papers have news about the British government, Zambian newspapers have news about the Zambian government. I just can't see why we need a geographically-restricted, limited interest portal, where we have an international, wider interest Portal:Politics. Worldtraveller 21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My view of Portal:Politics is that it should cover political concepts and topics at a more theoretical and international level. I'd rather not overtake it and make it dominated by US politics and government topics. In order to go into more depth about particular countries, subportals of Portal:Politics are needed. I am also supportive of subportals dealing with the British government/politics, or any other country, so long as people are interested and willing to maintain them. For the U.S. government/politics, there is both the interest, people willing to maintain the portal, and sufficient depth of material on Wikipedia. If you prefer not to break down the topic of politics geographically, how else do you think we could further subdivide the topic of Politics, into subtopics? To me, a geographical breakdown seems logical, as it parallels how the real world works. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to subdivide at all. I really don't see the point in having lots of narrow portals, some better maintained than others, some extremely limited in scope, when we could have a smaller number of excellent broad portals, avoiding the bias that will be glaringly obvious with geographically subdivided portals. Worldtraveller 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're making some questionable assumptions here. If the people proposing these portals aren't interested in the more general topics, then telling them to go maintain the broader portals won't be very meaningful; they'll simply abandon the idea, and you'll wind up with a smaller number of bad portals. Conversely, if the broader portals are being adequately maintained, then we gain nothing by prohibiting the development of more specialized ones. Again, people won't maintain a portal on a topic that doesn't interest them merely because the Grand High Poobah of Portal-space told them to. Kirill Lokshin 12:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of "some better maintained than others" is indeed important, but CAN be addressed. I don't think it's a legitimate reason, however, to object to a new portal, particularly so since nothing in the portal proposal process above even mentions that. I noticed in conversing with you about Chetwynd, British Columbia, (it was a disagreement over process of delisting a featured article, and not substance of the artice), you mentioned that User:Maclean25 never addressed your objections. Here, I don't know what more I could possibly do to address your objections. Please, list any actionable objections and I'll work on them. For the issue of "unmaintained, crap portals", maybe we need a separate process such as Wikipedia:Portals needing attention, similar to Wikipedia:Featured article review. When I see a portal that needs attention, I do give it the attention. Wikipedia:Portals needing attention would be helpful in bringing issues to attention, and if the objections/issues are not addressed then would allow for deleting portals. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit different to featured articles, and what we're discussing is whether a portal should exist or not - 'actionable' doesn't really come into it, I just fundamentally don't believe this portal should exist - it is geographically restricted, it exemplifies systemic bias, and I would much rather see your and others' efforts going into Portal:Politics, or if you don't want to do that, just writing articles. Worldtraveller 17:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories can be used for organisation of a group of articles, wikiprojects can be used to work on improving content - portals, though, are a service for readers, and not necessarily appropriate for a given category of articles. I think we do need to be very selective as to what portals we have, if they are to have value. Worldtraveller 22:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - covers a broad enough area, would attract enough maintainers. Could use an automated rotation system like we've set up at Portal:Law and Portal:Astronomy (each week, one of four "selected" items rotates in). BD2412 T 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support There is a mountain of relevant, important information about the United States Government, and a portal would be a good place to help readers navigate it. Even the U.S. Gov't information that WP already has is a fraction of what is out there. A portal specifically covering the Government of the United States (and exclusive of state/local governments and broader topics such as politics) is an excellent idea. Paul 21:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kmf164, it is rather disingenuous to claim that a definition from more than a year ago supports your position. That cite is wholly redundant and from a time when portals existed separately to Wikiportals. The concept of a Wikiportal, which is what you point to, was abandoned. --cj | talk 06:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a rather huge topic and it needs a portal. Consider that at all levels there are about 20 million government employees (not counting those working through contractors); London (subject of a featured portal) has 12-14 million in its metropolitan area.--ragesoss 19:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Like it or not, the US is the world's only superpower, and it is home to 3/4 of the world's native English speakers. The topic's relevance and its ability to attract contributors are pretty clear to me.--Chaser (T) 13:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per and other supporters. - Jersyko·talk 20:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There seems to be enough content and interest on this issue. Kukini 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I never formally registered a support vote here. With nine support votes and two oppose, this isn't unanimous consensus, but is at a level of support that a WP:RFA, WP:VFD, and other decisions would go forth. A portal would help tremendously to bring together an extensive range of articles and topics in a coherent manner, and is badly needed. With 20 million employees and a budget of approximately $2.5 trillion USD (compared to 15,000 employees and $17.3 billion revenue for Apple Computer, for example), the topic is of more then enough depth, breadth, and complexity that a portal would be very useful. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Portal proposal process
[edit]

How have I failed to convince you of the key requirements outlined in the portal proposal process?

  1. Attract large numbers of interested readers
    1. I have explained how this is a sufficiently broad topic that will attract a large number of readers (e.g. high school students, people that read the NY Times, Americans with interest in government and politics, and I suspect even some non-Americans).
      • This is where the problem lies, in my view. You're probably being tongue-in-cheek with the last comment, but it does seem that you're acknowledging that this portal would primarily be aimed at readers in the U.S., and hence is the very definition of systemic bias. Worldtraveller 17:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Portal maintainers
    1. In addition to myself, several people have expressed support here who are long-time established Wikipedians involved in related Wikiprojects.
      1. There are quite a number of active WikiProjects relating to the U.S. government, to draw more maintainers from (if needed).
      2. I have even mocked something up, describing a plan of action (e.g. featured picture could change weekly, where/how the current news feature would work, etc.), that should give evidence to the fact that this would not be a "crap", unmaintained portal.
  3. Find a good number of articles, as many as you can, that could be showcased on the portal.
    1. There are currently 21 featured articles on U.S. government topics, with a number of others listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. In addition, WikiProjects are actively working on bring more U.S. government/politics articles up to featured status. A large number of featured pictures have the U.S. government as their source, with other "selected pictures" that could include government buildings, historical images, and others listed on commons:Category:PD_US_Government.
    2. In all, there are thousands of articles that fall in this topic area, including current and past senators and congressional representatives, government agencies and programs, legislation, Supreme Court cases, past and present Supreme Court (and lower court) judges, U.S. presidents (and other officials - e.g. ambassadors, cabinet members, staff), government buildings, elections, political parties, candidates, congressional districts, and many more topics relating to American politics. And then we could possibly include state/local government, which would involve governors, state governments, mayors, more elections and candidates, etc.

Other concerns, in addition to the requirements set out above, have been raised here

  1. Concerns about other "crap" portals:
    1. I have raised some suggestions on how to deal with this problem:
      1. Perhaps another prerequisite for people proposing portals should be some experience working on existing portals, and/or other evidence that they would be committed to maintaining the portal.
    2. In my own efforts, I have spent time on Portal:Geography, Portal:Africa, Portal:United States, Portal:Technology, Portal:Politics, and others to lift them above "crap" status and move them towards featured status. I'm also willing to spend time on other portals that I come across and find need help.
  2. Concerns about "systematic bias":
    1. I share broader concerns about systematic bias across Wikipedia. I would be delighted if more experts on African topics, as well as other more weighty, neglected academic topics, would contribute to Wikipedia. Apparently Wikipedia has attracted people to write enough articles about American television programs (Portal:Futurama, Portal:The Simpsons, Portal:LOST, etc.), as well as computer games (Portal:Pokémon, Portal:Final Fantasy, Portal:RuneScape, etc.) to warrant Portals. I think you are raising double standards for Portal:United States government, versus all those other portals about American computer games and television shows? It's not the job of this portal approval process to specifically deal with this, as I don't see anything in the portal proposal process that mentions it. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias to help out with this (indeed important) issue, but beyond the scope of Portals.
    2. As for a portal focused specifically on U.S. Government & Politics, I am open-minded towards other portals that deal specifically with government & politics of other countries, so long as they have an adequate number of good/featured articles and portal maintainers. It's also important that the parent-level portals are adequately maintained. (in this respect, Portal:Politics is well on its way to becoming a featured portal) With this philosophy, I fit in Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians.
    3. To counter systematic bias, I do chip in here and there to Africa related articles, as well as Portal:Africa. But, I'm by no means an expert, and there is a practical limit to how much time I can volunteer on topics outside my areas of expertise. Wikipedia is run by volunteers. I don't think the project would be as successful, if we mandated that people to contribute outside their areas of expertise (1) they would lose interest and quit the project (2) without the expertise, the quality of what they produce wouldn't necessarily be so good. To apply a different standard to portals, than to article contributions, is not helpful for making the concept of Portals successful.

--Aude (talk | contribs) 15:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--cj | talk 08:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism

[edit]

I think there should be a portal about Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On Wikipedia are many good articles about this topic and I think this religion is very interesting. Furthermore there are portals on wikipedia for religions which have far less followers such as the Bahá'í Faith and Jainism, for example. So we should give the Mormons, who have far more believers than this religions a portal, too. Also I think Mormons deserve a portal because they have allready made an impact in many countries and because their faith is growing. 84.146.218.47 19:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would maintain this portal, but I´m not able to create this portal because I´m not registered at wikipedia. I need the help of some registered wikipedians. Please start the creation of the Mormonism portal. 84.146.216.14 17:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not register?--cj | talk 08:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose proposal.--cj | talk 08:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian pop

[edit]

There should be a portal for Christian pop music, Christian pop culture, and the Christian entertainment industry. What do others think? I think right now, the articles are very messy and it is a very broad topics. I think there should also be one for pop music in general, if there isn't one already. Delta Evere 10:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support proposal.--cj | talk 08:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

[edit]

I think that a portal on Georgia is needed. There are a lot of interesting topics about this post-Soviet Caucasian state needed to be better introduced to a broader readership. The country has an eventful history and rich cultural heritage. Since independence from the Soviet Union, Georgia has been the focus of international attention due to a series of political events, such as the civil war, ethnic conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Rose Revolution. Many of the current Georgia-related articles are stubs or need to be improved and brought together in a more organized manner. Kober 17:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I guess there are a few articles nominated, but I think more are worthy of it. Thanks, Kober 16:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support A very good and a good chance for our Georgian brother to show the world a better understanding of Georgia, I will participate wherever I can, wishing the best of luck to our Georgian brothers! Baku87 18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87[reply]
  • Strong Support It would be great way to let people find out more about Georgia and its culture and history. Soso
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose proposal.--cj | talk 08:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:United States Marine Corps—Portal:Military of Australia → Portal:Military

[edit]

Both are serving as fronts for Wikipedia:WikiProjects more than they are as portals. In any event, neither is an appropriate topic for a portal, especially the former - you can't get much narrower than that. Portal:Military is broad enough to encompass enough decent content to become a useful portal.--cj | talk 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Both subjects are worthy of their own portal.--Looper5920 11:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger - neither topic is likely to attract sufficient readership in its own right. Worldtraveller 11:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Both are have sufficient import and information for a portal. —ERcheck @ 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not whether there are numerous articles on either topic, but whether those articles are of quality and whether the topic itself is broad enough to be of use to readers, not just the editors of the respective WikiProjects. —cj | talk 11:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you indicating that the quality of articles in the two portals is subpar? —ERcheck @ 00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that there aren't enough articles above par. That needn't cause offence.--cj | talk 02:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How many "above par" articles are you requiring? How many above par Marine Corps articles are there? How many sub par Marine Corps articles are there? Likewise for the Military of Australia? —ERcheck @ 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I have asked to be shown. I asked Looper below to approach this as though he were making a proposal to create Portal:United States Marine Corps. I asked if point two (see above) of the procedure could be satisfied. It is my argument that it cannot. I know it can't for Military of Australia and have yet to be shown otherwise for USMC.--cj | talk 03:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Marine Corps portal, just check the Portal — it is its own proof of sufficient articles. The links on the portal front page, plus archives provide > 20 immediate examples. From history of new articles there are many more. (The new article list only retains that last 7-10 days). —ERcheck @ 03:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these articles able to provide a continuous run of quality reading for the purposes of a portal? That is, do they meet the sub-criteria of point 2, particularly the first criterion? --cj | talk 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. —ERcheck @ 05:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Requirement 2 says "a good number of articles", which is defined in its footnote as "about 30", and there more than that number of USMC articles, SO THAT REQUIREMENT IS MET.Rlevse 22:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that requirement 2 does in fact have subpoints. I have never doubted that there are more then 30 articles about USMC; I have called into question there quality. (Also, could you not un-necessarily capitalise your positings: it equates shouting online).--cj | talk 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is different from the espionage proposal below. The two espionage portals are in need of work, but the USMC and MilOfAustralia portals are quite good. Saying they won't get a lot of readers is like saying an article that has a narrow fan base can't be a Featured Article. Rlevse 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but portals serve a different purpose to articles. Every article would not have a portal equivalent.—cj | talk 11:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cyberjunkie: what do you mean neither is an appropriate topic for a portal? The way you wrote this could be interpreted different ways. Rlevse 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Rlevse. By appropriate topic I mean a broad subject area as defined at Wikipedia:Portal. I posted a more detailed response to a query from Looper5920 here.—cj | talk 11:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cyberjunkie. Just FYI to your box at the top, I have 8000 edits on Wiki, 1 FA, and am the primary author of Portal:Scouting, the 8th FEATURED PORTAL on Wiki. Also, I came to this page by happenstance, not by invitation. Moving along, I see nothing wrong with a portal on one of the world's premier military forces which happens to be 230 years old; it is not "minor" in any way. This is a good, active, and well-maintained portal. The USMC is big enough and has enough support to warrant its own portal. Now if we were talking about a 3rd-world Marine Corps that was formed in the last 50 years, that'd be different, as would a portal on one division of the USMC. Rlevse 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The notice is not intended for you (was there any indication that it was?) – see here for what it relates to. And I do know you, Rlevse, so no need to recount your credentials ;). Unfortunately, activity and maintenance do not necessarily equate "good" if they occur in a portal that compromises the purpose of portals overall. USMC is minor relatively, even within the US military. --cj | talk 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The USMC is NOT minor in the US military (and no, I was not a US Marine). Smaller size does not equate to minor nor insignificant. There is no way you'll convince me that it is minor and doesn't warrant a portal when Star Wars does. We also have a fundamental difference of opinion of what "broad scope" means for a portal. This could mean covering the entire USMC, just as the FEATURED PORTAL Portal:London covers just one city in England. Based on your rationale, this should be deleted and moved into Portal:World Cities (one military branch of one country = one country's capital and portal each vis a vis one worldwide miltary portal or portal for world cities). To quote yourself: "and it (USMC Portal) is laughable to even attempt to place it equal to a country"...then how can you equate London to a country? Furthermore, further down this very page you say that there should not be a Sydney portal because there is an Australila portal, so why is there both a London and England portal? Rlevse 17:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to remain open-minded. Do you not concede that are vastly more facets to a city or country than there is to one branch of a larger force? It is very much a strawman argument to compare them. I opposed Portal:Sydney in accordance with my arguments here; there is not enough (see point two of the proposal procedure) content to justify its existence. And to clarify my rationale for you, I argue that subportals should be created when necessary and only after a hierarchy has been established - hence, I would not support Portal:World Cities nor would I oppose USMC if it could not be sufficiently covered in a higher portal. But it can.--cj | talk 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A large (but not small) country is more complex than a military branch, but not a city, not even London. You miss my point, I wasn't comparing USMC to a country but that you have London when have England too yet say Sydney can't exist as a portal. USMC can not be sufficiently covered in a higher portal. Also note that you have only one person supporting you here; you can't ignore all these other users. Rlevse 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Military" is much too broad a topic. There's no reason to jumble every military of every country in the world together into one portal. It would defeat the purpose, because not many people care about every military in the world equally, so they would still end up having to sift through tons of crap to find what they're looking for. If Star Wars can have a portal, then surely the Marines can. Kafziel 12:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Portal:Military would be no broader than Portal:Law or Portal:Economics. And you're missing the point of what Portal:Military would be: it would be about military, not militaries exclusively. It is general topics that are most popular with readers; systemic bias means that editors concern themselves with sectional or obscure topics. While I have reservations about Portal:Star Wars, I'd argue it is still more comprehensive than USMC.--cj | talk 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A "real" military organization with over 230 years of history and actual battlefield accomplishments has less value than a movie made in 1977. Very well...I see where you are coming from.--Looper5920 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I never asserted that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said Star Wars (a series of movies) is more comprehensive.--cj | talk 14:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I still argue that you do not know the entire scope of the USMC articles and are arguing from a position of ignorance. While it may not be a subject you are familiar with it is a very robust topic as it stands and there are still thousands of articles to be created.--Looper5920 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made an effort to read through USMC coverage, though I accept my knowledge of its extent is less than yours. However, ignorance is not my position. I don't dispute that it is a robust topic numerically (indeed, most of Wikipedia is), but I do argue that what content there is is limited and does not require a portal as an entry-point to it. You say yourself that much remains to be done – this shows that it is not yet necessary (recall trickle down). If you believe my appreciation is defective, perhaps you could enlighten me? Approach this as though you were proposing to create Portal:United States Marine Corps. Could you satisfy point two of the procedure?--cj | talk 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to enlighten you in order to keep this Portal? I will once again go back to my "Sole determiner" quote. I don't feel the need to have to justify it to you. It speaks for itself as witnessed by the small amount of votes you recieved in favor of your proposal. Another thing about this proposal of yours that really got me riled up was also the shady way in which you went about it. You did not speak to anyone in the Portal, no suggestions, etc... you just went ahead and did it. Then you did not even list on the talk page that you were proposing getting rid of it rather you just said a proposal has been put forward. A bit of an understatement to say the least. You complain about a rally cry but you try and delete the portal by listing it for merger on a fairly new and very lightly travelled page. This is not Afd as can be witnessed by the small amount of people that provide input. Bottomline, you should have spoken to some people before putting your proposal forward. --Looper5920 04:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I rejected your claim that I was ignorant and asked you to prove me wrong. That you are responding with incivility shows that your argument is weak. Moreover, it makes apparent that you are simply defending your "turf" rather than considering the wider interest. It is quite hypocritical for you to baselessly accuse me of "shadiness" given your activity, the result of which is the skewed debate we see here (though I mean not to diminish the voices of those who have legitimately objected). I would have been making a proposal regardless of where I raised it, so I chose a forum created specifically for the task. I duly noted it on the associated portals (when there was no specific obligation for me to do so). So how about instead of attacking me, you attend to the discussion? --cj | talk 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing I said was uncivil. If you took it that way then you need to lighten up. Second, by the "wider interest" am I to infer 'your opinion' since you are the only one chiming in on this? Finally who is really "defending their turf" here? --Looper5920 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find nothing incivil in your comments, than your standards of décorum are very low indeed. --cj | talk 04:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; there's absolutely no reason to artificially limit the topics portals can deal with. In any case, even if we were to consider a merger, why would we want to create a Portal:Military when we already have a perfectly operational Portal:War? Kirill Lokshin 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, because they are separate things? And of course there is reason to limit what portals can and cannot deal with else there would be no limitations. This isn't artificial either; it is a long-running convention that portals are intended for broad subjects.--cj | talk 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, there's an awful amount of overlap between them in terms of articles and such; the distinction might be too subtle for general use. And "broad subjects" is pretty subjective; I'd say the USMC is broad enough. Kirill Lokshin 14:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, look at it this way: broad = general.--cj | talk 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; personally, I wouldn't want my "Corps" portal mixed with the others. The truth is that the "military" subject is to broad to be lumped into only one portal. There is no logical reason to delete a portal which is fine as is. Tony the Marine 14:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean about "your Corps"? I'm not saying the buck need stop indefinately with Portal:Military; if necessary subportals for navy, army and whatnot might be created. However, at this point individual militaries or minor branches thereof are not required.--cj | talk 14:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "my corps" is a term used by Marines to describe the Corps. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So should I therefore take it to be an example of bias?--cj | talk 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You should assume good faith and realize it's an american saying. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Military" is too broad, however I would support Portal:United States Military. I don't think Portal:Military is the best way to group these topics together. Rather, I see Portal:United States Marine Corps (along with Portal:Central Intelligence Agency) as subcomponents of Portal:Government of United States and/or possibly Portal:War. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask how it is too broad? I think we may have all lost sight of what "broad" actually means. I have always understood it in context as "general" as well as "wide". It is important to remember that portals are not intended to correspond Wikipedia articles.--cj | talk 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not lost sight of what "broad" means. "Military" is too general or too wide a scope of topics to group together. Militaries are very country-specific, and are a function of government. As such, I see USMC and CIA (listed below) as fitting closer together, than any other grouping. In browsing Portal:Browse, I envision Portal:Government of the United States, which would have Portal:United States Military as a subportal. USMC could be part of that. I think the way Portal:Browse lists these two suffices for now. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the all the reasons above. There is plenty of content that could be on the portal, we just need more people to do more work on it. Just because it is not yet "comprehensive" as Cyberjunkie says above does not mean it should be gotten rid of. Every portal starts from nothing. —Kenyon (t·c) 22:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they don't. Portals are supposed to and are now required to be of areas where content is relatively developed - see point two of the above procedure. Sure, portals can encourage content contribution; however, it is not the role of portals to build content. That is the place of the WikiProjects.--cj | talk 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Oppose. The sheer vast amount of material on the USMC necessitates a portal. Just look at all the articles for various units, weaponry, tactics etc. I think this nomination borders on WP:POINT and should be rescinded at once. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no possible justification for an accusation of disruptiveness. What point is cyberjunkie supposed to be trying to prove, exactly? Worldtraveller 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. But adding a negative comment to literally EVERY single entry here, and nominating for deletion a well established, highly useful portal that everyone here seems to want, seems highly disruptive to me. I'm not saying he actually VIOLATES anything. I'm saying I think it BORDERS on it. Please read a little more carefully next time. As you can see there is quite a large consensus that the USMC portal is highly relevant, and highly useful. Had there been any research done into the large number of USMC related articles, it would become clear exactly how useful this portal is.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be lacking understanding in several respects. Firstly, that you believe this is a deletion process would indicate you haven't made an effort engage objectively. Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals is not a deletion process; it is a proposals forum - this is to say, it is a place where proposals are discussed, supported or opposed before proceding to relevant processes. Secondly, and in light of this clarification, if you truly believe that WP:POINT relates in any way to this discussion, then you are seriously misguided and would do well to actually read it. If not, and you are simply bandying words such as "disruption" about for arguments sake, then you would appear to be violating WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --cj | talk 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is particularly offensive and a clear indication of bad faith stemming no doubt from your pledge to "fight".--cj | talk 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it is clear to me that a civil debate cannot now take place. It is by and large dominated by those responding to a "rally call" and who have not made an effort to acknowledge or counter arguments. Thank you to those participants who have.--cj | talk 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please. Why don't you try considering a position OTHER than yours. If everyone else involve thinks you're wrong, it's not some grand conspiracy against you: you're probably wrong. Calling everyone else here unfair because they disagree with your ludicrous position is, well....it says a lot about the reasons for this nomination. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above, you seriously need to brush up on Wikiquette – something you haven't demonstrated in the slightest. I have considered opposing positions and have subsequently countered them. This is a discussion: if you are not prepared to discuss, then don't bother. Please cease your attempts to personalise the issue.--cj | talk 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Cyberjunkie that this debate is not fruitful. Obviously, if you ask people who work on a portal if they want to keep it, they will say yes. This page is intended to involve the wider community, but this particular debate has been dominated only by the people who work on the portals in question and so is not representative of what the wider community feels. A lack of civility on the part of some contributors only exacerbates things. Worldtraveller 08:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the first place, there is plenty of room for a seperate portal for the USMC, although the marines rightly belong as a subordinate subject under the US Navy. Actually, the US Government has settled this debate in their own backyard since they are starting to consolidate the five military services into the US Department Of Defense. For example, the five services are losing most of their large bases to the DOD, where they are being declared Joint Service Bases. Fort Dix-Maguire Air Force Base-Lakehurst Naval Air Station is one example. The three bases - originally one piece of land that was parceled out to the three services over time - have been consolidated, with the facilities on each rationalized on the basis of efficiency. For example, Maguire will base all aviation assets - except the new Airship program which remains at Lakehurst, while Fort Dix will do all Tactical Training, and house all Tactical units. Lakehurst will retain all Aviation Research facilities. The Ranges on all three will be consolidated on Dix, as will the Bivouac Sites. My point here is that while we debate the inclusion of a Marine Corps portal, the Marines are - slowly - being subsumed back into the Navy for efficiency reasons, although they will retain their unique missions, their unique uniforms and unique name for the time being. Personally, I say that we should add sub-topics, not delete them.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solution?
[edit]

The tone of the debate on both sides isn't helpful; let's put that aside and work on a solution. I think a key point worth considering is that there are a number of people involved with maintaining Portal:United States Marine Corps. Portal:Military of Australia also looks fairly up-to-date and well-maintained. Many other portals have been created with no regular caretakers following up with maintanence. In those cases, a merge is sensible, but so long as Portal:United States Marine Corps and Portal:Military of Australia have the needed maintenance, they should definitely be kept as is. Given that, the question is now "how do we organize the hierarchy of portals relating to military topics?" I see that as perhaps what cj ultimately had in mind. My personal view is that there is more than one way to group USMC in a hierarchy.

  1. Group Portal:United States Marine Corps in Portal:U.S. Government, which is something I would be willing to help create and maintain as it crosses with some of my non-military interests.
  2. Grouping Portal:United States Marine Corps and Portal:Military of Australia with Portal:Military might work also, in addition to grouping it by country/government. However, I see some key prerequisites for Portal:Military that have yet to be fulfilled.
    1. We need a third military subportal for some other country than Australia and the United States, to give the "military" topic enough broad coverage. Portal:War could also be a related portal, and maybe something on Military history to round out the topic.
    2. Portal:United States Military would also be essential, as another necessary layer between Portal:Military and Portal:United States Marine Corps.
      1. I think it's natural to ask the people involved with Portal:United States Marine Corps to help out with creating and maintaining a Portal:United States Military.

Until some of these prerequisites are fulfilled, Portal:Military is premature and the current way of grouping these portals on Portal:Browse is more than sufficient. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, we could go with this idea (yes, I know, it's horribly self-aggrandizing on my part):
  • Subsume the hypothetical Portal:Military directly into Portal:War, which has significant coverage of the military already (for obvious reasons). There really aren't many military topics that aren't related to war; and those that do exist don't really have enough contributors to make a separate portal feasible.
  • Make the USMC portal a sub-portal of both Portal:War and Portal:United States government; and make the Military of Australia portal a sub-portal of War and Australia (or Australian government?).
Fundamentally, though, changing around portal topics won't work unless the maintainers go along with it; effectively maintaining a portal requires significant work, and people generally won't do that for a topic they're not interested in. Kirill Lokshin 18:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those ideas sound fine with me too. War and Military are more than enough related, for that to work. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
War and Military are pretty separate things in my mind. Part of my problem with these portals (USMC and MOA) is that they exist without a family. I mean by this that they are in essence great grandchildren portals but lack parents, grandparents and great grandparents. The logical structure one would follow to result at USMC would be: Society/Technology → Military → Army/Air Force/Navy → US Military → USA/USAF/USN/USMC. --cj | talk 13:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't you just telling us that portals shouldn't try to replicate the category scheme? ;-)
"Army/Air Force/Navy" isn't a "topic" in any sense of the term, but rather three quite distinct ones lumped together for no apparent reason. If you wanted a full structure, it would be Military → Navy → USMC and Military → US Military → USMC; but what benefit would there be to creating a huge number of intermediate portals if (a) nobody is stepping up to maintain them and (b) the set of articles they would showcase is basically the same all around?
I still think having a combined military+war/warfare portal (under whatever name) would make sense; even if the topics are distinct, the sets of articles to work with are not. The two portals would be showcasing the exact same content in different-colored boxes, essentially. Kirill Lokshin 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, Worldtraveller mentioned categories, and his argument was that portals aren't categories not that they shouldn't we structured the same. I wasn't lumping topics together - the forward slashes separate lateral portals. "Army/Air Force/Navy" is three portals at the same level. But you were right: US Military would be a subportal of Military, not Army/Air Force/Navy, and USMC would be a subportal of both Navy and US Military.--cj | talk 13:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think just dropping the debate for now and revisiting it later would be best. I believe both portals are far too narrow in scope to justify their existence, and believe that a broad group of editors would probably agree, but the current discussion is dominated by military fans and a sensible decision is not currently possible. Worldtraveller 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we all know that a sensible decision cannot be reached by Wikipedians whose interests include military topics. We need to be enlightened by someone as well travelled and well versed as yourself. Thanks. Can't wait for Round 2.--Looper5920 07:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support proposal.--cj | talk 05:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Canadian Security Intelligence Service—Portal:Central Intelligence Agency → Portal:Espionage/Intelligence

[edit]

Neither Portal:Canadian Security Intelligence Service nor Portal:Central Intelligence Agency could be considered useful in their present states, and indeed both seem to not be portals at all. They appear to geared towards general intelligence for that is where Wikipedia coverage is. Thus, they should be merged into either a Portal:Espionage or Portal:Intelligence - I'm not sure which is the appropriate term.--cj | talk 04:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 05:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore

[edit]

There's a fair amount of coverage of folklore topics on Wikipedia, but much of it seems to suffer from misconceptions both about the nature of the field and the sort of things that are appropriate to cover in articles about folklore. There's also a lot of articles that we should have, but are missing; there are articles we seem to have, but are in fact inappropriate redirects. Other articles need broader geographical perspectives, or what's just as important in this subject, a broader temporal perspective. (E.g. Irish folklore redirects to Irish mythology, which illustrates both misconceptions about the nature of the field, and essentially ignores current Irish folklore.) There are many red links on the folklore page. We urgently need an article on the motif index for folktales.

On the other hand, we have some fairly good articles that should fall into the purview of the portal: Christmas, Hallowe'en, urban legend, and a few I've started and am fairly proud of: legend trip, rabbit's foot, John the Conqueror, La Llorona. This sort of material also needs to be watched for NPOV fairly consistently as well. Trying to work through this stuff is a daunting task, and would benefit from many eyes. — Smerdis of Tlön 03:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for creation.--cj | talk 05:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Law

[edit]

This subject ranges all over the place covering different practices in different countries, interactions between countries, domestic violence, fathers rights, marriage, adoption, legitimacy, abduction, divorce, annulment, alimony, property settlement, parental responsibility and numerous sections relating to children. Not all articles are thought entirely NPOV and maybe they might become more so if they were approached through a portal. The quality and detail in many of the articles shows that enormous effort has been invested. Kittybrewster 22:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good comments, BDA! Kukini 21:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I have to agree with BD2412and Jdlh. I'm supportive of law subportals, but need to see more of a plan for what the portal would include, and who would maintain it. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 05:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry

[edit]

I think that a portal on the subject of heraldry is needed. There are a lot of categories that deal with this topic, including coats of arms, orders of knighthood, officers of arms, state ceremonial, and others. It would be nice to have all of this together in one place. The current Category is quite disjointed, though it has a lot of quality in its articles. Heraldry is something that a lot of people don't understand, and the current Heraldry article is to long and confusing. A portal might help straighten things out.--Eva db 09:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that a consensus has been reached. I'll hopefully start putting the Portal together in the next few days (as time permits and as I figure out how). Wish us all luck.--Eva db 10:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 07:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall

[edit]

Covering a broad range of topics including the Cornish language, culture, history, geography and nationalism. Something to bring together a rather disorganised group of articles. Also see Category:Cornwall [2] --Joowwww 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 07:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis

[edit]

Well... I did not know I need to ask first. Anyway, I already made a Portal:Cannabis, and I'll add more sections (look at the "Cannabis topics" section and you'll see there's enough articles in Wikipedia to fill lots of new ones) in the upcoming days. Can I keep it *pretty please*? Psychomel@di(s)cussion 22:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals/Archive/May&oldid=1140391641"