Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:13, 18 March 2019

This page is for discussion by invitation of the User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria.
If other editors wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl.
Comments on this page by unibvited editors will be removed.

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

• Future Perfect at Sunrise
• Legacypac

Editors broadly supporting retaining lots of portals

• Certes
• Bermicourt

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)

Maybe a good idea. I'm participating to see where this goes. I've been anticipating a simplier RFC that says "Portals have to meet X criteria" Support or Oppose. The Macadonia RFC does not inspire confidence that a draft by committee of the whole RFC is the way to go. Legacypac (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Legacypac. We'll see where this goes.

I considered a simpler RFC, but it seems to me that nearly all the possible criteria I have seen discussed have supporters of difft thresholds. E.g there are some supporters of using VA level 4 as the criterion, but I would support level 2; some support for 20 non-stub articles as the threshold, but I would want to see a minimum of at least 100, preferably 500. And so on.

So I think that any attempt to propose a single package of criteria will inevitably turn into a debate about a broader set of options. It will be much easier to evaluate consensus if the RFC is structured from the outset to allow separate discussion on those various elements.

I am surprised by your comment about the Macedonia RFC. It seems to me to be going rater well: most sections are simple !votes on the options, and only the Nationality of people section has significant discussion below the line. That was inevitable in that case, but its notable that the discussions seem overwhelmingly civil. Given the underlying tensions, I count it as a great success that most section are straightforward and thae whole thing is low-drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. Having created a number of portals, I'm in favour of them as you'd expect, but I've always felt there should be limits. The galvanisation of the Portal Project has had benefits in cleaning up and making it easier to maintain them, but the recent explosion in the number of portals is IMHO unacceptable. Bermicourt (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Bermicourt.

Let's see what Certes and Future Perfect at Sunrise say before we get to work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy to join in but the RfC as drafted looks good and almost ready to go. If this is to happen, it needs to happen very quickly. CSD X3 may close on 2 April, and there is a risk of this RfC becoming moot 24 hours later, most of the portals it evaluates having been auto-deleted. Danny's RfC, effectively a re-run of last year's debate on removing the namespace, is also relevant: no one can logically support both. Unfortunately, we do not have time to wait for that RfC to close. Certes (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Certes. I look fwd to working with you, and I am glad to hear that my first draft isn't too bad.

I agree that we need to get things moving quickly. I haven't heard back yet from @Future Perfect at Sunrise, who has made only one edit today. Looking at FP's contribs list, I now see that they are making only a few edits per day, so I wonder whether they will be able to do the burst of quick-response work we need to get this rolling before it is overtaken by events. (However, I do think that regardless of whether there are any mass deletions, a consensus on guidance like this is needed for the future, so a belated RFC would still be needed, albeit less critical).

So I propose that we give FP 24 hours from the time of my invite (0600 UTC this morning), and if they haven't confirmed by then that they on board, we proceed with just the 4 of us. @Certes, @Legacypac, @Bermicourt, is that OK with you all? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. We can always invite others to join later. I'll see if I can put together some relevant statistics on existing portals. Certes (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think Future's proposal at WP Portals was the most sensible among the batch. Not perfect but headed in the right direction. Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• If the User:SMcCandlish is going to be part of this working group I'm out of here. I have no interest in arging with their inability to be factual or analytical. Their comments should be removed so we can have a focused discussion. Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac, I agree entirely.

I had already told User:SMcCandlish that this discussion is by inivite only, and had explicitly banned him from my talk.

Instead he is edit-warring to reinsert comments here. Next time he does that, it's an ANI matter.

Please, @Certes, @Legacypac, @Bermicourt, just remove from this page any comments by anyone who we have not agreed to include in this group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Modus operandi

I suggest that we go about this as follows:

1 — Is BHG's draft a suitable starting-point? Or should we rip it up and start again?

if it is ok as a start, then one step at a time:

2 — Should any of the broad, numbered headings be removed?

3 — Should we add more of those headings?

4 – Do we need to add some sort of meta question(s), some sort of options for a suggested philosophical "purpose-of-portals" type of overriding principle?

5 – Fine-tune the options under each numbered heading

6 — Agree an intro

7 — Decide whether we want to launch this as an RFC, or put the draft out for wider discussion.

@Future Perfect at Sunrise, @Legacypac, @Certes, @Bermicourt: any thoughts on that as a way for us to proceed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 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)

There were somewhere between 1500 and 1700 (I've seen different numbers, the higher number may include redirects) at the time of the ENDPORTALS RfC. TTH just spammed out a newsletter that says:

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)

I don't know if it is worth including yet. I'd like to see what others think. It may have merit but likely requires a new process which is hard to explain. Normally putting the process within a Wikiproject (think AfC) makes sense but not in this case. Legacypac (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac The difficulties of finding a suitable location, and the low traffic at the stub pre-approval page are good counter-arguments to that proposal. I gave up on stub pre-approval years ago, because the process had ground to a halt, and I suspect that it may be effectively obsolete.

However, my inclination is to throw it out there, even if we drafters all reckon it's a bad idea and will vote oppose. It's an idea which is bound to arise at some point, and it seems to me to be better to have it scrutinised than to have recur at a later date. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see the log to giving the option even if we think it will be rejected. However approval by a subject specific wikiproject seems more supportable. Absent a better method of approval option, does that not cover it? Legacypac (talk) 01:07, 18 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)

Also the draft RfC brainstorming at Danny's userspace never got very far as other approaches were used instead. Legacypac (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that background, @Legacypac

But we may be getting ahead of ourselves. Please could you reply in the top section of this page whether you think it's a good idea for 5 of us to work together on drafting an RFC along the lines I suggested? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Delete all Portals

We need to specifically exclude from deletion Portal:Current Events (move to Misplaced Pages space) and Misplaced Pages:Community Portal (already in Misplaced Pages space). These were the most valued last round. We should term it "depreciate the portal namespace". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 00:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggest new 2. Unlink Portals

Insert a new point 2 roughly like: "Portals are supposed to be a gateway to articles while articles are not designed to be a gateway to portals. Remove all links leading from article space to portal space." Support Oppose

Seperation might be a lot more palatable compromise between "delete all" and "built 10,000 portals". If somewhat separated like Wikitravel or Wikibooks most Misplaced Pages editors will no longer worry about the Portal space and the people who are true believers in the utility of portals can build an empire of them undisturbed. Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)