Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bobbie Rosenfeld Award

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Bobbie Rosenfeld Award[edit]

Portal:Bobbie Rosenfeld Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yet another pointless micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal. Its contents appear to consist only of a list of winners of the award. A narrow and finite set such as this is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both: Bobbie Rosenfeld Award#List_of_winners and Template:Bobbie Rosenfeld Award. Portals shoud be used for broader fields with a much larger article set, such as athletics or women's athletics ... but I can see a case for portals for individual awards only in the most eminent cases, where the award has broad and enduring cultural significance, such as the Nobel prizes or the Oscars. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS This is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesome standalone page rather than handily appended to an article. I see nothing in WP:Portal guidelines#Purposes_of_portals to support this usage of a portal as a fancier navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there is to be a minimum number of articles within a portal's scope for it to be appropriate (or some other broadness of topic clause), then a guideline should be established to that effect. Handling them individually without established guidance is undesirable and inefficient. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the scope is plenty wide enough with, for obvious reasons, more articles becoming appropriate for inclusion every year - so the scope is growing. As for the "a portal is just a navbox" argument, that has been dealt with elsewhere, including the recent community-wide RfC on deleting the whole portal space. The nominator's refusal to get the point is frustrating. WaggersTALK 12:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – This useful navigational aid was just created this month, seems expandable, why delete so soon? If you don't like it, you don't have to read it! North America1000 03:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – complements the root article by providing the rest of the subject on a single page via a convenient interface (slideshows).    — The Transhumanist   03:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is yet another portal that has been recently created in spite of the lack of consensus in the community that we need portals at all, let alone that we need this portal. There is no evidence that this portal will actually be maintained, when the originator is simply creating a large number of unrelated portals, possibly because creating portals is fun. Rather than keeping yet another portal until we can agree on guidelines, we should delete new portals that are not clearly needed until we can agree on guidelines. The category associated with this portal is empty. This implies that this portal is not likely to be properly maintained in the future either. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Portals have been redesigned to make maintenance automatic for the most part. The previous problem was that in order to maintain them, you had to update the excerpts from time to time as they went stale and strayed from the articles they were taken from. Now, using selective transclusion instead of manual copy and paste, the excerpts always match the source pages from which they are taken. Similarly, the slideshows are populated automatically from selected sourcepages throughout Wikipedia (such as navigation templates). As the sourcepages are updated, the selection in the portals follows suit automatically. A missing category may simply mean that the category hasn't been created yet.    — The Transhumanist   19:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion on portal creation criteria[edit]
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Time for some portal creation criteria?. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 16:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Bobbie_Rosenfeld_Award&oldid=862672111"