Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/May 2006

< Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates | Failed log

Portal:Pokémon

edit

Nomination: After working very hard with the other members on the WP:PCP, and looking around various other portals, I have decided to try and nominate the Portal:Pokémon as a FPC. As some of you may know, Bulbasaur, one of the most famous of all Pokémon, recently reached Featured Article Status, and I think that acheiving an FA is proof that the PCP are a good project, with a good portal. It's well maintained, it has a great, active project behind it, it's regularly updated, and it's aesthetically pleasing. 'Mon the 'mon! Highway 16:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Strongly object, for a number of broad reasons:
    • Inadequate maintenance: no archives, no sign that content is being rotated on anything resembling a regular schedule.
    • Too self-referential: the list of templates is of no interest to the general reader, and should be removed; the collaboration, WikiProject, and to-do boxes should be collapsed into a single "Things you can do" box; inactive or completed WikiProjects shouldn't be linked to.
    • Inadequate content: the only actual content of the portal is a single, irregularly updated, article and two lines of "Did you know". At the very least you need a list of major topics (note that this is not necessarily the same as a list of good articles) and another substantial content box (some possibilities would be "Selected picture", "Selected Pokémon", etc.). The "Did you know" section should be larger and more actively maintainted, and the current nature of the topic may make an "In the news" section feasible, if someone can be found to maintain it.
    • Poor aesthetics: the "Category:" prefixes should be hidden. I'll also add that bright pink strikes me as a somewhat unexpected color scheme here, but that could be just a matter of opinion.
To sum up, this portal is a good start, but just not up to the level of other featured portals yet. —Kirill Lokshin 17:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feedback: Thank you for your comments, I can understand your points but I'd liked to say a few things back:
      • The content IS being rotated, probably not as regularly as it should, but the "Featured Pokémon" and "Did you know?" sections were both changed today, the first being based on the progress of the PCP, which at present seems to have scattered it's work over a much broader band of articles because our two founding members (Celestianpower and AManInBlack) are both having internet problems, preventing them from moving the project on profoundly
      • The list of templates is more for editors of Pokémon pages, since they are an integral part of explaining where help is needed most in Pokémon articles, rather than for the viewer, I shall probably suggest moving them somewhere else, based on this
      • I agree about the overkill on the "things to do scattered around", personally I'm not that experienced to go tinkering completely with the layout, but I will ask for help
      • We're currently fleshing out the categories, with more Pokémon Trainer articles being given more content (Breeding, Contests, Gym Leaders etc.) And have you ever tried to gain a majority decision out of 400 options? :P
      • I was in the proccess of cleaning up the "Things to do" section, as you probably can see, just before you commented, and I was about to move onto hiding the "Category" tabs when I had to go to dinner, it's life :P
      • I like the pink, I'm slightly crazy, but it goes with the "FPC Guidelines", as every single Pokémon, character and other entry with any infoboxes, has that colour, so at least it's contuitive.
Hopefully I've been able to expand on your points, and the PCP will take them into account, thanks much Highway 18:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a general point, please don't strike out others' objections, as it's rather impolite at best. —Kirill Lokshin 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, sorry, I just crossed out the points you made that we amended Highway 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking much better now. The main thing still missing is a topic list box. Kirill Lokshin 16:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I agree with Krill, it's a good start (heh - I made it ;)) but definately not of featured portal quality. I'll get round to improving it at somepoint (possibly in the next few days or so) but not to featured status. --Celestianpower háblame 18:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feedback: Celestianpower and I have been working together on this, with help from the comments, we have removed the tags section, I added the barnstar somewhere else because I think it's useful for other users to notice each other. We did some small tweaking on the intro, removed the "Category" tags and created a "news" section. We're also currently expanding "News" and "Did you know?" Hope this is an improvement! Highway 18:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-you can't edit the Pokenav section. There is a problem in the coding. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thank you for your comment, I was updating all the boxes, and managed to muck everything completely, but I've managed to fix all of them now, so if you would like to update or contribute, you are free to now! I've also striked out all the constructive crticism we've tackled, Thanks much Highway 21:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Kirill and Smurray's suggestion the portal now looks great, the section all have archives, and "Selected Article" and "Selected Picture" both have plans for next week's entries. (I personally dislike the titles but someone thinks they're better..) Hopefully the Pokémon portal will now receive some support, but further comments are also welcome Highway

Comment A barnstar does not belong on a protal.--Technosphere83 22:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The portal is just as much to aid the editors of Pokémon articles as it is to nagivate between them, and the barnstar is one of the few which is widely known as the award for Pokémon editors. It's applicable. Highway 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The portal looks gasthly since it doesn't have a single image (and I imagine that's due to fair use criteria) but having a barnstar at the bottom just doesn't look well at all. While Portals are also for editors, the main focus for portals in the Portal namespace is the readers; as a result, the PokéBarnstar doesn't fit. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I want this portal to be featured at this time, I can answer the pictures query. It had pictures but just recently, they were removed. I've queried this here but to no avail. --Celestianpower háblame 11:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Star Wars

edit

Nomination-This portal exemplifies featured portal standards. The portal shows off the best Star Wars articles. The selected articles can even be voted for at Portal:Star Wars/Vote. The portal looks nice and is very easy to edit. There is constantly new information being added to the portal and the Star Wars WikiProject makes sure there are always things to help out with. The portal is even widly seen[1]. I can see no reason that this can't be a featured portal. Jedi6-(need help?) 10:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object:
    • Why are there double edit links on the introduction?
    • The selected picture should really have some more text; at the very least, a photo credit is obligatory.
    • The same for the selected list; alternately, you could just remove that box.
    • While the portal was created some time ago, it's only been really operational since February 20, which is too short of a period to evaluate how well-maintained it will be. Adding automatically rotating content would help with this.
    • The concentric boxes for the topic list are somewhat crude, in my opinion; there's a lot of unneeded whitespace with the current setup.
    • The WikiSource and WikiBooks links point to non-existent pages
    • The images in the related portals box aren't spaced evenly, for some reason.
Needs some major work before it can be featured, in my opinion. —Kirill Lokshin 17:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is this. Also in response to your rotating content statement, we have a Portal:Star Wars/Vote section for people to nominate articles to be selected for the portal. I added a cycle in case nothing is chosen though at Portal:Star Wars/Vote#No nominations. Jedi6-(need help?) 21:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I'm still somewhat ambivalent about the lack of automatically queued content—what happens if you decide to go on WikiBreak for a week?—but I have no real objection so long as the portal is actively maintained. —Kirill Lokshin 17:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to worry about me going on a wikibreak, even if I do there is an entire Star Wars WikiProject to update it. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to the rotation; every week information is rotated. This is even more supported by the recent weekly quiz addition. — Deckiller 21:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: A slightly above average portal, few minor quibbles of my own:
    • The voting for winning picture/list/pic seems like a slight overkill
    • The news section seems really weak
    • The section that comes up at first is good, but it tends just to die towards the end, the "related categories" doesn't seem to be of any use, and it mess with your layout Highway 16:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added to the news section and made the left and right sections of the portal to even up. As for your comment on the voting page it is more of a way to find and nominate articles for the portal than anything else. I created it based off of the collaboration of the week and the featured article nomination page. Jedi6-(need help?) 21:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I like it a bit better now, personally I wouldn't think that you would need 2 sets of episode links, and the red links are slightly destructive to the tone you've set. Good work otherwise Highway 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are generally bad for portals except when they are used to encourage contribution like I have it. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is gold better? Jedi6-(need help?) 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better place might be WP:FU. In this state, the portal can't be promoted. Still, I had other concerns aside from images.--cj | talk 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Failed_log/May_2006&oldid=193805568"