Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nomination length

I'm curious what the length of time is for voting on featured portals? 8 days? 14? It doesn't say here... Jon 04:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Um...pick a number? I'll enquire as to the time limit on FAC. Given this a new proccess, a time limit might not be yet appropriate. Perhaps we'll sort of 'fall' into a time limit.--cj | talk 08:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

FAC doesn't have a specific time, but most nominations there are up for about a week or two. The lack of a specific time period allows the moderator to quickly promote articles with wide support or to let the discussions progress to their conclusion when there is some dissent. Slambo (Speak) 11:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

supporting personal portals

What is people's view on voting on your own portal. I have noticed people have voiced their support for portals they have created, but I really don't feel right doing that for P:L... can someone please determine whether self-voting is okay or not. Deano 17:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as we get full disclosure, I don't see a problem with self-nom or self-vote (like in my own nomination I stated that I created the Trains portal and that I maintain it on a daily basis). FAC has done quite well with self-noms and self-votes for some time. Many editors might not see worthy candidates because they are out of their own realms of expertise. Slambo (Speak) 20:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem here. Even if most commenters were from the related WikiProject, I wouldn't be concerned - and I wouldn't be surprised if such commenters had useful comments from improvement. Also, remember it's not quite a vote. It's quite possible to have a "killer" oppose (for example, if some of the key criteria are simple not met), or if, despite lots of positive votes, it is clear to anyone neutral on the subject that the portal is crap, jguk 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Time to promote

Is 10 days enough time to say that we should now promote Portal:Cricket, or should we give it a fortnight? Personally, as long as there are at least 4 supports, not more than one oppose and no killer oppose, I think 10 days is enough (and is what we use on WP:FLC), but I'm reluctant to just promote now myself as I'm the portal's sponsor, jguk 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Although a fortnight might be a wholer timer, there 5 supports and no opposition suggests the Cricket Portal is ready. I agree it would be a conflict of interest for the candidate's sponser to promote their portal themselves. I'm happy to do it (and will now). Congratulations to the first featured portal!--cj | talk 09:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Cyberjunkie.

By the way, it struck me that we need some guidance on what to do when promoting or failing a portal akin to what we have on Featured lists. Eg update log, add to WP:GO, etc. Do others agree? jguk 18:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

800x600

I was about to support Portal:London; but then I realized it does not fit in a 800x600 resolution. Should this be a basic requirement of portals as they are the frontpage to an entire subject area? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say yes... but then I have no idea how to do this... could someone let me know and then I'll do it for P:L. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 12:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

More promotions or failures?

I noticed Portal:Trains and Portal:Constructed languages have both been on here since 11 Dec 14 Dec respectively. It's been 13 days for the latter and over 14 days for the former. Time to promote/fail? Jon 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There are still unresolved issues on these, and it looks like these may be resolved. As long as these issues are still being discussed, and at present they are, let's keep them as candidates. We should be in no particular hurry to promote, and we shouldn't fail candidacies that are on the verge of being successful, jguk 19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:What is a featured portal?

Please see my proposed change here, jguk 19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have some additional proposals forWikipedia:What is a featured portal? and would like some input. Thx in advance :) --Technosphere83 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What's different about this and the current one? They look extremely similar. Rlevse 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry it's on the talkpage --Technosphere83 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What should happen in a discussion in order to promote a Portal?

In FLC we find that in order to be promoted, a list needs to be on the candidates page for 10 days and garner 4 supports (including the nominator's). What about FPCAN? What criteria do we use? At this time, the older candidacy is 1 month old. Afonso Silva 08:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a set criteria. I close the nominations largely at my own discretion. Part of the reason I leave featured portal candidates open to consideration longer then candidates in like processes is because WP:FPCAN is less visited. Another reason is that this process is essentially dual purpose; with most candidates, we ultimately peer review and assess against criteria. The average candidacy period is around 2-3 weeks. --cj | talk 08:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But I think something should be present in the introduction, as in other "F*C". I agree with you, when you say that FPCAn is less visited, so, a longer period should be considered. And, since there is no "Portal peer review", the FPCAN is, currently, the best way to review a Portal. I hope FPCAN participation improves and in the future we can set objective criteria. Cheers! Afonso Silva 10:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Portugal

Can the Portal be promoted? It is listed since June 10 and all issues are solved. Afonso Silva 18:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the normal period before promotion is about three weeks, although some portals have spent longer here before promotion even with no objections.-gadfium 20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's too long. I know I'm a nominator and I have interest in the promotion of a Portal. But from a NPOV, I think 3 weeks is too long, as no other featured content candidacies have to wait so many time before a possible promotion. Lists have a limit of 10 days. Articles, despite not having a limit, usually spend about two weeks, or less. Images spend 7 days. Considering this, and the fact that FPCAN is, perhaps, the less visited featured candidates page, I agree that a slightly larger period, for example, of 2 weeks, is good, more than that, like 6 weeks (e.g. Portal:Free software) is absolutely incomprehensible. A discussion about the time limit should be carried out.Afonso Silva 22:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The New Zealand portal spent four weeks here without any objection which lasted for more than a couple of days, as I recall, until I tapped Cyberjunkie on the shoulder and suggested it was time he promoted it. On the other hand, someone did find a formatting flaw in it shortly afterwards, which only showed up on one browser, but caused some sections to appear blank. I agree there should be some clear guidelines, but I think three weeks is reasonable.-gadfium 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Time limit

Should we create a standard, a time limit? I think we should, just like the other "F*C"'s. Three weeks seems good to me, despite being a lot more in comparison to the remaining pages. But I'd support it. Having no time limit is not reasonable. Afonso Silva 20:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:FAC doesn't have any real time limit, since promotions are basically done whenever Raul654 feels it's appropriate. The other F*Cs, on the other hand, have no limit on who does promotions, and so need more formal guidelines to make sure everyone is on the same page in that regard. I guess the real question is whether cyberjunkie is going to be handling all of the promotions personally, or if we want a system more like the the non-FAC pages where anyone—or at least more than one person—could be doing them. Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both systems, I just find a bit stupid that some Portals are listed since early May. But anyway, I hope we can find a solution. Is promoting a Portal a hard task? Afonso Silva 09:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really; it's just a question of who would be trusted to make the call of whether consensus had been achieved or not. Kirill Lokshin 11:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can combine a time limit with a single person closing the debates. The time limit would make the page more useful. If candidacies have objections at the time of closing the debate, those candidacies are delisted and the maintainers try again in the future. That's what happens with the remaining featured content candidates. the Free Software Portal is listed since early May, that makes the page seem idle. Afonso Silva 23:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi y'all. I do apologise for my rather abrupt Wikibreak; I realise that my absence left a lot of questions with regards to maintenance. I suppose these ought to be cleared up now. I've never asserted that I fulfil an exclusive role, merely that I fulfil informally the functions of a "featured portal director" (or, simply, the role Raul plays at FAC). I came to this position as a consequence of founding "featured portals". I actually expected that Jguk, who was involved early-on, would also assist. So far as I can see it, we have three options, all of which I have no particular issue with: we continue the status quo; we formalise my role; or, we open the field within set guidelines. I don't feel a time limit is appropriate in the 1st or 2nd options, but it might be necessary it the 3rd. --cj | talk 07:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, if we go with either of the first two options, it might be worthwhile to name (formally or informally) one or more deputies to take over promotions if you go on Wikibreak again. Otherwise, we'll wind up in the same situation of nominations sitting open for months because nobody knows who's supposed to be closing them. Kirill Lokshin 12:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Promotions, wikibreaks, and so forth

Since cyberjunkie appears to be on an actual wikibreak, I've gone ahead and promoted two candidacies (Portal:Politics and Portal:Portugal) and failed one (Portal:Free software). I doubt these promotions will be controversial in of themselves (though I expect I might be surprised here), but I do realize that I'm not the "regular" closer here. Any comments or complaints about my actions would be very welcome.

For the future, however, I think we need to come to some sort of a decision regarding the process used here. Raul654 handles everything personally, but he doesn't go on wikibreaks—ever! We really cannot have nominations sitting open for two months. Kirill Lokshin 04:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a list of criteria for closing similar to the WP:FLC one is the best option. We define "what is a featured portal", people object or support with basis on that. If in a certain period of time a portal has garnered a certain number of supports, the portal is promoted, otherwise the nominator must try again. Afonso Silva 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review type thing

Is there any way i could put Portal:Cetaceans for peer review or something like it so that i can find out things that could be improved on. I don't know about nominating it for FA yet, but i was interested in making it as good as possible. chris_huh 13:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A few portals have been submitted to the general Wikipedia:Peer review and had satisfactory responses.--cj | talk 05:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hide/Show boxes in portal sections?

Here's a question. Are hide/show boxes in portal sections "okay" for a "featured" portal? Rfrisbie^talk 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So long as they default to show. These gadgets don't work in skins other than monobook, so if they default to hide then I'll only see them in Wikicode.-gadfium 20:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I understand how they work right now, the initial position can't be controlled. They "Show" with one box on a page or "Hide" with two or more boxes on a page. Quite a while ago, I was told control of the initial display mode would be added "real soon now." That means "don't count on it." That sounds like, unless there's only one, they're not a good idea for portals, if at all. Rfrisbie^talk 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be iffy. Worth an ask, at least. Anyway, I don't know how far we should assume that people will want to go clicking on extra buttons to reveal content, rather than having it all right in front of them. riana_dzasta 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Time limit... suggested guidelines

I propose that the following (based entirely on WP:FLC) be adopted into the formal proceedure for the Featured Portal process:

Featured portal candidates will remain on this page for a minimum period of 10 days. Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured portal status, and a portal must also garner a minimum of 4 "Support" votes (counting the original nomination as a "Support" vote, provided it is not withdrawn). Featured portals that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list and added to the failed log unless

1. objections are being actively addressed; or
2. although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes.

In these cases a short additional period of time will be given to the portal to see whether it can attract more support.

What do people think? Tompw 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For reasons I've stated elsewhere on this page, I don't think imposing an arbitrary time limit is a Good Idea. The second part of your suggestion is common practice and is followed already.--cj | talk 09:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that this is a "leisurely" process. However, the length of time to promotion for portals that meet the criteria seems to be unrelated to consensus being established that those criteria have been met. I can see having a minimum time set to allow for any objections to be noted. However, when consensus is established the criteria are met, I see no point in dragging out the actual promotion. That's what appears to me to be happening now. If this is primarily a criterion-based, rather than a time-based, process, then it's taking too long in many cases. When the consensus is the criteria clearly are met, then the promotion actions should be taken shortly after the minimum nomination period. Rfrisbie^talk 13:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal review volunteers

I've had some very good luck going directly to established portal reviewers and asking them for tips about how I could improve my current "pet" portal (pun intended ;-) to featured status. This seems to be catching on, and other developers are doing the same thing. I think that's great! There seems to be a fairly well-established consensus on what makes a good portal; and a few extra eyes and keyboards helps clean things up very quickly. Addressing all the tips from reviewers virtually guarantees a successful candidacy and makes the actual nomination process run much smoother.

Consequently, I started this list of portal review volunteers as a way to better coordinate and spread the word about this type of "pre-nomination review." Of course, I prefer the "money where my mouth is" approach, so my name is first on the list. I hope those of you who have been gracious enough to help me continue to share your expertise, and newcomers to this form of barn "bronze star" raising process feel welcome to pitch in as well.

By the way, just because your name isn't on the list, it doesn't mean I won't try to hit you up for some tips anyway! >;-o) Rfrisbie^talk 16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I haven't been ignoring the requests posted to my own talk page. I just haven't had a chance to put my thoughts together. A review like this is not something that I would want to just get a couple of "do X and Y" with no further discussion (and I really dislike the automated reviews that have been popping up on FAC recently), and remembering to look at my talk page for open tasks isn't working as well as I'd hoped it would (I'll find a better solution for this; it's on my todolist, really!). Slambo (Speak) 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. There's nothing wrong with waiting for the right time. :-) I'm very happy with the level of conversations that have been going on at the talk pages. Personally, I find the feedback/revision process a lot easier to follow at the portal, rather than at a nomination page. Rfrisbie^talk 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not saying I'm that good at it, but I'll chip in my two cents when the circumstances arise. Badbilltucker 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to add your name to the list. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added myself to the list. =) Nishkid64 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal improvement collaborations

I added an infobox at the top of this page to list the portals I know of that currently are in collaborations for improvement to meet the Featured Portal criteria. Right now, this is a rather informal process that seems to work quite well. I suggest listing portals in collaborations up to and including when they are listed as featured portal candidates. They can be removed from the list when they reach FP status or when the collaboration ends. As time goes by, this collaboration process might or might not become more formalized. Rfrisbie^talk 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether this might be more appropriate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals?--cj | talk 20:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be true. On the other hand, I believe it also has relevance to this page. Specifically, I would like to propose an adition to the featured portal candidate process to include evidence the candidate has been the subject of some form of portal improvement collaboration. If such an addition is made, then posting such collaborations might better be placed on the actual project page here, or its own new page. This process could model Peer review or be a scaled-down version initially, similar to what is taking place for the portals listed at the top of this page. If there's some support for this, we can start a new discussion section. If not, I'll move things over to the project page, although I believe there should be a link to it from this project page to help non-project members find it. Rfrisbie^talk

Requirements

I bring this up here, cause it will come up in the nominations soon enough, I don't want anyone feeling put upon or what not, and maybe we can get a more clear concensous on what or how much a featured portal should contain. I think portals need a fairly large amount of articles, pics and such to draw upon(Useful). The only way to showcase these are to have them summarized in the appropaite "selected sections". Therefore I feel portals should retain atleast 6 months worth of rotated content. Wikipedia:What is a featured portal? mentions no specific amount of content. If, say, a portal mainainer should stop editing and a featured portal has only very few articles and such, that portal becomes useless. If a featured portal has a broad range to draw upon, why promote portals with few indicated high quality articles? Shouldn't we wait until the portal has matured(atleast filled out) to a more adequate dimension?Joe I 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, in general, we should avoid attempts to tie the quality of the portal too closely to the quality of articles on the underlying topic. Featured portal status is intended primarily as a mark of outstanding work in the design and maintenance of a portal; achieving it should not require substantial work on other articles. Kirill Lokshin 07:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to tie it to the quality of articles but the quantity of said articles that are incorperated into the portals. Joe I 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What does "atleast 6 months worth of rotated content" mean? The "quantity" for monthly, bi-weekly, and weekly rotations differ. What does it mean for a portal using {{Random portal component}}? Obviously, tieing "quantity" to "time" can't be a consistent standard. Rfrisbie^talk 13:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree on requirement of six months, I feel that any portal should have at least ten articles to select from in order to be actually useful. I have seen so many portals with just 3~4 articles rotating, which is too low to be useful. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 15:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I used six months, just as a measure of longevity. I realize with autorotation that there will be different cycles and time measures. I was trying not to put a set number on it, but yes I think 10 of each rotated content shows sufficient depth. Joe I 17:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting ideas. It's been a long while since the criteria was written, and the standard of candidates has (for the most part) greatly improved. Refinement to Wikipedia:What is a featured portal?, with the aim of strengthening its requirements, may be due. I think Ambuj's idea of a "minimum" amount of displayable content has merit. With regards to the quality of said content (mentioned above), this was an issue a little way back during Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America. At the time I said I would make an amendment to define the "high quality" content criterion, basically with the intent of expressly excluding stubs or otherwise tagged articles. Perhaps we should move to Wikipedia:What is a featured portal? for further discussion.--cj | talk 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree featured portals have enough of a track record now to revisit and update the criteria. Rfrisbie^talk 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC) By the way, given FPs "should adhere to the standards set out in the Manual of Style and relevant WikiProjects. This includes conventions on naming, spellings and styles. See Portal and Portal guidelines." it's probably a good idea to update WIkipedia:Portal and the Portal guidelines too. Rfrisbie^talk 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines direly needs work – it's dreadful.--cj | talk 22:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's do it! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 22:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been wondering about the part of What is a Featured Portal which says, "A useful portal is one which covers a topic area which is both broad and of interest to users of Wikipedia. Portals that cover only minor topic areas are hindered in their usefulness because the content they can cover is usually limited. A featured portal should cover an area that is broad and prominent enough to justify the portal as an entry-point." No one ever seems to base their decisions on this, and some of the portals that have ben promoted, in my opinion, do not measure up to this standard. Does anyone have anything to say on this? I'd like to know how broad a portal needs to be to be included in this statement. Regards, --Gphoto^talk 03:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that any portal that has the features otherwise needed to reach FP status is pretty much broad enough by default. (Certainly, if we follow the FA principle that any article which survives AFD is eligible, any portal too narrow to qualify for FP status on this count would probably need to be MFD'd anyways.) Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, --Gphoto^talk 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a working rule of thumb is related to the categories and topics sections. If those sections contain "enough" material worth reading, then the breadth criterion is met. More concretely, the number of at least ten items per rotated section is being tossed around in this thread. Rfrisbie^talk 03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? I was under the impression that the point being discussed was ten articles being rotated in total, not ten articles for each box on the portal page. (If that were the case, it would seem to push towards less sections of rotating content, which is hardly a desireable outcome, in my opinion.) Kirill Lokshin 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would be a lot easier! Do you mean I've been scrambling around to find more content on a misunderstanding? >;-o) I suppose that's another good reason to update the criteria and guidelines. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was 10 per rotated section. If a topic is broad enough, it shouldn't be to hard to find 10 above average articles, and 10 decent, illustrative pics, without sacrificing a section. Such as Portal:Portugal(four rotated sections) and Portal:Aviation(three). Joe I 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is archiving really necessary?

I was wondering if it was really necessary for a portal to maintain an archive of the articles and pictures it displays. I've been working on the Kerala portal lately (reviews welcome!), and it has a certain amount of randomness attached to its "selected articles" always (as explained here). Due to this, it would be quite hard to maintain an archive. I couldn't find anything mentioned about archiving in WP:WIAFPo, but I've seen people requesting an archive during featured candidacy. Would like to hear opinions on whether archives are really necessary.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that's not as random as the full on-purge random rotation that's become popular now! ;-)

More seriously: in this case, an archive is even more important than before, because there's no easily identifiable page history to look through. The point of an "archive", however, is not necessarily to list articles by particular dates; rather, its main purpose is to allow a reader to browse through all the "selected" material in use on the portal. In your setup, creating an archive means simply setting up an overview page that transcludes all the numbered subpages from the rotation; see, for example, here. Kirill Lokshin 14:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The portal used to load totally random articles initially, but later it was changed to show the same article for each day, as it was hard to keep track. The Kerala portal too has a page linking to all the "selected article" summaries at Portal:Kerala/SC_Summary. Would this serve instead of an archive?--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that'd do (although I'd suggest transclusion over linking, to make it easier to read through the blurbs). Kirill Lokshin 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All right! Done. Thanks!--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 11:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rotated sections: Number of items requirement

It appears to me the time is right to work on developing consensus on "How much is enough?" for rotated content sections. I support the notion that a reasonable number of items should be present per section, and that a minimum of ten items per section is in the ballpark. This requirement also assumes previously displayed content may be used again by whatever type of rotation method is employed, e.g., scheduled, randomized, or manually. Rfrisbie^talk 13:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. To show a topics depth, which is essential for a featured portal, ten prepared items for each rotated box should be adequate. Any type of rotation employed is fine. Joe I 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Topical portal collaborations?

Do any of you think that it might be possible to get the various portals which cover the same general topic to in some way collaborate? What I guess I'm proposing is that maybe once a month or so the people responsible for various portals within a given field, science or religion for instance, to maybe just exchange ideas on what they want to include on their own individual portals that month. By doing so they might be able to get a greater number and variety featured on the various portals in a specific field, which would probably help them individually establish more of a "personality" and also make it possible for a greater number and variety of quality articles to be featured? Badbilltucker 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal improvement collaborations II

I added an infobox at the top of this page to list the portals I know of that currently are in collaborations for improvement to meet the Featured Portal criteria. Right now, this is a rather informal process that seems to work quite well. I suggest listing portals in collaborations up to and including when they are listed as featured portal candidates. They can be removed from the list when they reach FP status or when the collaboration ends. As time goes by, this collaboration process might or might not become more formalized. Rfrisbie^talk 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether this might be more appropriate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals?--cj | talk 20:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be true. On the other hand, I believe it also has relevance to this page. Specifically, I would like to propose an adition to the featured portal candidate process to include evidence the candidate has been the subject of some form of portal improvement collaboration. If such an addition is made, then posting such collaborations might better be placed on the actual project page here, or its own new page. This process could model Peer review or be a scaled-down version initially, similar to what is taking place for the portals listed at the top of this page. If there's some support for this, we can start a new discussion section. If not, I'll move things over to the project page, although I believe there should be a link to it from this project page to help non-project members find it. Rfrisbie^talk

I think there should be a portal peer review page, like WP:PPR and WP:PR. This way, portal reviewers can watchlist the page. And instead of jumping around portal talk pages, they can review portals on one page. —sd31415 (sign here) 18:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Portal peer review looks perfect for this. feydey 16:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rfrisbie and I just started the portal peer review. The current request is the religion portal. —sd31415 (sign here) 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in the Featured portal candidates page, perhaps under Nomination procedure should be "0. Consider using Portal peer review before submitting a Portal here." feydey 17:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! —sd31415 (sign here) 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Promotion of Portal:Vancouver

I noticed Portal:Vancouver has been promoted by nominator without dealing and satisfying all issues. I would request the promoter as well as nominator, i.e. Selmo, to de-promote the portal and make subsequent reverting. This is very serious issue of making promotion by a nominator or an involved party. Else I would have to nominate the portal for depromoting, even it does not suit the criteria for de-promotion. So this would be appreciable step for avoiding any edit-wars Shyam ^(T/C) 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I find such a precedent very disturbing, since the usual closer has decided to let this stand, [1] [2] Rfrisbie^talk 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about precedent are understandable, but I don't think they are valid. While there is a clear conflict of interest in the nominator promoting their candidate, so long as they haven't defied consensus, there's no much point in arguing that process is process – it's the end result that matters. I've reviewed the candidacy and I would myself have promoted the portal on the basis that all actionable objections had been addressed. I think part of the problem here is that objections put forward with subjective reasoning are becoming to frequent; in order for issues to be considered applicable, they must have a sound argument based on one or more of the tenants of the criteria – otherwise, they can and will be discounted. The remaining point for this candidate was Web resources; while I do also dislike such sections (though I am partly to blame for their existence), they are not strictly disallowed by the criteria. If any further reasonable objections can be mounted, then I encourage a review. If not, then I ask all to be pragmatic and avoid fuss, and simply pursue improvements through usual discussion.--cj | talk 13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue on the policy page. If you want to share some comments, then please respond there. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Village Pump is the wrong forum to propose an amendment to the criteria (which is not policy). Please transfer discussion to Wikipedia talk:What is a featured portal?. For what it's worth, I support your proposal in principle. This would be a good opportunity for other amendments, like those discussed above, to be put forwards.-cj | talk 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So I did.

Shyam ^(T/C) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--cj | talk 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I already have said I'm sorry, Shyam. My action was conducted in good faith. Edit-warring won't be nessesarry, I'm open to cooperate. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for self de-promoting. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Which was an un-necessary step, ultimately. It is due for closure soon, and the result will likely be the same.--cj | talk 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Solicitation on a grand scale

User:Absar re-introduced Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Turkey/archive1 – which I had failed for incorrect filing and poor chance of success – and promptly solicited support from around 60 users (see Absar's contributions). I have removed this portal and left a note on his talk page requesting him to cease campaigning immediately, and advised him that Portal:Turkey will not be allowed a new candidacy until sufficient time has passed to ensure that an unbiased review can occur.--cj | talk 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiCharts: Portal

Check out this WikiCharts: Portal tool. As the data matures, this could be an interesting way to help focus any improvement efforts, e.g., featured portal collaborations, on high traffic/impact portals. Rfrisbie^talk 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Headings in candidate pages

Could I ask reviewers to please stop using headings on the candidate subpages – not only does it lengthen to the Table of Contents, it makes the discussion much harder to follow. Just discuss each comment under its initial placement by using indentations. Thanks,--cj | talk 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also echo the above suggestion. And recommend removing the headers if they still keep appearing in the future. feydey 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing

What, exactly, are the currently recognised criteria for closing? I'm asking because there seem to be at least two (and possibly four) nominations that could be closed, but no-one seems to be closing them. Two (Religon and Electronics) seem to have overhwelming support, and one (World War I) seems to meet the minimum requirement for promotion. Also, another one (China) seems to have been inactive for about a month. Can these be closed, or am I missing something in the guidelines regarding length, etc.? Carom 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It tends to be "whenever cj gets around to it", for the most part. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, then. ; ) (And, side note, is there anywhere onwikipedia that you aren't, Kirill? ; ) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carom (talk • contribs)

Yeah, this is outrageous, Kirill! You answered Carom's question in two minutes! =D Keep up the great work, S.D. ¿п? § 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Inactive?

CJ is on a wikibreak & nothing is happening in regard to the closing of portal nominations. I'm sure we're all sick of waiting around for the nominations to be closed by an admin, so it would be great if one could indeed make a start. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am on wikibreak. But FPCAN is not inactive – it's just running slow. I've not been happy with the amount of discussion being generated on several of the candidates, so I've left them open longer than usual hoping for further remarks. If no objections are made to Sustainable development and Dinosaurs, I'll be closing them later this week.--cj | talk 05:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the updating. :) Spawn Man 05:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I will review and promote other portals later. Portal:China was a self-nom though, and it's inactive for more than a month yet again (which depresses my urge to keep on updating it =\ ). Aquarius • talk 19:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Notification of relevant parties

WP:FAR encourages/requires notification of relevant WikiProjects and major contributors to nominated articles. Does the same apply to this page? I notice above there was an incident in January involving a mass notification of ca. 60 users, but this is nothing like that. What I have in mind, after listing the portal here, is to:

1. Place a notice at the portal peer review page stating that the article is now a featured portal candidate.
2. Notify the reviewer who commented in the peer review.
3. Notify the relevant WikiProject.

Which, if any, of these are encouraged/discouraged? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd and 3rd seem fine, so long as the message is neutral and not an imploration to support. In other words, the message should be consistent with the 'friendly notice' exception of WP:CANVASS.--cj | talk 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The text of my notification is available here, in case you are interested. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems perfectly appropriate :)--cj | talk 01:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Other "content navigation" pages

The Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics has raised the issue of whether pages that are effectively part of Wikipedia's contents should be assessed as Featured Lists. Unlike most FLs, they add no non-obvious information and should be utterly neutral and without opinion so most of our content policies have nothing to say on them. For example, the presence of an entry on such a page should be obvious rather than requiring a reference to support it. Many such pages are laid out in a style closer to portals than articles and lists (which have a lead, sections, notes, references, external links, etc). Much of the MOS is irrelevant and they make heavy use of columns, colourful headings and template navigation boxes. You could say that they are one big "See also" section.

If we are to assess and award "Featured Status" to such pages at all, which forum is best placed to assess them? I fear that if they appear frequently on FL, the distinction between writing an article (of which a list is a subset) and a contents page will be blurred. We will get editors complaining that we require references on this list but not that; that we adhere to the MOS layout and section headings on this list and not that, etc, etc.

One radical change would be for Featured Portals to be expanded to Featured Navigation, which would include Portals and other Contents pages? Is there an appetite for featuring such contents pages at all? Thoughts anyone? Colin°^Talk 09:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think this has any place on featured portals. It's not in the portal namespace, is not consructed the same way, provides no summaries of samples. It does not strive to, at a glance, give readers readable info of a subject area, without having to go to any specific article. Portals should be based on the main page. You can compare it to Portal:Geography and see the differences. Joe I 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Joe. It's definitely not a portal. Lists belong in the main namespace, as they are a type of article - the basic lists are structured and provide an entry to the subject as well as to Wikipedia's coverage of it (by being linkified). They're totally main namespace content. Portals are a main page / WikiProject crossbreed, which is why they have their own namespace. The Transhumanist 00:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Same, except I replied to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics#Round two OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, I didn't say it had a place on "featured portals" was "in the portal namespace" or was "constructed the same way ...." Forget appearance, layout, namespace, etc. The point is that that list's focus was on helping the reader navigate Wikipedia's articles and lists that form basic topics in Geography. It is a contents page. Portals are contents pages, albeit abbreviated and dynamic. Forget it.. Colin°^Talk 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But portals aren't contents pages. They're material hosting pages, that is, they are for sample display, that is, excerpt presentation. Like the main page. By contrast, lists are like tables of contents, as they are primarily lists of links (with some anotation and structure added) to pages in the encyclopedia. Basic lists aren't any more about navigation than any other list. All lists on Wikipedia are defacto navigation aids on their respective subjects. See List of cat breeds as an example. The Transhumanist 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for Featured Portal Directors

Please note: Those participating in the below are urged to keep in mind that the following is not a vote in a popularity contest. Simply express your opinion on only how the candidate will run the FPORT process properly. If you aren't familiar with the candidate, you do not have to make any comment, as this system is not mandatory.

Poll is now closed. Rt. 00:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Original end time was 00:00 January 1, 2008
Current time is 21:38, November 3, 2024 (UTC)

OhanaUnited

I started interacting with Featured Portal(FPORT) when I create Environment Portal. Then I went through an RFA, and many people (including those that opposes me) asked me to step up and fill up the vacancy of FPORT candidates. Since then, I gave comments and advices on various FPORT hopefuls as well as revamping the instructions for archiving nominations. I hope that I will bring better organization and improve the overall FPORT system. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Support! :-) RichardF (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC) After reading on his user page and RFA that he "worked extensively" to bring Portal:Sustainable development to featured status, and he has not replied to my request for clarification of that claim, I withdraw my support. RichardF (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support, yes (as I promised on his RfA I would) - although I've seen him participate in most of the currently active FPoCs (I think) - I'd rather he didn't go about closing those where he's had an impact. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• I trust Ohana to make the right decisions :) Spebi 10:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great contributor. Chris.B (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Great work on portals, lenghty experience. Rt. 12:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support: I've seen OhanaUnited almost everywhere when it comes to portals. [sd] 03:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Good work seen so far in this process already. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
• 'SupportZginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Spebi

I've had previous experience with closing featured list nominations (one that didn't go so well, but I've learned from that), so I know how that works (for the record, I don't help out at FLC much anymore), and I have also worked on numerous portals and often make lengthy (?) comments to reviews on Portal peer review that have been listed for a while with yet no reply. I hope I can help further. Spebi 01:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Support. RichardF (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - partially per FLC experiences, partially because it's no big deal. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 04:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Chris.B (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Has demonstrated great work in other areas, I'm sure Spebi is more than capable here too. Rt. 12:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. [sd] 03:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Sure. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

Rudget

I, as the others here have demonstrated, have been participating in portal related work in the past few months, although for me, weeks. I've closed two portal nominations, where I was able to deem consensus and close them successfully. I've also had one of the portals I was heavily editing get upto to featured status–Portal:North West England. I haven't yet got around to reviewing portals up for peer review, as I've only done that with FAC's–but I'm sure the experience I've gained there will help me. I'd love to have a chance at participating as a director, and I will be able to recognise and co-operate with all those who are involved. Best regards, Rt. 12:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Support. RichardF (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great user with all-inclusive contributions. Chris.B (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Of course I'll support when I persuaded you to be a candidate. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Good work seen so far in this process already. Cirt (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
• Support. Qst 14:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris.B

I was at first somewhat reluctant at the idea of implementing directors as such, but seeing as we have now dropped the proposed "title", I am certain that it will be a worthwhile project. I'm offering to lend a hand largely because I regularly close featured picture nominations (User:MER-C can vouch for me!) so should therefore be fairly acquainted with closing and so forth. Just for the record, I worked on the British Empire portal and am currently trying to get the Gibraltar portal to featured status. I also created {{FPORTCresult}} (in line with what is used at FPC) mainly for standardization and specifically for a potential bot. All the best and Merry Christmas, Chris.B (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Support. I would have co-nom you if I found out you're interested. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. RichardF (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. [sd] 03:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Rt. 13:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

Daniel

Please note that I advocate for a number of people in this role, to avoid backlogging. There is no reason why we can't have a couple of people doing this. The last thing we need is one person being pushed into this role only to have them a) disappear or b) go batshit insane, and only having one will have people possibly screaming down our necks claiming dictatorship. I also support the move to "kill the title Director", in favour of something else, for similar reasons. Maybe "co-ordinators" (note emphasis on plural)?

On my front, you can see from the userboxes on my userpage what other roles I have on Wikipedia. On the FPO front, I have three FPO's, two current FPOC's, and two more on the way. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me either here or on my talk page. I feel I'd be a good candidate for this position given my experience as Chair of the Mediation Committee, which was a similar position in that the activities of this role overlap with a fraction of the activites which the Chair does. Daniel 01:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Support. RichardF (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Has shown he is trustworthy enough as med. chair and administrator. Seems familiar with the FP process, and has actively contributed to a few featured portals. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 01:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. [sd] 03:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - if someone's brought one of their portals to FPo standard, that's really all the experience needed in most cases... — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 04:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support He is a very good admin and he has contributed to featured portals. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Sure. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely. Anyone interested in helping out but not for the title seems like the ideal person for this role. Spebi 08:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support as above. Rt. 13:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support, and I like the idea to have more than one coordinator for this process. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
• Support - I support his platform for multiple users with this responsibility. Lara❤Love 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - per above comments. Agree that we need more than one coordinator for this.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 14:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support It would be a great asset if we have an admin on board. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revamp proposal

As many of you realized, this month we received the most traffic in FPC history. However, we still have lots of areas for improvement. We weren't utilizing the existing FPORT categories until this month. We also changed the instructions quite a bit this month. I also find the need sychronize pages manually. For example, there are 81 featured portals listed on Portal:Featured content/Portals, but only 80 on Portal:Featured portals, and 82 are listed as featured portals on Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. (FYI, none of those numbers are correct. The correct number is 83, obtained from Category:Wikipedia featured portals) Such inconsistencies are made due to the fact that anyone can close any nomination. If they forgot to any one item listed here like:

• add the appropriate category
• update the tables and directories correctly
• apply the correct template
• transclude discussion to logs

the result will cause a lot of confusion. To address this issue, we should have a featured portal director(s) position (kind of like feature article director). The director can determine if consensus is reached to close nominations and whether to promote it or fail it. This ensures accountability and as well as consistencies towards determining consensus and recording the result. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, although I think it might be best if instead of appointing simply one "director" and going through the whole bureaucratic process of electing this person, we just have a very limited group of trusted users (not listed anywhere, or have a special name, of course, to reduce the instruction creep), e.g., the ones experienced with this process to be allowed to close nominations unofficially. Everything else sounds fine, and I'm looking forward to this being implemented in the very near future :) Spebi 08:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Spebi - more than one portal director sounds like a good idea. Portals are kinda fun and laidback, and we don't need the stiffly stifferson bureacratic nonsense of having to elect a single portal godking/queen. :) That said, I'm willing to put myself forward as one of the potential directors - I have 3 (soon to be 4) featured portals and know my way around these parts. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 09:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Spebi, a few directors sounds like a great idea. We already have other things like NPWatcher, that have a few editors you can contact when needing answers to questions. I also look forward to this being put forward and succeeding, mainly due to the fact that it's a great idea. Best, Rt. 10:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything that stimulates good contributions is well worth the input; so it really is a great initiative. Mind, I'm not to certain about the whole "directors" thing, largely because I think it would create a sort of hierarchy, and after all, this is a wiki, so anyone should be free to close a nomination. But yes, more users maintaining the process would be ideal. Chris.B (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The job of directors should be to maintain the overall process. Granted, it shouldn't preclude others from closing nominations also, but users who do close them should be responsible for the overall process too (i.e., the steps that Ohana highlighted above). If they're unsure, they'd delegate the task to one of the FPO directors. I think this is an effort to make a formal list of volunteers who will commit to making sure it all runs well, and not an attempt to make more bureaucracy.

If the job is created, I suggest volunteers wishing to join just post their commitment in this talk page to open discussion. If there's no or few opposition given a reasonable amount of time, the user can join the list. The FPO process is relatively small when compared to the FAC process, so an election or RFA-type page is really not needed (take a look at how the FAC director was decided back in 2004). But I oppose creating empty chairs or positions. If you're committing, make sure you're actually going to work on the process, and not simply include a nifty userbox to display in your userpage. The decision of how many directors could be included should be up to the community. 2 should be fine, IMO, but users could continue to "nominate" themselves, with discussion and consensus at that time deciding on whether there's enough members. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It'd be great to be a director, but I doubt I'd be picked. :) Rt. 15:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I support OhanaUnited's proposal. It sounds prety much like how this group has operated from the start anyway. It's just that a few things slip through the cracks every once in a while. It would be handy to have a few folks promising to double-check all the pieces parts get done. If it's clearer what's expected for the nominators and closers to do, the co-directors should have a fairly easy time of it. RichardF (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your fast responses. I was hoping to implement this proposal starting on Jan. 1, 2008 (so we better speed up our discussion). We can definetely have more than 1 director, and I'm pretty sure that the chosen directors will be working hard. For first time, I think we do need to do a quick vote to indicate that the FPORT community has reached a consensus to choose these individuals as directors. They will list their names so that people can ask them for help. Anyone wishing to become a director should post here and wait for response. Enough said. Let the vote begins. Just to recap the rules. Anyone can nominate themselves and others. There're no predetermined # of directors to be chosten. Anyone received 80% or more support will become a featured portal director (but I doubt there will be any oppose ballots casted). Poll closes on midnight of January 1, 2008 (UTC) and the positions will be effective immediately. (If you disagree with this voting, feel free to undo my edit) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm totally fine with Ohana being a member of the group consisting of about 3 or 4 people familiar with the process, but without a doubt, we should kill the title "Featured portal director". It's clear that titles often add to the over-bureaucracy of processes like these, and if we do agree on a select group, we shouldn't limit all closing of nominations to the group; let's make it that anyone can close a nomination, on the condition that they are in good standing (i.e., community trust, not listed as a sockpuppet, etc, you know the sort of stuff) and follow the instructions correctly. If they do not follow the instructions correctly, we should encourage them to contact a particular person on a particular list of "Helpful FPORT users" for help, or post a message at the talk page. I know that putting instructions (in this context I mean "instructions" as in "Only close nominations if you are an official Featured portal director") in really is important for such processes, but let's keep them to a minimum, otherwise they'll rip a great process like this one apart. Spebi 01:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for the change. I'm not really good at wording things. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

While we're currently "voting" for a "director", I'd be much more happy if the two current candidates (Ohana and Spebi) just went as joint directors (assuming nobody else throws their hat in) - that way they can both comment on FPoCs sometimes, and close them other times - they both make useful comments that go a long way, both have areas of specialty, and it'd be a shame to miss out on either of them permanently - so yeah, having 2 directors would work best IMO. AFAIK FAC now has 2 directors (Raul and SandyGeorgia), so it could be a sign of the times. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, but I'd prefer to let anyone who still wants to help out closing without working under a title still apply. Let us put the whole "directors" proposal aside for a moment and focus on the other points of the proposal. What other new features will we be implementing into the process? What will change? What other suggestions could we come up with to improve the overall running of the whole thing? Overall, this seems like a great idea and I think that it will make the whole process run smoothly and encourage more and more portals to be created and later featured. Spebi 10:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I already put a couple of things for trial in preparation for the switch starting on 1/1/2008. A few things have changed in this month includes

1. Using transclusion instead of pasting the entire nomination on promoted/failed log
2. Using green background for promoted nominations, and red for failed nominations (stole this from RFA)
3. Planning to make a bot to sychronize all the FPORT pages and tag them with appropriate categories
4. Chris B added {{FPORTCresult}}

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Another idea that needs to be done. We need to remove featured portals if they're outdated. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As I ponder my ever-increasing old fart status, I wouldn't agree the first thought should be to remove outdated portals. With all this reinvigorated interest in portal quality, I would hope the first though would be to rehabilitate them. If someone thinks a featured portal is getting a little long in the tooth, put it up for peer review and talk some folks into doing a little rehab work. With all the automation options we have out there these days, a good portal can go a long way with just a bit of more energy efficient upkeep than when some of them first came online. :-) RichardF (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to put my wikimoney where my mouth is, I added another section for "Review and renovation volunteers" to the Portal review volunteers list. Feel free to move or add your name to this section if you're interested in helping with a good portion of the grunt work that might come from implementing the accepted recommendations in the reviews. RichardF (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I must confess...

...My comments about "more than one co-ordinator" were with the intent of having two, maximum three, people doing so. As it appears that all five of the nominees were accepted, I still stand by my intent, and I'm sure the other four people can do the job perfectly well. Hence, I wish to withdraw from these proceedings. Thanks for all your confidence in me, asserted below, though. I still plan on contributing to portals, as well as this process in general, but I am confident the other four are properly qualified to do a fantastic job if they work together. Cheers, Daniel 00:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a poll to introduce featured portal directors to maintain the featured portal process. The poll has finished. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Make it official?

So, erm, could somebody (I think it was RichardF) officially announce who was "successful" in the poll, and add this to the main page (WP:FPO)? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the title is completely unofficial. Spebi 02:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'd like to at least know who has said title...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think RichardF said he was going to prepare a list of some sort, but beyond that, there's no title. Spebi 03:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I did?! >;-o) Well... I might be totally off base here, but I though everyone who volunteered was going to share the duties. At least that's what I would like to see. The more the merrier! :-) I see Daniel begged off plus AGK and Cirt have been working the tasks quite a bit. This is about as much officialness and timeliness as I've ever seen here. Using the 80% support guideline and the opt-out-scenario...

The Featured Portal Co-Directors are Chris.B (talk · contribs), OhanaUnited (talk · contribs), Rudget (talk · contribs) and Spebi (talk · contribs).

Congratulations! Now, get to work! ;-) RichardF (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can anyone still promote/fail candidates from WP:FPORTC, or is that now reserved only for individuals from the above discussion, Candidates for Featured Portal Directors ? Cirt (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Anyone still can promote/fail candidates. The co-directors will keep an eye on all the fingers and toes being taken care of in those cases. RichardF (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the co-directors' names to Template:PortalReviewVolunteers for easy access from several portals-related talk pages. RichardF (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Daniel? Rt. 11:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just added him. Chris.B (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Daniel declined the position at Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates#I must confess.... I fixed the template. RichardF (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in it for the title. Spebi 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone claiming you or anyone else was, but part of the role is to be accessible to those who might want a little help going through the processes here. This definitely is about what you do. :-) RichardF (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikinews Importer Bot

Thanks to Misza13, the Wikinews Importer Bot now is available to automatically import certain dynamically-generated Wikinews pages into Wikipedia portals. See the pages that link to User:Wikinews Importer Bot for a growing list of examples. Check it out! RichardF (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really good. It solves the problem of wikinews not updated by editors. But I am a bit confused. It doesn't provide any documentation for usage. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's like an oracle. We have to divine its usage. ;-) Misza13 is a bit of a minimalist in that regard. I'm guessing we'll have to add usage notes as we see how it works. For now, it's monkey-see, monkey-do with the example posted on the bot page. Anyone feel free to start that section. RichardF (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some minimalist setup steps to the Wikinews Importer Bot page. RichardF (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I did it right on Portal:Environment/Current events OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It basically looks okay to me. The part I'm not totally sure about is the first update. The bot says it updates once an hour. I don't know when the clock starts ticking. I'd like to wait a bit like it is to see what happens. I'll add a step 4 based on what the bot does next, if anything. RichardF (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks good now. It just has to do the first update. I'll make a note at the setup page. RichardF (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving nomination

Hi all, I am not excited about archiving nomination these days. Please be mindful while closing that all of the listed issues have been dealt properly. If not, then please give some more time to nominator or make a note of dealing these issues, before archiving. I believe, Featured portals are perfect ones. So, if you think, the issue will add values to the portal and is achievable, then kindly fo not promote them, if they are not dealt after giving sufficient time. There are some, e.g. Tennis. If you have any questions, then please let me know. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Having trouble precisely understanding what you mean here. Are you saying Portal:Tennis was archived too early and/or with outstanding issues unresolved in its featured portal discussion? Cirt (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

• I think Shyam is unhappy that Chris B. closed the nomination even though the nominator did not address Shyam's concerns. IMO, Shyam is asking that portals should be more dynamic. However, I back Chris B.'s actions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The nomination had been inactive for ten days at the time of closing and consensus to promote seemed apparent. Also note that concerns brought up during a discussion are non-binding and essentially up to the nominator's discretion, so the nominator may well decline a suggestion. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no quorum for the time open to discussion, the rule of thumb is generally seven days. You are, of course, free to deal with any concerns after a discussion is archived. Chris.B 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

After this explanation from Chris.B (talk · contribs), his actions make sense. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

Chris.B, thanks for reply. We are here to decide whether the portal should be featured (i.e perfect, IMO) at the stage while closing. If you are bound to close the nomination, before addressing all the issues perfectly, then kindly do not promote them. Nominator would not be interested to deal with the issues after the purpose (featuring a portal) has been made. Kindly, let me know your views. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are here to decide whether a portal ought to be featured, and that is exactly what we did. You are very right to say that a discussion should not be closed midway, but that was not the case. There was a consensus to promote, and the fact that a suggestion was not carried out is neither here nor there. Chris.B 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Archival process getting tedious - time for a bot?

I posted a notice at Gimmetrow (talk · contribs)'s talk page, about the possibility of maybe using the services of GimmeBot (talk · contribs), similar to how it's done at WP:FAC, to update all the necessary stuff after something from WP:FPORTC is archived. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

I looked into the template aspect a while ago at Template_talk:ArticleHistory#Portals.3F. From this perspective it doesn't seem like much of a benefit, but it might make sense from the archiving perspective. I could add support for the FPO pass and fail templates, and start handling this February 1. Gimmetrow 20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I'm obviously all for it, Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) has done excellent work with WP:FAC and WP:FLC. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

• • This seems to be ready to go whenever the next portal is passed or failed. You remove the transclusion from WP:FPOC and add it to the appropriate monthly featured or failed log. When the bot runs, it will see changes to the logs, add the closure templates, update the portal talk page (including WP:PPREV), and add {{featured portal}} if appropriate. The portal would still need to be added to a category WP:FPO. WP:FPRC is not supported yet. Gimmetrow 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll definetely try it out when I close nominations (which will take place in a few days) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:England's FPOC

This has been up for ~3 weeks, and discussion has levelled off. Can we get this closed? I've already closed one today, and I would do this one, but I commented in it, and would rather leave it to a neutral party. Cheers, Anthøny 22:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna close it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done, was closed by Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks, DHMO ;) Anthøny 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're all very welcome :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Add a nomination for Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Co-directors

Due to recent events, we are now down from 5 to 2 at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Co-directors. I nominate RichardF (talk · contribs) to be a 3rd Co-director. RichardF has the helped promote eight portals to WP:FPORT status, and he is also very helpful at WP:PPREV - not to mention that his comments are always thoughtful, polite, kind and encouraging. Cirt (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

RichardF is more than welcome to help co-ordinate the featured portal candidates, as are you Cirt. Feel free to add RichardF and/or your name to the list if you so wish, we need not go through the bureaucracy of voting again IMO. Chris.B 13:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you all feel is best. I will help out when I can, but I do not feel ready at this time to add myself to the list. But I stand by my words about RichardF, above. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

That Cirt. always being bold! >;-o) While I appreciate the sentiment, I respectfully decline the offer. As an antiwikiprojectarian, I prefer to do or not do out of arbitrary selfish interests in the moment, rather than any feigned sense of duty. I'll do what I can here and there, but you can count on not being able to count on me in the true spirit of volunteerism! :-) RichardF (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, whenever your help is given, it's always appreciated - but it won't be expected as a duty. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

I agree with Cirt there. Remember anyone can close a nomination and it's not a job limited to directors, so help is always appreciated. I'm also not too sure the whole "co-directors" thing is working out either. I mean, it seems to be creating some sort of obligation and based on the number of withdrawals, appears to be discouraging contributions to FPORT! I was thinking it might be a better idea to just scrap it and integrate the last two names into the "List of portal peer review volunteers". Although it's probably me just being pessimistic. :) I would be interested to hear your thoughts though. Chris.B 15:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• (outdented reply) -- I think it's too soon to tell, probably most of those that are no longer Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Co-directors have had other extenuating circumstances. I say give this new idea a couple months, if it doesn't work out - I really like your idea as well of having a more informal list of Portal Peer Reviewers - but it should be updated to those that are (relatively) active - I myself just trimmed off a few users that aren't even active at all on Wikipedia anymore.. Cirt (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Yes, that's true. We ought to wait some time I suppose. The problem I'm finding now is that I see my name sitting there as if OhanaUnited and I were both "in charge", when the ultimate aim is to foster contribution (including the basic closing of a nomination) as opposed to curbing it to directors. I presume it's along those lines why Spebi and Daniel withdrew their names. Of course, we cannot let the project go stale and need some people to maintain it; I just find it's too hierarchised at the moment. I would support revamping the current set of directors into, as you said, a more informal list of Portal Peer Reviewers, split into active and generally inactive reviewers. But I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions and I will let others have their say. Chris.B 15:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I support getting rid of "co-directors" right now. Just have the list of things to do to close a nomination and invite any impartial editor to follow the guidelines when they feel the call. RichardF (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I support exactly what Chris.B (talk · contribs) just said in his last comment. Cirt (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

What happened to Rudget? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea - something about Rudget's cousin compromised Rudget's account, and caused some trouble, so Rudget just up and retired from Wikipedia. I haven't looked into it in detail. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply. I didn't know until I went to his userpage. Originally I wanted to nominate RichardF as well. But since he declined the nomination, I ran out of candidates. Let's stick with two for now and if we see a potential candidate in the future, we will bring this up. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I've gone ahead and moved my name to PortalReviewVolunteers based on my comments above. I'm not withdrawing, but rather disassociating myself from the title "co-director". I hope this is alright. Chris.B 15:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. We still respect your judgment and will appreciate your contributions no matter what title you have. Cirt (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, prior to all this feedback I added a notice to Daniel (talk · contribs)'s talk page, asking if he's still interested. Cirt (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

I'm more than happy to be listed there if you guys want me to/are happy with that. I've closed one discussion; see below. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up what Cirt asked, Daniel declined the offer. I guess it's sort of my fault because the nom process was so hastely created and decided. I overlooked the fact that some will resign or disassociate from the position and needs someone else to fill in. So... Are we going for status quo or bringing the # back to 2 (or 3)? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was bold, and added Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with DMHO as long as he maintains civil and doesn't stir up drama when closing nominations. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently not listed as a volunteer anywhere on this page, but I've closed a few discussions. Following the co-director system, will this be meaning it's preferred I refrain from that? That is, is closing limited to the co-director system (hence their purpose), or are they just the "official" faces of the closing system, in addition to general maintenance? Anthøny 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, any editor can still close WP:FPORTC discussions. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand - if anyone can close then what is the point in having directors? Maybe there should be an explanation at the top of the talkpage as to what exactly their role is. Unless I'm missing something crucial, this just seems like a waste of everyones time - there are portals still waiting to be reviewed at Portal Peer Review yet there seems to be a lot of time be spent on discussing this subject. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, the role of the co-directors (which I am now, apparently) is to close contentious nominations. Anyone can close those with 100 supports and no opposition, but not every FPoC ends up this way. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The role of directors is to ensure that everything is correctly archived. The purpose that created this position was due to the fact that many people who closed the nominations failed to follow every single instruction, which created a lot of chaos [3]. Of course, the role is extended to closing those that are not receiving a landslide in supporting the nom. Right now, I'm trying to refrain from limiting who can and who cannot close nominations, but if people can't follow step-by-step instructions that is so simple, then we might have to revisit this idea. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Off-topic reply to Seaserpent85 (talk · contribs)) - Thanks for the heads up, I gave comments for 2 that didn't have them at WP:PPREV - now all reviews at least have some comments. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget is back

Rudget is back, so I am being bold and add his name back to the directors list. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured Portal Sweep

I think we need to initiate some sort of regular review process, similar to the GA sweeps. I've just come across Portal:Solar System which has had red links in place of selected content for over half a year - it seems that some editors see FP status as the final step and disown their portals soon after. I propose a thorough sweep of all featured portals, so as not to degrade the featured portal status. Anyone else care to join me? Seaserpent⁸⁵ 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Great idea. Keep in mind that portals with an obvious need of updating for over 3 months can be summarily demoted without a featured portal removal candidate discussion. For all others, we should have some form of organization to the "Sweeps". Cirt (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Great idea. Wow, that portal sure looks like it's not maintained. But since this is dealing with featured contents and not GAs, we need to go through a formal process to delist. We have to give them a chance for someone, or anyone, to bring it back to standard. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Go for it. Although the case noted above really should just be delisted ASAP. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria and Wikipedia:Featured portal removal candidates. From Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria: "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted." That text has been in there without contest or objection for quite some time now... Cirt (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it sure looks burecratic but all you need to is wait 7 days on removal candidate page (which isn't a long time). This is to prevent people from saying "omg, you surprised me, why didn't you tell me you're going to remove it and didn't give me time to contest it?" or "stop being bold and remove it, you're disrupting" and etc... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And best to contact the assoicated WikiProject OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah seven days notice is a good idea. Simply delisting will not really help improve it, giving seven days is an incentive to get it back on it's feet. - Shudde ^talk 09:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Support. I like Seven Days. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Pun intended? lol OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to set up a general page for this, maybe as a subpage of the Portal WikiProject? We also need to find a way of "staggering" the addition to the removal candidates as I've already found quite a few that would easily fail if they were nominated for FP right now. I've come up with a possible method of assessing each portal, take a look here and let me know what you all think. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing I don't like about the gist of this discussion is that it seems to focus on what's wrong with some featured portals, and then punishing them for it through their demotion. All this energy just as well could be put into focusing on what it would take to bring them up to current expectations. Obviously, these portal have much to say for themselves or they wouldn't have been featured in the first place. The question I prefer to ask is, "Under what circumstances can we support this continuing to be a featured portal?" I'm much more interested in a "featured portals improvement drive" than in a "featured portal removal candidates drive." Either way, I'll put my energies into trying to help improve them. RichardF (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to RichardF

Someone should Be Bold, and move Wikipedia:Featured portal removal candidates to Wikipedia:Featured portal review, and change the format, instructions, etc., to be modeled after the current process at Wikipedia:Featured article review. If you need guidance on setting that up, I'd suggest asking Marskell (talk · contribs), or Joelr31 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. No one has to be bold if this enhancement is made through consensus. I certainly support moving in this direction. RichardF (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• I second to that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done

Moved to Wikipedia:Featured portal review. We will still have to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article review, and use that as a model to adjust the instructional text and revamp the review process. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need the 2 stages, "review" and "removal candidates"? We're not dealing as many pages as FA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but the name "review" seemed more appropriate. I also agree with the clause at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria that I had mentioned above. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and was bold. I switched the Featured portal review to that based on the Featured article review two-stage process. The principles are the same and the previous process clearly focused on delisting a featured portal. The integrity of the two-stage process clearly emphasizes improving featured portals, which is in the best interests of readers and the project. RichardF (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay, we'll have to see how it works out. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What's not to work? The process is about the principle of improve first and demote as a last resort. That's quite contrary to the previous punitive-oriented process. RichardF (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, no, most likely nothing's not to work. Just that with many things on Wikipedia, it takes a while to see how things settle. Cirt (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Discussions

I think that the newest discussions should remain on top, oldest at the bottom, as it's always been, so we can easily assess where things are, backlog, etc. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really mind either way. I just "relisted" it the way AfDs are. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that a certain discussion is not getting enough attention - did you make a notice about it on the talkpages of the relevant WikiProjects? A simple neutrally worded notice is perfectly appropriate and not seen as canvassing. I'll go check and add that notice now if it's not there... Cirt (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done, added a notice to the talkpages of WP:INDIANA and WP:USA, that should get some attention to the discussion. Cirt (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Could use some input at portal peer reviews

WP:PPREV is getting crowded, with 16 portals up for portal peer review at present. We could use some feedback over there from experienced portal peer reviewers, and of course would welcome comments/feedback from anyone else with ideas on how to improve a portal. Feel free to chime in! Cirt (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:UpdatedDYKportal

Would be interested to hear your input, at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Template:UpdatedDYKportal. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal bot work

As requested in Wikipedia_talk:Featured_portal_candidates/Archive_1#Archival_process_getting_tedious_-_time_for_a_bot.3F, I set up the bot to handle portal nominations. Since then, most of the closers are doing most of the tasks the bot does, including using the bot's closing tags. Therefore I have to double-check everything by hand. Do you want the bot to handle portals, or not? Gimmetrow 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We definitely do, I think that some people are just confused as to how to close nomination discussions, in a manner that makes it easiest for the bot to work after that. Is there a set of instructions somewhere? Cirt (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_portal_candidates/Archive_1#Archival_process_getting_tedious_-_time_for_a_bot.3F. "Remove the transclusion from WP:FPOC and add it to the appropriate monthly featured or failed log" and add the portal to a category on the WP:FPO page. Gimmetrow 21:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you obviously do not want the bot doing anything here, it won't. Thank you. Gimmetrow 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Portal guidelines

Is that page suitable as a style guideline for portals? Are there other pages that disagree with it that might be more useful? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My attempts to get some better defined criteria here over the last month may have been less than elegant and I want to apologise for any hurt feelings I may have caused. Best wishes, Secisek (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Featured sounds

I'd like to make this into a featured portal. I think, with improved descriptions of the sounds - basically, keeping the descriptive info that's getting deleted when they're transferred from WP:FSC to there - and improved layout, it would be a reasonable idea. However, it is, of course, also the main page for a featured content project. While I think there's a strong case to be made that Featured pictures and Featured sounds are unique among internal pages in their ability to stand alone, I would like some opinions on this, as, although I do want to improve it either way, it would be nice to get some credit for my work, so I know I'm not going to be as motivated to get it perfect if, in the end, no credit is available. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with this comment by RichardF (talk · contribs) that these types of pages are simply not eligible for Featured portal status. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality of articles

Call me a noob to portals if you will, but this has been bothering me for a while. Are start and C-class articles allowed in portals? A few months back they seemed to be, but now I'm wondering whether an FPOC is likely to be opposed because of it. I'm not talking about having all crappy and poorly-written articles on a portal, I'm just talking about some of the better ones here and there. I think they should be allowed, as lots of portals with potential are being held back by other portals being opposed on the same basis. Qst (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think we should stick to B-class and above. At the very least, obviously should stick to only using articles that are adequately sourced, and most certainly only use material that is appropriately sourced. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Stale featured portal candidates

All featured portal candidates at WP:FPOC have been sitting in consideration for over a month, save the most recently added candidate, Portal:United Nations. Is there any way we could get some action on these? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I profess complete inactivity here... feel free to remove me from the coordinators if you wish, I just don't have the interest in this area anymore. Sorry =\ Giggy (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah most unfortunate, you will be missed. :( -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was very busy with my full time job. In fact, I was out for last 2 days collecting fish samples for contamination analysis. I'll do something about it this weekend. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay thank you. And thanks for all the fish! - Cirt (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've promoted the Russian portal, I'll do some more in a few hours, or, if not, tomorrow. Caulde 16:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Rudget. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The job continues, I'll try to stay involved. Caulde 16:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Yeah, I think there are a few others that could use closing, but I have commented heavily in those as a reviewer so somebody else should do it. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody will have to close Portal:Archaeology's FPOC, I've commented and the changes suggested haven't been made, so (in respect to the first point) I'm out. Caulde 20:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to bring this up again, but with the three month anniversary of its nomination, I think Portal:Schools could use a final decision as pass or fail. As OhanaUnited correctly pointed out in the exchange at User_talk:OhanaUnited#Portal:Schools and User_talk:Jh12#Portal:Schools, it could use additional articles and biographies. However, the articles are limited to GA, A (GA-required by WPSchools), and FA school articles and I do not want to expand that definition. I have spent a great deal of time sifting through school teacher biographies and to be frank, I am experiencing increasingly diminishing returns. No primary/secondary school educator on Wikipedia is rated higher than GA, and very few of the articles I have reviewed are even rated B. I have added all of the educators that are rated GA. Under limited circumstances, I consider adding a biography if the educator is of high importance or with sourced, close ties to a particular primary/secondary school, but I am unwilling to add other educators unless they fit those criteria. The search for additional selections will always be ongoing. The current content count is 23 articles, 20 pictures, 17 DYK sets, 15 biographies, and at least 3 anniversaries/events for every month. If that is insufficient or there are other outstanding problems, please fail the nomination. Many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional Featured portal director

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After this comment from Giggy (talk · contribs), the current Featured portal directors are now OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) and Caulde (talk · contribs). I would like to nominate Qst (talk · contribs) as an addition to the Featured portal director team. Qst is one of the most prolific contributors of Featured portals, and is experienced in other quality-content areas as well. Qst has my Support and will do great with this new role. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to thank Cirt for this nomination. I must confess that as of late I haven't been as active on portals as I once was, but I have several in the works currently and an off-wiki list of almost fifteen portals with featured potential which of course will take months to complete. Some might also bring up that my editing is sporadic or that I'm inactive and to an extent that is true, but I normally login at least once a day to check my watchlist so although I might not be editing frequently, normally I'm logged in or on IRC. I accept this nomination and will to my best to help keep the candidates page running smoothly if elected. Thanks, Qst (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must confess that my current job takes a lot of time away from me reviewing portals. Cirt, you're on top of the list. Surely I would nominate you as long as you accept it ;) I am happy to welcome Qst onboard. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay perhaps let's leave this discussion open for a few more days to see if others want to comment. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall that you refused to be a coordinator last time, Cirt. Would you like to reconsider again? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind thoughts, not at this point in time. But I will try to continue to comment at WP:FPORTCs, and also work on portals myself as I can. I think one thing we should try to focus on is to automate the promotion/archival process as much as possible. That would make it easier on the closers. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We did have a bot to automate the process, but it's taken down. See here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been well over 2 weeks with no objections. Congratulations to Qst (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are you interested in a Main Page section?

Hi, I'm from the 2008 main page redesign proposal and I am interested in adding a new section that will display a Featured Portal, Topic, or List daily. (I don't think there's enough to have one of each a day for several years.) However, I am not involved with any of these projects and don't want to champion the cause myself. There has already been talk of Featured Sounds on the Main Page; and we would be willing to make combinations like the Beethoven mock-up there, featuring related lists, portals, topics, etc. on one day. I would appreciate your feedback here, because I'm posting this message in a number of places and would like a unified discussion. Thanks, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding portal direction

I resign my post as "featured portal co-director". I confess that I am not as active as I once was, especially when I applied to be one in the late midst of 2007 so I feel I am not active enough nor knowledgeable enough to retain my position. I trust another valued portal contributor will fill my vacancy. Good luck and good wishes to all those who are involved with portals in the future. Best regards, Caulde 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Archival instructions

I moved the archival instructions to a subpage at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Archival instructions. Also, removed a bunch of steps in the archival process, to be in coordination with Wikipedia_talk:Featured_portal_candidates/Archive_1#Archival_process_getting_tedious_-_time_for_a_bot.3F, and left notes for Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) to look it over. Hopefully this will make for a smoother process in the future. Cirt (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional modifications to help smooth the process. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Schools

Hey all - I promoted Portal:Schools to WP:FPORT - but please do not do any of the update steps that I skipped over which used to be done manually. See above subsection regarding Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Archival instructions - I removed a bunch of steps that will (hopefully) be done in the future by a bot. Cirt (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We did have a bot before, but that task was taken off the bot list. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, I am keeping Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) in the loop about this, and I think the issue last time was that people unaware of the bot's role were manually promoting portals anyways and manually doing steps the bot could have done. Hopefully by removing those steps from the process in the instructions at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Archival instructions, people will just not do them anymore. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

These are the steps done by the bot. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to ask the bot owner to do a few more little things, such as +1 count to {{Featured portals number}} OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See this response from Gimmetrow (talk · contribs). I think Gimmetrow has a point - let's work with the current setup with the bot for a while for a few more closings, and if that works well then hopefully in the future we can automate more steps. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured portal director

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

We just lost one, and one of the two current co-directors has not been that active lately. I would be willing to help out in this capacity in addition to the other two, if there is consensus for me to step up into this role. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support It's understandably a problem of time for our directors, and I think it would be good to have a trusted reviewer like Cirt as an additional director. --Jh12 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Duh!. I have tried to nominate you for this position but you keep refusing me not once, but twice! Hopefully I'll be active once the holidays start. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Support I just saw this over at the Community Bulletin Board. Cirt seems like a good choice for the featured portal director since he has 13 featured portals. I worked with this user on Portal:Feminism, during the Feminism Task Force's featured portal drive and I found him to be extremely helpful and professional. I think he will make an excellent director. Awadewit (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support- Also saw this on the Community Bulletin Board, I think Cirt would do great at the job. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Caulde 14:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, looks like we got a clear consensus here. Cirt, welcome onboard. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updates required on criteria

After seeing more portals failing to be maintained properly, it is time to update criteria 1(d) and add in the requirements for using dynamic content format. What do you guys think? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Suggestions on example text to add? Cirt (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Is not the current requirement to update featured portals regularly or be summarily demoted sufficient? The purpose of a portal is to showcase a subject area and encourage users to explore further, but if a portal is automated so that no one actually needs to maintain it and prepare new content, it is more likely to be at risk of stagnation, which would seem to be at odds with the statement that a featured portal "showcases the best of Wikipedia's content in an area and encourages contributions to that area". --DavidCane (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Utilizing the dynamic content format increases variability each time the main portal page is refreshed, and also reduces likelihood of the portal having gaping redlinks on the front page, because it makes it much easier to maintain. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept that automation can help ensure that a portal contains no redlinks and it makes it possible to have variable content, but the portal is then, essentially, just a giant template set-up once then left to its own devices; obviating the need for active maintenance. Good content and good presentation are both important to a featured portal, but specifying that dynamic content control is the only way to achieve this goes too far. If the criteria were to be changed as proposed, then a number of excellent featured portals where the maintainers have decided to control the content directly with regular manual updates rather than automate (e.g. Portal:Biography), would then be considered less good than one set-up once and never updated. Room for choice needs to be allowed. --DavidCane (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that would be the case. We could change the criteria in a manner so as to prefer and encourage increased automated dynamism, especially for future featured portal candidates, while grandfathering-in previous ones. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all portals are visited and updated as frequently as Biography. Automation reduces workload and provide more information to editors as opposed to featuring one content per month. Of course, existing portals are grandfathered. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup participation

Hi, this is just a note that if you want to sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, then you have until 23:59 UTC on December 31 to do so. This can be done here. The WikiCup is a fun competition aiming at improving Wikipedia's content, with points awarded for featured articles, good articles, featured lists, featured pictures, featured sounds, featured portals, featured topics, good topics, did you know?, in the news and valued pictures. Over 170 people are already involved, but there's still time to sign up. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact myself or one of the other judges on our talk pages or on IRC, or ask on one of the WikiCup talk pages. Hope to see some of you there. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Question..

I nominated the Music of Canada portal some time ago...I would guess it was nominated improperly See here ..odd it was not done/fixed normally rather then it being deleted. Anyways should i renominate it or just do it normally .. Sorry i did not notice it before as it was not on my watch list and though like articles this would take time, but then i noticed its not even there!------- any help would be nice as i dont want to muck it up again!..........Moxy (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok i just cant do it can someone nominate Music of Canada portal for me!!..Moxy (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Candidates and Review should be separate pages

Featured portal candidates and Featured portals for review should be separate pages. This is as per a similar model, seen at WP:FAC and WP:FAR. -- Cirt (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I was boldly following the model of WP:FLC / WP:FLRC, which has separate pages but also transcludes the review page on the candidates page for extra visibility (which might lead to more attention to portals under review). The extra page length is hardly a problem, whereas at FAC/FAR it would be. If no-one thinks that this is a good idea for here, so be it. Bencherlite^Talk 00:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The processes are separate, as to be in-line with the model at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, and also, they involve separate types of analyses. Best to continue it with separate pages. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Featured Sounds / Pictures / Topics / Lists have the candidates and removal candidates on the same page; it's only Portals (apart from the giant that is the FA process) that doesn't. Not sure why the analysis would differ, but I'd be interested to hear what others think. (Is there anybody out there?!) Bencherlite^Talk 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)