User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria

This page is a DRAFT of a proposed RFC. Please DO NOT edit this page; a small group of invited editors are discussing it on the talk page. If other editors wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl.


 * RFC. What criteria should apply to whether a portal should exist for a given topic?

Intro
This draft is a first attempt by Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) (BHG) to design a structured process for the community to select which criteria it wishes to apply to the creation and retention/deletion of portals. It does not propose guidelines for how a portal should be designed.

The aim of the draft is to try to design a process which addresses the main questions in one place, and which can be broadly agreed as giving fair prominence to all plausible options.

Background
The April–May 2018 RFC WP:ENDPORTALS rejected a proposal to delete all portals, but did not formally choose any criteria to determine which portals should be kept. In the course of the next year, thousands of new portals were created, and there has been great controversy about whether they are suitable. Discussions at WT:WPPORT and WT:PORTG are inconclusive, and may not be representative of broad community consensus.

The editors working on portals need to know where consensus lies. The community needs to a resolution to the controversy which currently (March 2019) surrounds this area. A formal RFC which examines all the possibilities is most likely to establish a broad, stable consensus.

Establishing criteria
There are several criteria by which a portal could be judged as suitable for creation, and several levels in each case. I have tried to group options under each criterion, to allow a separate discussion on whether that criterion should apply, and at what level.

Note that the community might choose to require a portal to pass each of several tests. For example, to allow portals only on topics which meet all of the following criteria: a Vital Article level X, and with more than Y non-stub pages within their scope, and supported by a relevant topical WikiProject, and actively curated by a named editor or editors.

Discuss on talk
Please comment on the talk page about whether you think this structure is appropriate, and/or whether changes should be made to the proposed options. Note that my aim is to ensure that all options which may command support are presented here, and not to promote my preferences. If I have omitted any options, or given undue prominence to some, or included too many options, please treat that as unintended error by BHG, and propose a fix. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

1a. Delete all portals
This proposal was made and rejected at WP:ENDPORTALS. Consensus can change, so editors may wish to revisit.
 * Options
 * Support
 * Oppose

1b. No general restrictions
No specific guideline is needed. Each portal should be assessed on its individual merits, applying common sense and broad Wikipedia policies.
 * Options
 * Support
 * Oppose

2. Allow only portals on topics selected as Vital Articles
Use WP:Vital articles assessments as a basis for the suitability of a portal.
 * Options
 * 1) Level 1 only (10 topics)
 * 2) Up to Level 2 (100 topics)
 * 3) Up to Level 3 (~1,000 topics)
 * 4) Up to Level 4 (~10,000 topics)
 * 5) Do not use Vital Articles as a Portal criterion

3. Allow only portals with a minimum number of articles within their scope
Use the number of non-stub articles within its scope as a basis for the suitability of a portal.
 * Options:
 * 1) At least 3 non-stub articles (WP:P2 currently allows speedy deletion of portals with less than 3 non-stub articles)
 * 2) At least 20 non-stub articles (20 has been cited as a minimum in several discussions )
 * 3) At least 50 non-stub articles
 * 4) At least 100 non-stub articles
 * 5) At least 1000 non-stub articles
 * 6) At least 10,000 non-stub articles
 * 7) Do not use number of articles as a criterion

4. By pageviews
Keep only those portals which have demonstrated to be actually used by readers.

The simplest measure is by absolute number of average daily pageviews in the 12 months before the month in which portal is assessed,
 * Options:
 * 1) Average of 5 or more daily pageviews
 * 2) Average of 20 or more daily pageviews
 * 3) Average of 100 or more daily pageviews
 * 4) Do not use number of pageviews as a criterion

5. Adopted by topical WikiProject
Allow only portals where there is a consensus of a relevant topical WikiProject to support and help maintain the portal Options:
 * 1) Yes
 * No

6. Require pre-approval before creating a portal
Any new portal should be proposed at a central location, as is done with WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Portals which have not been formally proposed may be deleted on those grounds alone


 * 1) Support
 * 2) Oppose