User:JBchrch/Portal links on the Main Page: RfC Workshop

The purpose of this page is to draft an RfC regarding the placement of links to selected portals ("portal links") on the main page. In the past, two attempts at polling the community on this topic were inconclusive, mainly because the proposals were perceived as sub-optimal (see ). To move forward on this issue, propositions and opinions about a new poll are sought.

Proposal


Which of the following options best expresses your views about the placement of portal links on the main page?

Option 1: The location of portal links on the main page should not be changed.

Option 2: The location of portal links on the main page should be changed. They should be removed from the top banner and:


 * Option 2A: ...moved above the "From today's featured article"/"In the news" sections


 * Option 2B: ...moved in between "Did you know..."/"On this day" and "Today's featured picture" sections.


 * Option 2C: ...moved to the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section.


 * Option 2D: ...moved somewhere else: please specify.


 * Option 2E: ...moved somewhere else, but I decline to express a view about where.


 * Option 2F: ...removed entirely from the main page.


 * (Editors may choose several options, with an order of preference.)

Option 3: The location of portal links on the main page should be changed but they should be replaced by something else.

Editors may choose Option 2 and Option 3 cumulatively. JBchrch  talk  18:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Background
Wikipedia's portals have long suffered from low readership and poor maintenance. There have been numerous efforts to curtail them in recent years, some of which garnered substantial support, and the community has chosen to delete many hundreds of unmaintained or unread portals. In contrast to this tenuous state, portals enjoy extremely prominent positioning at the top of the Main Page, where eight of them and the portal contents page is linked in the very top banner, above even the TFA and ITN. The specific portals receive |Portal:The_arts|Portal:Biography|Portal:Geography|Portal:History|Portal:Science|Portal:Society|Portal:Technology|Wikipedia:Contents/Portals only 2000–5000 pageviews per day, less than well-performing DYK hooks which appear much farther down and often more briefly. The portals contents page does marginally better, with a daily average of 11,800 views.

Separately, the Desktop Improvements Team has introduced a new button for switching between language editions, and has been discussing on Phabricator how it might appear on Main Pages.

Last October, made a proposal to remove the portal links from the Main Page, per the web usability principle that underutilized links should be cleared out to reduce clutter. It received 30 !votes in favor and 17 opposed, but was closed as no consensus because it did not offer clear-cut choices and thus did not manage to elicit clear-cut responses. After discussion on the closer's talk page and a challenge at the administrators' noticeboard, the close was left standing. Last month, the closer launched a follow-up discussion asking broadly whether the display should be kept or changed, but it was withdrawn after procedural objections in part about its lack of specificity. /

Proposal
We propose the following related changes:
 * 1) Remove the portal links from the top banner and center-justify the Welcome to Wikipedia message.
 * 2) Move the link to the portals contents page to the Other areas of Wikipedia section lower on the Main Page, adding Content portals – A unique way to navigate the encyclopedia.
 * 3) Add the language switcher button to the newly freed space in the upper right corner.

Best, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk and [your sig here] /~/

Notified: WP:CENT, WT:Main Page, WT:Usability, WT:PORT. /

Survey

 * Support as co-proposer. Our Main Page should not be featuring so prominently links that are barely ever used, that don't represent our best work, and that clutter its design. The other areas section is a suitable new home for the portal contents page, offering a middle ground that allows us to avoid complete removal. The language switcher is a helpful feature for the Main Page that will fit nicely in the newly freed space. /

Discussion
This looks really great. Here are three comments:
 * I would just advise inverting the order of things, by placing "Proposal" first and "Background" second: I'm saying this because, as you may remember, one of the issues that came up the first time is that the proposal did not respect WP:RFCBRIEF. If you take this change on board, I'm thinking that you might need to sign both the proposals and the background sections, per my understanding of RFCBRIEF.
 * About There have been perennial proposals to deprecate or delete the namespace, and while none of these have yet succeeded: I'm concerned that this sentence may elicit opposition from folks who would be inclined to support, but who do not want portals to be deprecated. Also, the fact that the deprecation proposals did not succeed is not really helping our case, I think. Seems to me like the background rationale works without this particular sentence.
 * I'm happy to co-sign your proposal if you think it can help bolster support for the proposal, but I sincerely don't want to take credit for the work you've put in. You can just tell me what you prefer, both options are entirely fine by me. I will be supporting anyway. JBchrch   talk  15:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point about the deprecation failing; I want to get folks thinking about all the ways portals are disliked, so I think it's good to at least allude to WP:ENDPORTALS, but I changed the phrasing. I would normally put the proposal first, but in this case I think it's helpful to emphasize the background, and I don't think we'll encounter RFCBRIEF objections if we don't format it as an RfC (which isn't necessary as it's a little redundant to CENT-listing). On signing, you've put in a ton of the legwork, so it's not undue credit at all! (I think co-signed proposals probably get a tiny bump, but that's secondary.) Feel free to sign when you're ready and we can move it over to VPR. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All good, and happy to sign it—thanks again! The only point I would invite you to think over on is the RfC thing. I will spare you the diffs, but I remember that some people really took issue about at the non-RfC-sation of the first discussion, and a long-standing admin called it a "procedural irregularity" about a month ago . I don't want to be annoying or anything, just making sure we get it right. Won't insist, though. JBchrch   talk  18:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Also, the closure of the closure challenge alluded to an RfC . Of course it's not binding on anyone, but just wanted to mention it.  JBchrch   talk  18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's go with an RfC format, then—we can just add the tag in the proposal section. I'll go ahead and launch now. I don't want to copy your actual signature, so I'll just put your name in plain text, and as soon as you see this, feel free to replace it with your formatted sig. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks very much for your energy and initiative. I've added my sig and !vote. JBchrch   talk  01:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

General discussion
Hi ! I've had this on my to-do list for a little while and was planning to launch something in the next few days—thanks for pushing it along! Normally, my approach would be to try to separate out all the different elements to give !voters maximum latitude, but given that design elements are all interrelated, I think the best option here may be to present it as a combo. That would have the benefit of simplicity, as polls with too many options can get messy. I'll put how I'd frame the proposal above—could you let me know what you think, and if it'd be alright to launch in the next day or so? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for chiming in . I'm in favor of whatever works best, and if you're confident that using a combo rather than à-la-carte is a better approach, then more power to you. I'm curious to see what you will propose. What do you think about letting the message I've posted on VPR get archived before moving on with the process, though? I'm sorry if this impedes on your initial idea, I just want to avoid any confusion that may arise. JBchrch   talk  21:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've drafted how I would frame the proposal above! Let me know what you think, and feel free to sign/add your support if you want. On the current message at VPR, I'd suggest we manually archive that when we move this there to avoid confusion. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Works for me regarding the timing/process. I've left a few comments above. Thanks again. JBchrch   talk  15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Background
1. First poll:
 * Poll wording:


 * Closure (excerpt):

2. Closure challenge and general meta-discussion:

3. AN closure challenge:

4. Second poll:
 * Poll wording:


 * Closure (excerpt):