User talk:Hecato/Archive 1

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Climbing


A tag has been placed on Portal:Climbing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Climbing
Portal:Climbing, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Climbing& and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Climbing during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Climbing


A tag has been placed on Portal:Climbing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Climbing portal
Hi Hecato -- Thanks for creating this portal! You might like to look into the code serving the Random climbing article section, as the article it served me was cornice, an architectural term that fails to cover the mountaineering meaning. These kinds of minor flaws have led to other portals at Miscellany for Deletion being pilloried in the past. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, user Espresso Addict. Words of encouragement are very welcome right now. Yes, the selection is a bit flawed at the moment. I am currently selecting a random article from Index of climbing topics. It is an old list and it requires some overhaul. I have changed cornice to Snow cornice for now. I will check that list article for other such false links. Hecato (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. These things are a bit scattergun at the moment, the smallest of things can set critics off. And don't take anything in the debate personally – I think it's fair to characterise portals as a war zone at the moment. Much of what's said has nothing to do with you, the portal, or the pursuit of climbing. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Denali
I wonder why you would rate a climbing article about North America's highest peak by far, and a major climbing destination, as "mid importance". Please clarify. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have set it to high, I guess you are right. The reason why I set it to mid is because there is some significant overlap with the Mountain project and the article is about the mountain itself. But the history of its ascents is centralized in the article, so it makes sense to focus editor attention to it. --Hecato (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate your response. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, also feel free to change my ratings in the future when you think they are wrong. --Hecato (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Essay
Well, if you get bored, you can check out an essay I devised a while back, at WP:EAGER. Just something to read for the fun of it, if you're interested. Cheers, North America1000 02:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, seems like an interesting read. --Hecato (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I had time to take a closer look now. I think the part about "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" resonates the most with me. We don't have to cut out potentially useful information just because we have to save space for print. Some people seem to think we need to carefully ration the hard drive space of the Wikimedia servers, as if a few kilobytes of text would make a big difference in the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile there are thousands of 100+ megabyte images and video files sitting on the servers, maybe never to be used. Delete one image of a user cooking macaroni in underwear and you can save a thousand stubs about folded proteins. I don't think the Wikimedia foundation has funding problems for their file servers in the first place.


 * Then there are also some purists, who seem to think certain content is "embarrassing", which overrules all usefulness. I don't know if you have followed it, but recently there was this issue about "fan art" in train articles. A user got exceedingly angry at other users for including self-made images of trains. The work of others was labelled crap, clutter, "fan art" and other such names (I think we have seen that behavior before). After taking a closer look the "fan art" turned out to be simple photos taken of trains and carefully crafted diagrams of liveries. Sure there could always be a better version of an image, but while there is no better version available use what you have (as long as it is not misleading). The random person who wants to know how a 2014 Thameslink livery with WMT Units looks like will thank you. --Hecato (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I sort of skimmed the fan art discussion. I think I'll pass on becoming involved there. I'm getting ready to cook some mac and cheese! North America1000 01:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Petra Klingler
G'day, saw on WP:Climbing that you speak German. Would you mind checking over the Klingler article to make sure there are no gross mistranslations? --Spacepine (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, just saw your thanks. Good timing! --Spacepine (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes good timing! And welcome in the Climbing project by the way! I guess I would translate the first of her two university majors as "Sports science" rather than just "Sports". Otherwise it looks pretty solid. --Hecato (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sweet thanks. I'll ping you if I work on anything else you might be interested in --Spacepine (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, please feel free to do so. --Hecato (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC?
With regards to Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines and what has said, are you willing to start an RfC about this? While I disagree with her that the original proposal is WP:POINTy (specifically, because WT:POG has been unable to come up with complete rewrites of the guidelines, there has been prior constructive discussion about the worthiness of country-level portals, confusion about the issue persists, and MfD has become a war of attrition); I do agree with BrownHairedGirl that this should be brought to RfC in order to avoid the situation of a weak WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

If you do not wish to start an RfC yourself, I volunteer to do it.

I would suggest a pretty straightforward wording: "Can country portals be deleted for not being on broad subject areas, in the sense of Portal/Guidelines?" – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea. I would prefer it if you created that RfC since you appear to be less involved in this whole portal mess. It appears me just asking a question already rubs some people the wrong way. I would suggest a wording like:
 * "The guideline for portals states that portals should be about broad subject areas. Do portals about countries meet this demand for a broad subject area as described in the guideline?"
 * Simple and to the point without poisoning the well. --Hecato (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's better. I'll probably sleep on it and start it tomorrow. And thank you for your kind words; see also my comment in the section below for where I stand in the entire "portal mess". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hecato, please see my comment below for why I don't think the time is right for an RFC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, user BHG was the one who demanded an RfC in the first place. Since she has apparently changed her mind I do not see the need for it either. --Hecato (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Section for BrownHairedGirl comments

 * @Finnusertop, note that even if the RFC answer to that question is "no", it would not stop the deletions.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". So there are 3 tests:
 * broad topic
 * large number of readers
 * large number of maintainers
 * Many portals have been deleted for passing #1 but failing #2 and/or #3. It is actually very rare for MFD to delete a portal which fails #1 but passes #2 and #3. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * PS If aim of that RFC was actually to stop deletions of country portals, the question would need to be "Can country portals be deleted for not being on broad subject areas, in the sense of Portal/Guidelines, if they have insufficient readers and/or maintainers"?
 * Shortcuts: WP:KEEPABANDONEDCOUNTRYPORTALS, WP:KEEPUNREADCOUNTRYPORTALS, and WP:COUNTRYJUNKPORTALS.
 * This should attract lots of support from those who believe that countries are important topics which are best served by ensuring that readers are lured away from the head article to an umaintained page which offers far fewer links, a much poorer image image gallery, and which exists primarily because some lone editor created it without regard to the portal guidelines, and has survived so far because the portals project is dominated by fantasists who believe that after a decade of portals being neglected and unused, magical maintainers will magically appear to attract magical readers.
 * However, that set of supports is likely to be a lot smaller than its proponents hope. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I know that this is only about the first criteria. The problem with the rest of the POG requirements are that the are empiric facts and are not subject to community consensus. A portal doesn't suddenly have lots of readers and maintainers if an RfC decides so; it either has or doesn't. I've seen country portals being nominated for not being on broad enough topics. That's what this RfC is about. See also Hecato's improved wording above.


 * This RfC is not about whether country portals can categorically not be deleted. I'm not one of those portal "fantasists" you mention. I didn't give an opinion to either way in the original WP:ENDPORTALS. If there was a new ENDPORTALS today, I'd probably vote to end all portals. I actually agree with much of your analysis about them being a vestige from the time when link directories were a popular way to organize content on the web. But so long as we have portals, we need as much clarity as possible about what portals to have. Otherwise it will be just MfD WP:BATTLEGROUND forever. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Finnusertop.
 * However, this isn't about deleting all portals. It is  about deleting unread and unmaintained portals.
 * Being a broad topic is a necessary but insufficient condition to make a viable portals. A portal without readers is pointless, and a portal without maintainers becomes an abandoned, outdated page which reflects the view of whatever least touched it.
 * So I am unclear about what you hope this RFC might achieve.
 * Is it to prevent the deletion of a portal on a micro-state such as San Marino or a small undeveloped country such as Lesotho? If so, that is perverse.  The status of being a country does not make these narrow topics broad.
 * Or is your aim to prevent the deletion of a junk portal on a much bigger country where en.wp's coverage is poor, and there are few active editors? (see e.g. MFD:Portal:Angola). Again, that seems perverse. If readers don't want to read the portal, and editors don't want to maintain it, then retaining the portal page is a wilful disservice to our readers, luring them away from well-maintained articles to barely-maintained (or abandoned) portal pages which are grossly inferior in all three functions of navigation, showcasing and image gallery.
 * Hecato's revised wording changes almost nothing. It would stop portals on micro-states being deleted as too narrow, which seems perverse.  But it would not in any way stop the likes of P:Angola being deleted.
 * The fact remains that while a small minority of portals work well, most have failed: they attract neither readers nor maintainers. I find it very sad that some editors want to devise rues to allow the retention of abandoned junk, rather than dealing with the reasons why so many portals are abandoned junk.
 * Anyone can start an RFC. But if the RFC dodges the main issues, and tries changing the rules to produce bad outcomes, then it won't succeed. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "" – – is more or less what I'm going for here. Is this just common sense, or justifiable by some shared quality (I've argued all country categories have enough articles to constitute a broad topic), or just perverse, is a matter of consensus and that's what I want this RfC to define. Right now it's just ambiguous.


 * Crucially, I agree with you that broad topic portals can be deleted for other reasons, chiefly lack of maintenance. Without defining "broad topic" with regard to countries, however, it's difficult to see where deleted junk portals stand. It's not made clear if they are deleted for the junkness or the narrowness. Some are explicitly closed "without prejudice to recreation", but the rest are going to be in limbo until this is settled.


 * Finally, I agree that a bad RfC is worse than nothing. You can help with the wording if you know how to bring more clarity to it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Finnusertop, sorry, I won't be helping re-draft the RFC. I don't see anything desirable in its rather fuzzy objectives, and if it is launched I will write  a critique to shred it (which won't be hard).  So it would be inappropriate for me to suggest wording of something which I intend to oppose.
 * I am still puzzled as to what you are trying to achieve here that might be beneficial to Wikipedia.
 * It seems to me to me that you have may have misunderstood some MFDs, because the broad topic criterion is in the same sentence as the imperfectly-worded requirement for large numbers of readers and maintainers. That has led to many delete rationales being phrased as something like "fails the broad topic test because not enough readers/maintainers". I have recently been taking more care to use more precise wordings, but after many dozens of MFDs on country portals I cannot recall a single one which was well-maintained and had a big readership, yet was deleted because the the topic is too narrow.
 * There have been several MFDs on country portals where he topic is theoretically broad, but which have failed to attract readers and/or maintainers.  In those cases, I oppose re-creation, because unless there is evidence that the lack of readers and/or maintainers has been resolved or is likely to be resolved, then a re-creation just revives the problem.  I agree with @DexDor's observations at WT:POG that the problem is the low number of editors interested in maintaining portals. Readers and editors would be much better served by following DexDor's preference for keeping a much smaller number of portals, which attract many more readers and can be maintained to a higher standard.  This has been my preferred outcome for a long time, but whether you agree or disagree with that goal, it seems to me to be deeply perverse to want to change the rules to facilitate the retention or re-creation of a portal where the evidence is that readers don't read it and editors don't maintain it.
 * Maybe you can clarify your goals by identifying one or more MFDs which you believe deleted a country portal that should have been kept. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You've yourself used low population as an argument that some countries are not broad topics, namely Grenada and Kiribati. But the wider problem is that it's not always clear which arguments have been considered when an MFD has been simply closed as "delete". And with that, it's difficult for someone interested in re-creating a portal to know if they can fix those problems. But since we aren't warring about re-created country portals, I think my worry is premature, and I'm having second thoughts about an RFC at this time. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Finnusertop, most XFD closes just note the outcome, and don't include a long analysis of the discussion unless the debate is particularly contentious and complex. Most of the time, that's fine, tho occasionally a longer explanation might have been more helpful.
 * In the last few days, I have begun to write at MFD a more explicit breakdown of how I assess the portal against the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". I have done this by taking each criterion separately, e.g. at MFD:Portal:Final Fantasy (I have used a similar format in about a dozen other MFDs). I hope that this will add clarity.
 * In any case, the issues around re-creation remain similar. A viable portal needs 1/ a broad topic, 2/ large readership, and 3/ multiple maintainers (not a drive-by one-off update).  Those 3 criteria are met much less often than some fans of portals would like. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

agree with your idea
I agree with your idea on moving Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines → Wikipedia:Portal/Information. do you have any ideas on ways to make that happen? --Sm8900 (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to write on User:Certes talk page, it was their idea. It looks like the the consensus goes towards labeling the page as failed guideline instead. Which I guess is the second best option. I still think the page can be useful advice for portal creators and maintainers. It kind of got roped into being a deletion guide in recent times, which is certainly not how it was written. I am not sure how to best go about labeling the page for that though. Cheers, Hecato (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion to find the best way to name and tag the page. I'm not particularly attached to the /Information name and would be happy to see the RM agree a better outcome, as long as the page is clearly labelled so that it can no longer be mistaken for a set of guidelines. Certes (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)