Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus No consensus to delete this one, but some have suggested a merge or redirect to Portal:English, so maybe that's worth discussing. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:English language




Cheap broken replacement for a Long standing portal, one of the very first listed at List of Portals right on the first line below Master category Culture linked off the main page. Pretty high profile for a Portal.

However, since the fully automated team got their hands on it, it's busted. All I can see is the first two paragraphs of English language, a little map with no explanation of the colors, and 6 red "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." If I click the red links I get an unhelpful box with "The time allocated for running scripts has expired. No further details are available". Refreshing does not help. Same result on both mobile and desktop.

During February the two biggest portal boosters edited it so it is being "maintained". I've never had an article give me this kind of trouble. This is a waste of Wikipedia space and an awful idea. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

*Keep unless or until there is a decision to abandon portals. This was a working portal until the new portal project got hold of it and broke it, and, if portals have a role in Wikipedia, this one does. The response to their breakage of the portal should be a more sweeping topic-ban than is currently proposed, not only from the creation of new portals but from the touching of existing working portals. This is not a deletion dispute but a conduct issue, grossly negligent breakage, and the conduct issue is already pending at a conduct forum, WP:AN. Until the future of portals is resolved, keep this one, and maybe someone will fix it if the breakers are kept away. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed if we keep portals this is a valid title but in the present state it should deleted or better yet redirected for now to English language where there is some useful content. If and when there is a better plan for portals and editors who will adopt this portal it can be reestablished properly. I assume this is broken for you too User:Robert McClenon?
 * User:Legacypac - The portal is broken for me also. (I have noted this at WP:AN in my thread.)  It seems to work correctly when I am logged out, but I have not tried editing logged out because that has is deprecated and sometimes does other bad things.  They can't be trusted to install and maintain thousands of new portals if they can't avoid breaking existing portals.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment can this be returned back to pre-automation? Not without restoring a bunch of pages. The last couple edits before the new crew got involved were in 2015 and the last substantive edits were 2013 when it was created. After 2013 most of the edits to the actual portal were fiddling with cats.  Then the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC in April 2018 brought a deletion tag. Taking the page back yields this  because they deleted all the old subpages. We don't know if the portal was good or bad but we know no one seems to have been making content changes or improvements (unless via subpages) Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like some or all of the old subpages are still there, only they are at their old locations, under "Portal:English" rather than "Portal:English language". Judging by the subpages I found, there wasn't really very much of a working, properly maintained portal there either – for instance, the "selected article" section never had more than a single article to fill it with – not surprisingly, the article on English language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So the story about eliminating more pages then they created omits the fact they left behind a bunch of trash from the old system. Maybe if all the subpages we were moved properly this would work the old way, or move the portal back to English Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note original portal restored Portal:English..... this is also the portal title that is linked from articles. --Moxy (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow Moxy compare the new and improved Portal:English language to the old Portal:English. What a contrast! Can we delete the new one now everyone? Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * it does need updating with selection of articles but we can do that later. Just noticed all the main page ports are all now automated.... we should double-check them as they are the most high-profile ones.--Moxy (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Portal:Geography has a bunch of red script areas. Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Portal:History also messed up with red script errors. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Retorted Portal:Geography was a former FA portal.--Moxy (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Retorted Portal:History also a former FA portal that was well thought out.--Moxy (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Geography and History portals are working after having been fixed by User:Moxy. Thank you.  The breakage of existing portals does not give me confidence in the current portal effort.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Finding 2/8 portals linked from the mainpage busted and even if working, inferior to the handbuilt portals gives me no joy. Ok, this is an MfD of Portal:English language which is a busted automated replacement to Portal:English. Moxy reactivated English which is what is linked from all the pages and lives high up the Portal category tree. The portal under discussion here is junk and duplicates the topic of English Portal. Please Support deletion of it. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: The restoration of the old page at Portal:English may be quite a good idea, but technically it was a cut-and-paste restoration and as such broke the page and attribution history. Once this MfD closes, the two page histories should be merged again (be it under the new or the old title). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We are informed this portal is a fringe case Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete but this is like kicking dead whales down the beach. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dating from 2006, this is many-authored historical Portal content.  Manage by merge and redirect, or archive, or whatever, but there is no case for deletion.  MfD is not WP:WP:Portal Management.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually Portals come to MfD. This page is redundant to Portal:English Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Portals needing deletion come to MfD. The alleged redundancy between Portal:English language and Portal:English is a matter for a talk page discussion to propose a redirect, merge smerge or no merge.  If the talk page discussion doesn't proceed to your liking the escalation route is WP:3O and WP:RfC.  A feigned deletion rationale doesn't justify a forced 7 day resolution at MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want any outcome but to delete this busted content fork of a contact fork. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By "busted content fork of a contact fork", I think you refer to the recently created auto-portal located at Portal:English?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)  This matches your comment of 02:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC).  I think page swapping during an MfD disrupts the MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * English is the old portal. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Look again? Portal:English is the new page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Portal:English language is the portal being discussed here the new one.....Portal:English.... is the old portal that needs some updating but not up for deletion.--Moxy (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Moxy, are you and I seeing different things? Portal:English language dates from 2006. It was created 10:38, 25 July 2006‎ by, who Legacypac auto-notified using Twinkle.  This is very confusing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * English was moved to English language by the automation crew and then automated. English has been restored as a old line portal during this discussion. They mucked it all up. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes history on the main page was moved but all the sub subpages remained like Portal:English/Selected article ... and is why we were able to restore the portal..... just lucky they were lazy never nominated the subpages for deletion. That said.... when all this is over histories have to be merged.--Moxy (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:The Transhumanist, have you agreed to stay out of Portalspace until you have completed auto-portal testing and got consensus to start making some live? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No opposition to deleting, or moving to subpages of WP:WikiProject Portals, recent mass-created auto-portals. This work is a good idea, but no mass creations without consensus WP:Bot policy style.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix if necessary, but there is no need for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please clarify you believe we need both Portal:English and fully automated bit created Portal:English language. 16:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
 * Possibly best to merge them, but that's no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and consider merging the two. First of all, the portal is working fine for me, with all sections properly populating. Also not convinced by some of the subjective/ambiguous rationales for deletion provided in the nomination (e.g. "Cheap broken", "a waste", "awful idea") and in the delete !vote above ("this is like kicking dead whales down the beach"), which provides no policy-based rationale to delete whatsoever. The portal is functional as a useful navigational aid. North America1000 22:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Close, no acceptable deleteion rationale, but an attempt to use MfD discussions to develop policy.
 * I agree with North America. There is no policy basis for this MfD.  This is Policy development that's going on here.  Portal creation policy.  At a minimum, it should be occurring under a well advertised RfC.  MfD must not be used to force policy development.  MfD is an obscure backwater, and seven days with little advertising is not good enough.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge with Portal:English. It seems that after a simple technical fix, the page was no longer broken. In some ways, it is an improvement: it is much easier to page through selected articles and images now. However, I don't see the point in having both pages. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Portal:English language, keep Portal:English. Portal:English is clearly far superior to Portal:English language. I don't pretend to understand about page histories and moves and such, so if they need to be merged for that reason, consider me !voting for merge, but the bottom line is that Portal:English should stay and Portal:English language should go. Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I hid an image of the portal that is nothing like the current version and you reverted my edit because it makes an "important point". Could you please explain what the point is? RockMagnetist(talk) 01:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wikiproject Portal crew destroyed a hand curated portal one level below the ones linked from the mainpage. They claim that these automated portals require almost no maintenance and that one person can handle thousands of them. This image counters that. Also, the Lua errors are not always there so even if you don't see errors, they can well reappear. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * O.k., those are good points. It does seem like hubris replacing some of the best-established portals. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.