Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Papua New Guinea

 __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:  delete. ‑Scottywong | express _ 07:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Papua New Guinea


This is an unmaintained and abandoned portal on a country. The portal was created in 2006, but has not been maintained, and has four articles, none more recent than 2007. The news that faces the reader is dated 2011, about a constitutional crisis that was resolved later in 2011.

The portal has 14 average daily pageviews between 1 Jan 2019 and 28 Feb 2019. The head article Papua New Guinea has 4056 daily pageviews based on the same interval.

One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. It has also been noted that copying portions of articles to portal subpages without attribution is a violation of the CC-BY-SA copyleft and is not permitted. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future.

This portal should be deleted, without prejudice to a new portal under future portal guidelines that does not rely on partial copies of pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

”Broad Subject Area” Comment
The failure of this portal to attract either readers or maintainers or even portal development illustrates the absurdity of making the a priori statement that a topic is a broad subject area that will support a portal. The country that is the subject of this portal has extraordinary cultural and biological diversity, including 851 languages. But that breadth has not resulted in the development of the portal, let alone its maintenance or use. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:FIXIT-- Moxy 🍁 20:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another abandoned-for-a-decade portal.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". A theoretical argument can be made that Papua New Guinea is a broad topic. I agree with that theoretical argument, but the guideline is clear that this is not a theoretical requirement; it is a practical requirement that the portal must be both used and maintained. And here we have empirical evidence that in practice this portal does not pass that test: it has not attracted maintainers, and it has not attracted readers. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:Moxy says WP:FIXIT. FIXIT and SOFIXIT are shortcuts for the guideline WP:Be bold.  That guideline is primarily about article space, and states that it is primarily about article space.  With regard to portal namespace, it primarily directs the editor to the portal guidelines, which, it seems, are a failed proposal.  (So the guideline directs me to a non-guideline.)  However, "Be bold" or "Fix it" encourage and empower the editor to correct problems for which solutions can be identified, such as copy-editing.  It isn't clear what User:Moxy is saying should be fixed with regard to a portal that has two problems, neither of which has an identified solution.  The first is the lack of a portal maintainer.  The second is the design using partial page copies, which was an honorable experiment that failed.  What is Moxy saying that someone should fix?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The time it took you to compose this all could have been fixed...first begin by transclusion some of the 5,000 plus related articles ...then fix the incoming portal links so that the 60 percent of our readers that don't see the portal can now see it. If you need help I can explain more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Moxy - Rather than suggesting anonymously that I could have done something better, and rather than saying that I need my hand held, why don't you demonstrate how to fix a portal with the old design, which you imply is done by transcluding a few thousand articles and then fixing the portal incoming links? I can identify some portals for you that I may be nominating for deletion, and maybe you can demonstrate how to fix them.  Do you want me to identify a few portals to fix to demonstrate how to fix them?  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Moxy. You got the job!
 * It would be helpful if you would indicate which portals you have improved in this way, and which you intend to work on ... and of course what plans you have for their ongoing maintenance. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As has been explained many times automation doesn't need maintenance...::::Easy fix can convert as seen here....or even easier like this. The community has been cLear on this fact.... that is the desire to improve existing portals. Time is needed ....we are volunteers that don't work here full-time. Not sure how people can fix hundreds of portals in a month...Tag give time.- Moxy 🍁 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Moxy - If this discussion is about Portal:Papua New Guinea, then we are not talking about hundreds of portals, only one portal, which it appears you said could be fixed in minutes. If this discussion is about portals in general, then I suggest we take it to WT:Portal/Guidelines.  If this discussion is about Portal:Papua New Guinea, then improving a page that has been tagged for deletion has always been considered a desirable alternative to deletion that can be done while the XFD is in progress.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Moxy wrote: "Tag give time".  That raises two questions.  First, how much time?  Thirteen years?  This portal has been waiting for a maintainer for thirteen years.  One week?  This portal has been tagged for action in one week, and can be improved in that time.  Second, how to tag?  The Tag feature of Twinkle does not work on portals.  Do you have a canned tag that can be applied to portals that is visible and that populates a category?  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You know full well last time I was in the middle of a fix attempt it was reverted.-- Moxy 🍁 23:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Moxy must be referring to some other portal. There is no history of Moxy having edited Portal:Papua New Guinea either to try to fix it or for any other reason.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My reading is that User:Moxy is contradicting themself as to the time required to improve portals. They said that in the time required to compose this all (presumably meaning starting with the MFD nomination) this all could have been fixed.  They then said that it takes time to fix portals.  If I have misread, and there is no contradiction, p lease explain.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tag it for 30 days....and don't revert attempta at fixing. -- Moxy 🍁 23:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How do I tag a portal? Does User:Moxy have a standard portal tag that can be applied manually to a portal and that populates a category?  The ability to tag pages with Twinkle isn't implemented for portals.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup in the past we used Update Time to setp up and do right by the community --- Moxy 🍁 13:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * thsi portal has been categorised for 6 weeks in Category:Abandoned country portals.
 * You say that it's Time to setep up and do right by the community ... so please show us which abandoned portals you have rescued in the last 6 weeks.
 * So far as I can see, Moxy is busy denouncing others for not fixing portals, while doing next to nothing himself. See Moxy's mere 50 portalspace edits for the last 2 months: not a single new content subpage added.
 * It's all very easy to vent indignation about portals being deleted, which Moxy has taken to doing regularly. But all the indignation on earth doesn't alter the very simple fact that 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 without readers and maintainers, there is no basis in policy or guideline for keeping the portal. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have real gusto saying anything  after reverting attempts at fixing portals...cant believe you even have the nerve to say anything after cockblocking fix attempts.  What we are looking for is editors to follow our rules and community wishing   ....You should read up on WP:DONOTFIXIT  and  stop the useless work and deletions  and help!! Placing thing is a cat with no tag is even more useless the fixing redirects for no reason.- Your right 50 edits to help portals...you have many many many many more mostly  based on deletion great work...dispite what other have told you 2 over and over...how many more RfC will you guys ignore??? !! - Moxy 🍁 20:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Moxy - I may respond to the substance of your comment in the near future, after noting for now that it is a blatant violation of civility that amounts to a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your right ..just frustrating to be told by someone to fix it but yet get reverted when doing so...have struck the comments..not much can be done here as its clear whats happening. -- Moxy 🍁 21:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Moxy, stop telling lies. Your fixes have not been reverted. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Question User:Moxy - What fixes were reverted by User:BrownHairedGirl or anyone else? I am aware that numerous portals were converted to an automated design and were then restored to the old design.  Is that what is being discussed here?  If so, I think that the portal platoon may have been conducting an experiment in fixing another older experiment, and their biggest mistake was not trying to automate portals so much as creating thousands of portals recklessly.  What fixes were reverted?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Redundant fork of Papua New Guinea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – WP:REDUNDANTFORK and the entire Content forking page was written specifically in regards to articles, and states nothing about Portal namespace content. Fact is, there is nothing about portals on the page at all; even the word "portal" is not present. Conversely, the word "article" is used 100 times throughout the page (as of this post, link ). Ultimately, the use of Redundant fork toward Portal namespace content is a slippery slope and overextension of the Content forking guideline page, as well as the intent of the page when it was written; it's about articles. North America1000 10:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I notice that User:Moxy hasn't fixed this portal. However, since part of the problem with the portal is that the design using copies of parts of subpages is an honorable failed experiment, maybe it can't be fixed, only rebuilt from scratch.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have no interest in talking or editing portals anymore. And have pulled the tec request to make portals visable in mobile view. Portals have been killed as seen by univolved user removing the links from articles all over the place. It's to bad this effort was not geared toward the dead book space over a navigational aid used by those with disabilities.-- Moxy 🍁 23:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Sometimes an advocate of portals says something to the effect that they have no interest in talking about portals any more. Perhaps, if they were more gracious, they could say something to the effect that they like portals, but they accept that not all of the existing portals will be kept and that some of the arguments against some of the portals have some merit.  That would be more gracious.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, I am hearing complaints about past wrongs that I do not understand. I am not sure that I want to understand what these past wrongs were.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – No prejudice against re-creation of a curated, complete, up-to-date portal. North America1000 05:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this portal it is junk, no selected biography section and no category section, terrible junk.Catfurball (talk) 19:52, 26 July 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.