Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals

Page needs to be split into multiple pages
There is a big need to create separate pages for the RFc survey, the discussion, the ideas, and currently nominated portals for deletion. The page is already experiencing issues when editing the page source, especially when adding a new idea, as doing a section edit will not do much since there is only to sections on the page (mostly everything on the page is a sub-section). The major issue that is being faced is performance issue, where typing a word has a long delay to appear on the screen. Right now the delay is noticeable, but if the page gets any larger, or the content is not split into more sections or pages, this delay could cause multiple issues. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Users should not have to edit any "major" section on the page (say, "Survey: Ending the system of portals"), unless they are performing "gnome-work" on it (e.g., moving comments between sections or adding HTML comments to explain where new comments should go). Any new comments should go in one of the more specific subsections, anyway. I'm not sure I understand this part of your comment: "especially when adding a new idea, as doing a section edit will not do much since there is only to sections on the page". If you are talking about editing the entire page to add a new subsection at the bottom, the better way of doing that is to edit the last subsection on the page, which is always relatively small. In other words, when you wanted to add the subsection you called "Extremely plausible alternative idea", you could just edit the subsection called "Yet another alternate idea" and add your new section at the bottom of that edit window. That being said, however, we really do not need users creating new subsections, anyway, since it just fragments the already fragmented discussion further. - dcljr (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But do you think that new users know about that trick? At the same time the default edit summary tag will not be appropriate, as it will act as a summary pointing to the section that was edited just to add a new section.  I think it is well known that there are many old time users who are very lazy to edit the edit summary or even add one.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And new users won't bother either. So what's your point? Anyone who cares about edit summaries very likely already understands their limitations and how to work around them, while those who don't understand won't be relying on them, anyway. (And besides, what does that have to do with splitting the page?) As for editing "tricks", if you think users need more instructions about how to edit the page, you can add something about that somewhere on the page. (But like I said, I really don't think we should be encouraging the creation of new sections because they only make the discussion harder to follow. I mean… take the latest new section created: what the heck is that user talking about? Presumably they're responding to something said elsewhere on the page, but it's "impossible" to tell what it was because they put their comment in a separate section.) Finally, to address your original concerns more directly: I think the "solution" you're proposing will actually make things even more confusing than they already are. - dcljr (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried, this isn't likely to pass anyways. When this is all done I predict other discussions popping up from it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes you feel that this would not pass? I see a lot of supporters on the Project Page.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply (and frankly) put, there is no way in hell this RFC is going to result in a "consensus in support" closure. You may see "a lot of supporters" in the Survey, but there is no evidence that people are coming to a consensus about accepting the proposal, as stated. - dcljr (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Or one might get a split decision: "Keep Portal:Current events, no consensus on deleting the others" for example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope not as that would cause portals to be sent to MfD on the grounds of this discussion. This is just what we don't need, multiple MfDs going on at once all with similar arguments tied to this one discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

New sections
Well, whoever adjusted the section levels (have not found exact edit in page history) to put everything appearing below "Discussion: Ending the system of portals" as a subsection of that section has essentially guaranteed an unending string of new sections opened by users just for their individual comments (since it is now very difficult to add new comments to the "Discussion: Ending the system of portals" section itself). I have not checked to see how relevant (or not) the remaining &lt;!-- HTML comments --> in the source are, now that that change has been made. Would someone else like to do that? - dcljr (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC) — [Struck out remarks that are no longer relevant. - dcljr (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)]
 * Well, I've gone ahead and added more explicit instructions about editing the page, since the latest refactoring made it even harder for users to add new general-discussion comments. [Darn it—forgot to log in first.] Not sure this will help, but it's more clear than the HTML comments and brief visible notice that was on the page before now. - dcljr (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How to close
As discussed in a few different places on the RFC page itself, someone needs to decide how this RFC will be brought to a close. Reading through Requests for comment, it seems obvious that the closing mechanism will have to be #4, removal of rfc tag (and associated notices), because none of the other things are going to happen (e.g., the discussion petering out on its own). But there will almost certainly have to be a long period of "digestion" between "ending" the RFC and providing a closing "summary". I have suggested elsewhere that the one-month mark (May 8th) would possibly be a good time to "lock" the discussion, although now I think simply removing the RFC tag (and the many notices around the wiki that point to the RFC) could be done on that date. In any case, I defer to those experienced with RFC closures, so I have asked for input about this at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. - dcljr (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (copied across from WP:RFCL) As I've commented within the RFC, I can't help with the close. In terms of the procedure, though, it's absolutely going to be #4, and I suggest putting a big bold note at the bottom and top of the RFC saying it will be closed on a particular date at least a week in the future, and that the closing summary will be provided within a further week of that, giving you and the other suckers volunteers the time to craft it. Fish +Karate 08:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to communicate with other closers, however I anticipate this is a short while off closing yet as it is very much still active - however, I will review this once the 30 day period is over along with any closures. I don't see the point in setting a firm date with this sort of discussion, and instead keeping an eye on it and closing when it quietens down sufficiently - the more time the better with this sort of wide-ranging discussion. I'm open to other opinions on this, however the discussion will likely eventually reach a point where closure is appropriate. It may well be we draft a closing statement while still open, but I think deciding now what to do is futile. Mdann52 (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that this RFC is linked to from over 1,000 other pages around the wiki, including very active/visible ones like Portal:Current events. It is likely that the rate of new comments will never drop below 5–10 per day, as it is now. For this reason, a (somewhat "arbitrary") closing date will likely need to be decided upon and announced at some point. - dcljr (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Page views below do not seem a conclusive tool the determine when to close this (though, they do seem to have stabilized around 1k views/day: probably people (who have already voiced their opinion) checking the page). However, there has been little new "discussion" going on, and most new edits are about 5-10 daily !votes. Per Dcljr, I support letting this run up to the one-month mark, and then removing the associated tags. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

An idea from Jimbo
For what it's worth Jimbo suggested that we take a look at how portals are handled in other languages of Wikipedia, and compare them to the ones here. Has anyone done this yet? (I don't speak or understand German here) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Search "german wikipedia" on the rfc page gives a few hits, looks like it has been looked into to Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have experience with redesigning portals in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. They use random article snippets, people appear on their birthdays, and are screen size responsive. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Any further discussion of the substance of Jimbo's suggestion really belongs in the RFC itself, not here on the talk page. - dcljr (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I talked about improving the visibility of portals on the main page by substituting the boring bullet points with small icons, something the German Wikipedia did. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Page views
I just added Annual readership at the top of this talk page, thinking it might be of some use when deciding when to close this RfC (or whether to reopen it, if it gets closed automatically by a bot). Here's a similar graph for the page where this RfC first started (on 8 April):
 * Page views of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The RfC was moved to "this" subpage on 18 April.

For ease of comparison, here's the graph for the subpage (same as the one at the top of this talk page):
 * Page views of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals

- dcljr (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is horrible
The following was just posted to the project page with the section heading shown here (above):  There is no AFD template on the current events portal, so I just became aware of this deletion request. For Gosh Sakes please get rid of the dreadful Current Events Portal at least !!! There you have people who know nothing of the Venezuela crisis attempting to maintain WP:NOTNEWS style entries which have been wrong every time I have checked. I recall years ago the same thing happening with some health portal somewhere (cannot recall) where advocates for autism had taken over the portal to push POV, and no one else was aware. Wikipedia is not news, and the few editors who are trying to maintain the Venezuela situation should not be sidetracked by the mess that is happening on this portal. And you should put the blooming AFD tag on the portal to assure others can participate in this discusion. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC was closed about a year ago with this comment: There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)  Kees08  (Talk)   20:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As it was out of chronological order and clearly based on a misunderstanding of the situation (i.e., that the RFC was still going on), I have moved it to here. I suggest we mark the entire project page as being in an archived state (i.e., not just the "Survey" part) and discourage any further discussion there. - dcljr (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've modified the notices on the page. That may be sufficient at this point, since there's only been one additional comment in the last 8.5 months. - dcljr (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also added an edit notice.  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  06:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for letting me know. I saw an AFD tag posted to the portal today.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which portal? - dcljr (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I went to get the diff for you, and realized I was mistaken ... it was 2018. My apologies.  (But I still think the way POV is pushed, along with incorrect info, on the current events portal is quite awful.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think that the closure's "strong consensus" was quite hyperbolic. The population of editors most invested in the topic may have showed up in bigger numbers, but there is a large part of editors, if not a majority, who voice very strong concerns, which cannot be addressed simply by tweaking some details here and there. Nemo 08:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated in the notices that have just been added to the page: "If you want to discuss this further, please open up a new section on Village pump (proposals) or other appropriate Village Pump page." - dcljr (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm unwatching, as I am in the midst of trying to edit a major geopolitical fast-moving current event. If something new is opened, I would dearly appreciate it if someone would ping me. As I have now followed the portal for three days, I am even more alarmed at how much truly inaccurate information I am having to remove daily about the Venezuela crisis, and bothered that these inaccuracies are hidden away on a page that is not that apparent to most people editing on and knowledgeable of Venezuelan sources, and that following these portal pages creates an additional editing burden.  Thanks, apologies for for jumping in at the wrong place, and unwatch.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)