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 . — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox[edit]
Some of these portals cover narrow topics which should never have a portal. Others cover broad topics which might be capable of supporting a thoughtfully-designed and properly-curated portal which used a selected article list extending way beyond the navbox. So, as in the first mass nomination, I propose that these pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Single navbox portals #2: List-making process[edit]
The secondary list is a subset of the 36 portals which I removed from the first mass nomination, because checking revealed that they did not meet the criteria.
I processed that list to remove duplicates, non-existent pages, and pages already tagged for MFD; and then processed it again to keep only pages based on a single navbox. That left 21 pages. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's priceless. In fairness, the red Lua error occurs in the "selected image" box, and perhaps that is, indeed, a good image of what Lua is. :-D Levivich 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per previous MfD. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per previous MfD: the reasoning is sound, the selection process appears rigorous, and the result is a net positive. Triptothecottage (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all because there is overwhelmingly-clear consensus from the first bundled MfD that it is a waste of time to go through these one by one and that the way these bundles have been selected and vetted means we have a list of automatically mass-created portals that we can "safely" mass delete. Nevertheless, I went through the list and looked at a random bunch. It was more of the same:
Portal:Nirvana (band) and Portal:Boston Red Sox are insults to those venerable legends. Ppoor-quality images and poor (random, really) selection of content. One of the images on Nirvana is Pat Smear, who was not a member of the band, but he did perform with some of the surviving members 20 years after Nirvana.
Not sure where those captions came from, since the caption on commons for the scale image is "Barbie bathroom scale set at 110 lbs". The other image has "Back cover of Barbie booklet about how to lose weight."--Aurictalk 23:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The captions came from the portal. The portal has pictures of the Barbie scale and the Barbie diet book but not of Barbie or anything else Barbie-related. A horrible presentation. Levivich 23:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't manually coded on the portal as you suggest. I did some digging and found that the portal grabs them from a gallery on the Barbie article.--Aurictalk 18:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, nothing on these microportals is manually coded. That the script grabbed these two pictures from the "body image" section of the article, and not any others, illustrates (heh) the danger of automatically-created portals, and why they deserve the moniker "portalspam". Levivich 21:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW close asdelete all On what possible basis is this going to have a different consensus than the previous nomination? Any delay is just sand in the gears. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, but oppose speedy unless a specific speedy deletion criterion is established. It still takes more time to delete than it did to create, but this is not the place to establish speedy deletion criteria. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 02:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as follows:
After a full seven days of discussion, not short-circuiting the discussion process, not a snow closure.
Without prejudice to re-creation, but also without prejudice to objections to re-creation.
Automated single-navbox portals serve no exterior purpose. The only good that they do is, for those who think that portals are necessarily beneficial, they provide the false satisfaction of having done something, while actually doing nothing.
All of the arguments about automated portals can be restated.
Delete all per previous consensus established here. These portals as based off a single navbox provide no additional navigational functionality than the main article, defeating the purpose of a portal. Many thanks to BrownHairedGirl for putting together this and the last batch, and for her extremely well written explanations. Meszzy2 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom. Adds no value to the encyclopedia.--Srleffler (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let's keep this open for the full time period in case there are some portals included in error. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Per current and previous nominator's rationale. They add no value to the encyclopedia, all are automated and using a single navbox. I have checked all the list and none of them were important. Editor-1 (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - once again per Robert McClendon. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why: With any XfD discussion, the best result is a clearcut decision one way or the other where there has been broad participation and the nomination has been well-scrutinised. Both participation and scrutiny are boosted by running for the usual 7 days.
Single-page nominations can usually be checked quite easily and quickly. But when a nomination raises complex issues (which this doesn't), or when it involves an large set of pages (as this very clearly does), it takes time for any editor to do detailed scrutiny ... so understandably, most editors just check a sample.
So in cases such as this, letting the nomination run its course significantly increases the likelihood that any errors will be found. I have confidence in my own methodology, but the community's confidence in any outcome is significantly boosted by knowing that others had time to assess it, and knowing that no corners were cut in this scrutiny phase.
It's particularly important with these automated portals, because an RFC proposal for a speedy deletion process was closed as no consensus[2]. The community clearly supports the cleanup, but doesn't want shortcuts around due diligence.
With a nomination this size, an overturned close would be highly disruptive. It is not in anyone's interest to risk that.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. I have tested the 1144+21 for the criterion given by BHG. No error found. To be in conformity with how I have !voted in the previous discussions, I have to say that 3 of these portals were asserting a maintainer, namely:
- Maintained, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-17 04:51:49 by User:TTH, maintained by User:The Transhumanist : Portal:Bronze Age
- Maintained, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-07 09:25:26 by User:TTH, maintained by User:Auric : Portal:Unidentified flying objects
- Maintained, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-07 06:40:46 by User:TTH, maintained by User:Grey Wanderer : Portal:Columbia, Missouri
Maybe a comment from one of these three users could change my opinion about one of these 3 portals, but not so sure. Pldx1 (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A favor Anyone with AWB have a fast way to add a link to each portal's history next to the numbered nomination above, to save a click for each? UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. I tried replacing "# [[:Name]]" with "#{{pagelinks|Name}}" but I got a template limits error. In other words, the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} templates would contain too much data. SITH(talk) 14:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SITH, that's why I deliberately did not use {{Pagelinks}}. Even if it didn't each templatelimits on this page, it would certainly reach it when transcluded into MFD, and break that page. I will look into other ways of adding a history link. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out how to add the links. Gimme a few minutes to do it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete: consensus is clear, these don't meet WP:POG. SITH(talk) 14:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no SNOW Might as well leave the discussion open. Yes, this is going to pass so I understand the rationality behind WP:SNOW but there has been useful discussion of portal-related topics and I think that this is going to be an important part of portal history on Wikipedia. Let the commentary continue. This is a learning process for all of us. If you find it a waste of time, don't comment/read it and just wait for it to close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus720 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these portals have no value beyond that found in the main article anyway. The contents invariably consists of part of the main article's lead section, selected contextless images from that article, random articles taken from a navbox in that article and some portal boilerplate. The only content not present in the main article is the DYKs and news items, when applicable, and those are often silly. To add to the examples above, only two of the six DYKs in Portal:Ghosts are actually about ghosts, Portal:Paper has two DYKs about scientific papers and one about paperclips, Portal:Coal has an item about the Coal tit, which has nothing to do with coal other than having a black bit, and Portal:Candy and Portal:Leather both have items about sea creatures. Some of these topics would make viable portal topics but those need to be written with care by actual humans. Hut 8.5 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Mass creation of unhelpful and unmaintainable gunk needs mass deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Let's get this motivation train on the rails again for making improvements. – The Grid (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I had vaguely assumed that Portals in general were a Good Idea but I see I was gravely mistaken. Oculi (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As with the previous batch, the methodology applied by BHG appears to be sound, and sampling found no errors at this time. I echo the previous sentiments of my last !vote, and maintain my previous position on navbox-based portals as well. Also, the Lua error on Portal:Lua programming language is hilarious. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 04:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete all reuse of wikipedia content happens at other sites, encouraged and unstoppable. Bombing this site with static pages that harvest content to a user-defined subjective assemblage was certain to be disruptive, in this case the namespace has been weaponised to create an arena that seeks to divide creators and maintainers. I would support of a block of any prime mover in this absurdly subjective and toxic game-playing in our community, THH would be first up. cygnis insignis 06:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, previous MfD and all the comments above. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 16:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
