Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Current featured portal candidates Current featured portal candidates: edit · history · watch · refresh

AC/DC • Cuba • Current events/Canada • Holidays • Library and information science • Visual arts
Current portal peer review requests Current portal peer review requests: edit · history · watch · refresh

Baseball • Energy • Epitaph Records • Graffiti • Maharashtra • Rapid transit • Robotics • Space exploration • UK Railways • World War II

Contents

List of portal peer review volunteers List of portal peer review volunteers: edit · history · watch · refresh

[edit] Nomination length

I'm curious what the length of time is for voting on featured portals? 8 days? 14? It doesn't say here... Jon 04:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Um...pick a number? I'll enquire as to the time limit on FAC. Given this a new proccess, a time limit might not be yet appropriate. Perhaps we'll sort of 'fall' into a time limit.--cj | talk 08:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
FAC doesn't have a specific time, but most nominations there are up for about a week or two. The lack of a specific time period allows the moderator to quickly promote articles with wide support or to let the discussions progress to their conclusion when there is some dissent. Slambo (Speak) 11:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] supporting personal portals

What is people's view on voting on your own portal. I have noticed people have voiced their support for portals they have created, but I really don't feel right doing that for P:L... can someone please determine whether self-voting is okay or not. Deano 17:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as we get full disclosure, I don't see a problem with self-nom or self-vote (like in my own nomination I stated that I created the Trains portal and that I maintain it on a daily basis). FAC has done quite well with self-noms and self-votes for some time. Many editors might not see worthy candidates because they are out of their own realms of expertise. Slambo (Speak) 20:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem here. Even if most commenters were from the related WikiProject, I wouldn't be concerned - and I wouldn't be surprised if such commenters had useful comments from improvement. Also, remember it's not quite a vote. It's quite possible to have a "killer" oppose (for example, if some of the key criteria are simple not met), or if, despite lots of positive votes, it is clear to anyone neutral on the subject that the portal is crap, jguk 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time to promote

Is 10 days enough time to say that we should now promote Portal:Cricket, or should we give it a fortnight? Personally, as long as there are at least 4 supports, not more than one oppose and no killer oppose, I think 10 days is enough (and is what we use on WP:FLC), but I'm reluctant to just promote now myself as I'm the portal's sponsor, jguk 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Although a fortnight might be a wholer timer, there 5 supports and no opposition suggests the Cricket Portal is ready. I agree it would be a conflict of interest for the candidate's sponser to promote their portal themselves. I'm happy to do it (and will now). Congratulations to the first featured portal!--cj | talk 09:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Cyberjunkie.

By the way, it struck me that we need some guidance on what to do when promoting or failing a portal akin to what we have on Featured lists. Eg update log, add to WP:GO, etc. Do others agree? jguk 18:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 800x600

I was about to support Portal:London; but then I realized it does not fit in a 800x600 resolution. Should this be a basic requirement of portals as they are the frontpage to an entire subject area? - RoyBoy 800 03:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say yes... but then I have no idea how to do this... could someone let me know and then I'll do it for P:L. Image:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 12:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More promotions or failures?

I noticed Portal:Trains and Portal:Constructed languages have both been on here since 11 Dec 14 Dec respectively. It's been 13 days for the latter and over 14 days for the former. Time to promote/fail? Jon 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There are still unresolved issues on these, and it looks like these may be resolved. As long as these issues are still being discussed, and at present they are, let's keep them as candidates. We should be in no particular hurry to promote, and we shouldn't fail candidacies that are on the verge of being successful, jguk 19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to Wikipedia:What is a featured portal?

Please see my proposed change here, jguk 19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


I have some additional proposals forWikipedia:What is a featured portal? and would like some input. Thx in advance :) --Technosphere83 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What's different about this and the current one? They look extremely similar. Rlevse 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry it's on the talkpage --Technosphere83 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should happen in a discussion in order to promote a Portal?

In FLC we find that in order to be promoted, a list needs to be on the candidates page for 10 days and garner 4 supports (including the nominator's). What about FPCAN? What criteria do we use? At this time, the older candidacy is 1 month old. Afonso Silva 08:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a set criteria. I close the nominations largely at my own discretion. Part of the reason I leave featured portal candidates open to consideration longer then candidates in like processes is because WP:FPCAN is less visited. Another reason is that this process is essentially dual purpose; with most candidates, we ultimately peer review and assess against criteria. The average candidacy period is around 2-3 weeks. --cj | talk 08:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But I think something should be present in the introduction, as in other "F*C". I agree with you, when you say that FPCAn is less visited, so, a longer period should be considered. And, since there is no "Portal peer review", the FPCAN is, currently, the best way to review a Portal. I hope FPCAN participation improves and in the future we can set objective criteria. Cheers! Afonso Silva 10:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Portugal

Can the Portal be promoted? It is listed since June 10 and all issues are solved. Afonso Silva 18:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the normal period before promotion is about three weeks, although some portals have spent longer here before promotion even with no objections.-gadfium 20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's too long. I know I'm a nominator and I have interest in the promotion of a Portal. But from a NPOV, I think 3 weeks is too long, as no other featured content candidacies have to wait so many time before a possible promotion. Lists have a limit of 10 days. Articles, despite not having a limit, usually spend about two weeks, or less. Images spend 7 days. Considering this, and the fact that FPCAN is, perhaps, the less visited featured candidates page, I agree that a slightly larger period, for example, of 2 weeks, is good, more than that, like 6 weeks (e.g. Portal:Free software) is absolutely incomprehensible. A discussion about the time limit should be carried out.Afonso Silva 22:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The New Zealand portal spent four weeks here without any objection which lasted for more than a couple of days, as I recall, until I tapped Cyberjunkie on the shoulder and suggested it was time he promoted it. On the other hand, someone did find a formatting flaw in it shortly afterwards, which only showed up on one browser, but caused some sections to appear blank. I agree there should be some clear guidelines, but I think three weeks is reasonable.-gadfium 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time limit

Should we create a standard, a time limit? I think we should, just like the other "F*C"'s. Three weeks seems good to me, despite being a lot more in comparison to the remaining pages. But I'd support it. Having no time limit is not reasonable. Afonso Silva 20:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:FAC doesn't have any real time limit, since promotions are basically done whenever Raul654 feels it's appropriate. The other F*Cs, on the other hand, have no limit on who does promotions, and so need more formal guidelines to make sure everyone is on the same page in that regard. I guess the real question is whether cyberjunkie is going to be handling all of the promotions personally, or if we want a system more like the the non-FAC pages where anyone—or at least more than one person—could be doing them. Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both systems, I just find a bit stupid that some Portals are listed since early May. But anyway, I hope we can find a solution. Is promoting a Portal a hard task? Afonso Silva 09:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really; it's just a question of who would be trusted to make the call of whether consensus had been achieved or not. Kirill Lokshin 11:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we can combine a time limit with a single person closing the debates. The time limit would make the page more useful. If candidacies have objections at the time of closing the debate, those candidacies are delisted and the maintainers try again in the future. That's what happens with the remaining featured content candidates. the Free Software Portal is listed since early May, that makes the page seem idle. Afonso Silva 23:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi y'all. I do apologise for my rather abrupt Wikibreak; I realise that my absence left a lot of questions with regards to maintenance. I suppose these ought to be cleared up now. I've never asserted that I fulfil an exclusive role, merely that I fulfil informally the functions of a "featured portal director" (or, simply, the role Raul plays at FAC). I came to this position as a consequence of founding "featured portals". I actually expected that Jguk, who was involved early-on, would also assist. So far as I can see it, we have three options, all of which I have no particular issue with: we continue the status quo; we formalise my role; or, we open the field within set guidelines. I don't feel a time limit is appropriate in the 1st or 2nd options, but it might be necessary it the 3rd. --cj | talk 07:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, if we go with either of the first two options, it might be worthwhile to name (formally or informally) one or more deputies to take over promotions if you go on Wikibreak again. Otherwise, we'll wind up in the same situation of nominations sitting open for months because nobody knows who's supposed to be closing them. Kirill Lokshin 12:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotions, wikibreaks, and so forth

Since cyberjunkie appears to be on an actual wikibreak, I've gone ahead and promoted two candidacies (Portal:Politics and Portal:Portugal) and failed one (Portal:Free software). I doubt these promotions will be controversial in of themselves (though I expect I might be surprised here), but I do realize that I'm not the "regular" closer here. Any comments or complaints about my actions would be very welcome.

For the future, however, I think we need to come to some sort of a decision regarding the process used here. Raul654 handles everything personally, but he doesn't go on wikibreaks—ever! We really cannot have nominations sitting open for two months. Kirill Lokshin 04:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a list of criteria for closing similar to the WP:FLC one is the best option. We define "what is a featured portal", people object or support with basis on that. If in a certain period of time a portal has garnered a certain number of supports, the portal is promoted, otherwise the nominator must try again. Afonso Silva 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review type thing

Is there any way i could put Portal:Cetaceans for peer review or something like it so that i can find out things that could be improved on. I don't know about nominating it for FA yet, but i was interested in making it as good as possible. chris_huh 13:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A few portals have been submitted to the general Wikipedia:Peer review and had satisfactory responses.--cj | talk 05:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hide/Show boxes in portal sections?

Here's a question. Are hide/show boxes in portal sections "okay" for a "featured" portal? Rfrisbietalk 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So long as they default to show. These gadgets don't work in skins other than monobook, so if they default to hide then I'll only see them in Wikicode.-gadfium 20:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I understand how they work right now, the initial position can't be controlled. They "Show" with one box on a page or "Hide" with two or more boxes on a page. Quite a while ago, I was told control of the initial display mode would be added "real soon now." That means "don't count on it." That sounds like, unless there's only one, they're not a good idea for portals, if at all. Rfrisbietalk 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought it might be iffy. Worth an ask, at least. Anyway, I don't know how far we should assume that people will want to go clicking on extra buttons to reveal content, rather than having it all right in front of them. riana_dzasta 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time limit... suggested guidelines

I propose that the following (based entirely on WP:FLC) be adopted into the formal proceedure for the Featured Portal process:

Featured portal candidates will remain on this page for a minimum period of 10 days. Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured portal status, and a portal must also garner a minimum of 4 "Support" votes (counting the original nomination as a "Support" vote, provided it is not withdrawn). Featured portals that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list and added to the failed log unless

  1. objections are being actively addressed; or
  2. although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes.
In these cases a short additional period of time will be given to the portal to see whether it can attract more support.

What do people think? Tompw 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For reasons I've stated elsewhere on this page, I don't think imposing an arbitrary time limit is a Good Idea. The second part of your suggestion is common practice and is followed already.--cj | talk 09:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that this is a "leisurely" process. However, the length of time to promotion for portals that meet the criteria seems to be unrelated to consensus being established that those criteria have been met. I can see having a minimum time set to allow for any objections to be noted. However, when consensus is established the criteria are met, I see no point in dragging out the actual promotion. That's what appears to me to be happening now. If this is primarily a criterion-based, rather than a time-based, process, then it's taking too long in many cases. When the consensus is the criteria clearly are met, then the promotion actions should be taken shortly after the minimum nomination period. Rfrisbietalk 13:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal review volunteers

I've had some very good luck going directly to established portal reviewers and asking them for tips about how I could improve my current "pet" portal (pun intended ;-) to featured status. This seems to be catching on, and other developers are doing the same thing. I think that's great! There seems to be a fairly well-established consensus on what makes a good portal; and a few extra eyes and keyboards helps clean things up very quickly. Addressing all the tips from reviewers virtually guarantees a successful candidacy and makes the actual nomination process run much smoother.

Consequently, I started this list of portal review volunteers as a way to better coordinate and spread the word about this type of "pre-nomination review." Of course, I prefer the "money where my mouth is" approach, so my name is first on the list. I hope those of you who have been gracious enough to help me continue to share your expertise, and newcomers to this form of barn "bronze star" raising process feel welcome to pitch in as well.

By the way, just because your name isn't on the list, it doesn't mean I won't try to hit you up for some tips anyway! >;-o) Rfrisbietalk 16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I haven't been ignoring the requests posted to my own talk page. I just haven't had a chance to put my thoughts together. A review like this is not something that I would want to just get a couple of "do X and Y" with no further discussion (and I really dislike the automated reviews that have been popping up on FAC recently), and remembering to look at my talk page for open tasks isn't working as well as I'd hoped it would (I'll find a better solution for this; it's on my todolist, really!). Slambo (Speak) 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool. There's nothing wrong with waiting for the right time. :-) I'm very happy with the level of conversations that have been going on at the talk pages. Personally, I find the feedback/revision process a lot easier to follow at the portal, rather than at a nomination page. Rfrisbietalk 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Not saying I'm that good at it, but I'll chip in my two cents when the circumstances arise. Badbilltucker 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to add your name to the list. :-) Rfrisbietalk 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I added myself to the list. =) Nishkid64 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal improvement collaborations

I added an infobox at the top of this page to list the portals I know of that currently are in collaborations for improvement to meet the Featured Portal criteria. Right now, this is a rather informal process that seems to work quite well. I suggest listing portals in collaborations up to and including when they are listed as featured portal candidates. They can be removed from the list when they reach FP status or when the collaboration ends. As time goes by, this collaboration process might or might not become more formalized. Rfrisbietalk 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether this might be more appropriate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals?--cj | talk 20:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That may be true. On the other hand, I believe it also has relevance to this page. Specifically, I would like to propose an adition to the featured portal candidate process to include evidence the candidate has been the subject of some form of portal improvement collaboration. If such an addition is made, then posting such collaborations might better be placed on the actual project page here, or its own new page. This process could model Peer review or be a scaled-down version initially, similar to what is taking place for the portals listed at the top of this page. If there's some support for this, we can start a new discussion section. If not, I'll move things over to the project page, although I believe there should be a link to it from this project page to help non-project members find it. Rfrisbietalk

[edit] Requirements

I bring this up here, cause it will come up in the nominations soon enough, I don't want anyone feeling put upon or what not, and maybe we can get a more clear concensous on what or how much a featured portal should contain. I think portals need a fairly large amount of articles, pics and such to draw upon(Useful). The only way to showcase these are to have them summarized in the appropaite "selected sections". Therefore I feel portals should retain atleast 6 months worth of rotated content. Wikipedia:What is a featured portal? mentions no specific amount of content. If, say, a portal mainainer should stop editing and a featured portal has only very few articles and such, that portal becomes useless. If a featured portal has a broad range to draw upon, why promote portals with few indicated high quality articles? Shouldn't we wait until the portal has matured(atleast filled out) to a more adequate dimension?Joe I 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, in general, we should avoid attempts to tie the quality of the portal too closely to the quality of articles on the underlying topic. Featured portal status is intended primarily as a mark of outstanding work in the design and maintenance of a portal; achieving it should not require substantial work on other articles. Kirill Lokshin 07:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to tie it to the quality of articles but the quantity of said articles that are incorperated into the portals. Joe I 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What does "atleast 6 months worth of rotated content" mean? The "quantity" for monthly, bi-weekly, and weekly rotations differ. What does it mean for a portal using {{Random portal component}}? Obviously, tieing "quantity" to "time" can't be a consistent standard. Rfrisbietalk 13:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree on requirement of six months, I feel that any portal should have at least ten articles to select from in order to be actually useful. I have seen so many portals with just 3~4 articles rotating, which is too low to be useful. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 15:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I used six months, just as a measure of longevity. I realize with autorotation that there will be different cycles and time measures. I was trying not to put a set number on it, but yes I think 10 of each rotated content shows sufficient depth. Joe I 17:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting ideas. It's been a long while since the criteria was written, and the standard of candidates has (for the most part) greatly improved. Refinement to Wikipedia:What is a featured portal?, with the aim of strengthening its requirements, may be due. I think Ambuj's idea of a "minimum" amount of displayable content has merit. With regards to the quality of said content (mentioned above), this was an issue a little way back during Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America. At the time I said I would make an amendment to define the "high quality" content criterion, basically with the intent of expressly excluding stubs or otherwise tagged articles. Perhaps we should move to Wikipedia:What is a featured portal? for further discussion.--cj | talk 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree featured portals have enough of a track record now to revisit and update the criteria. Rfrisbietalk 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC) By the way, given FPs "should adhere to the standards set out in the Manual of Style and relevant WikiProjects. This includes conventions on naming, spellings and styles. See Portal and Portal guidelines." it's probably a good idea to update WIkipedia:Portal and the Portal guidelines too. Rfrisbietalk 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines direly needs work – it's dreadful.--cj | talk 22:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's do it! :-) Rfrisbietalk 22:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been wondering about the part of What is a Featured Portal which says, "A useful portal is one which covers a topic area which is both broad and of interest to users of Wikipedia. Portals that cover only minor topic areas are hindered in their usefulness because the content they can cover is usually limited. A featured portal should cover an area that is broad and prominent enough to justify the portal as an entry-point." No one ever seems to base their decisions on this, and some of the portals that have ben promoted, in my opinion, do not measure up to this standard. Does anyone have anything to say on this? I'd like to know how broad a portal needs to be to be included in this statement. Regards, --Gphototalk 03:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that any portal that has the features otherwise needed to reach FP status is pretty much broad enough by default. (Certainly, if we follow the FA principle that any article which survives AFD is eligible, any portal too narrow to qualify for FP status on this count would probably need to be MFD'd anyways.) Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, --Gphototalk 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think a working rule of thumb is related to the categories and topics sections. If those sections contain "enough" material worth reading, then the breadth criterion is met. More concretely, the number of at least ten items per rotated section is being tossed around in this thread. Rfrisbietalk 03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm? I was under the impression that the point being discussed was ten articles being rotated in total, not ten articles for each box on the portal page. (If that were the case, it would seem to push towards less sections of rotating content, which is hardly a desireable outcome, in my opinion.) Kirill Lokshin 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that would be a lot easier! Do you mean I've been scrambling around to find more content on a misunderstanding? >;-o) I suppose that's another good reason to update the criteria and guidelines. :-) Rfrisbietalk 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression it was 10 per rotated section. If a topic is broad enough, it shouldn't be to hard to find 10 above average articles, and 10 decent, illustrative pics, without sacrificing a section. Such as Portal:Portugal(four rotated sections) and Portal:Aviation(three). Joe I 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is archiving really necessary?

I was wondering if it was really necessary for a portal to maintain an archive of the articles and pictures it displays. I've been working on the Kerala portal lately (reviews welcome!), and it has a certain amount of randomness attached to its "selected articles" always (as explained here). Due to this, it would be quite hard to maintain an archive. I couldn't find anything mentioned about archiving in WP:WIAFPo, but I've seen people requesting an archive during featured candidacy. Would like to hear opinions on whether archives are really necessary.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that's not as random as the full on-purge random rotation that's become popular now! ;-)
More seriously: in this case, an archive is even more important than before, because there's no easily identifiable page history to look through. The point of an "archive", however, is not necessarily to list articles by particular dates; rather, its main purpose is to allow a reader to browse through all the "selected" material in use on the portal. In your setup, creating an archive means simply setting up an overview page that transcludes all the numbered subpages from the rotation; see, for example, here. Kirill Lokshin 14:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The portal used to load totally random articles initially, but later it was changed to show the same article for each day, as it was hard to keep track. The Kerala portal too has a page linking to all the "selected article" summaries at Portal:Kerala/SC_Summary. Would this serve instead of an archive?--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that'd do (although I'd suggest transclusion over linking, to make it easier to read through the blurbs). Kirill Lokshin 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
All right! Done. Thanks!--thunderboltz(Deepu) 11:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotated sections: Number of items requirement

It appears to me the time is right to work on developing consensus on "How much is enough?" for rotated content sections. I support the notion that a reasonable number of items should be present per section, and that a minimum of ten items per section is in the ballpark. This requirement also assumes previously displayed content may be used again by whatever type of rotation method is employed, e.g., scheduled, randomized, or manually. Rfrisbietalk 13:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. To show a topics depth, which is essential for a featured portal, ten prepared items for each rotated box should be adequate. Any type of rotation employed is fine. Joe I 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topical portal collaborations?

Do any of you think that it might be possible to get the various portals which cover the same general topic to in some way collaborate? What I guess I'm proposing is that maybe once a month or so the people responsible for various portals within a given field, science or religion for instance, to maybe just exchange ideas on what they want to include on their own individual portals that month. By doing so they might be able to get a greater number and variety featured on the various portals in a specific field, which would probably help them individually establish more of a "personality" and also make it possible for a greater number and variety of quality articles to be featured? Badbilltucker 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal improvement collaborations II

I added an infobox at the top of this page to list the portals I know of that currently are in collaborations for improvement to meet the Featured Portal criteria. Right now, this is a rather informal process that seems to work quite well. I suggest listing portals in collaborations up to and including when they are listed as featured portal candidates. They can be removed from the list when they reach FP status or when the collaboration ends. As time goes by, this collaboration process might or might not become more formalized. Rfrisbietalk 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether this might be more appropriate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals?--cj | talk 20:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That may be true. On the other hand, I believe it also has relevance to this page. Specifically, I would like to propose an adition to the featured portal candidate process to include evidence the candidate has been the subject of some form of portal improvement collaboration. If such an addition is made, then posting such collaborations might better be placed on the actual project page here, or its own new page. This process could model Peer review or be a scaled-down version initially, similar to what is taking place for the portals listed at the top of this page. If there's some support for this, we can start a new discussion section. If not, I'll move things over to the project page, although I believe there should be a link to it from this project page to help non-project members find it. Rfrisbietalk

I think there should be a portal peer review page, like WP:PPR and WP:PR. This way, portal reviewers can watchlist the page. And instead of jumping around portal talk pages, they can review portals on one page. —sd31415 (sign here) 18:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Portal peer review looks perfect for this. feydey 16:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rfrisbie and I just started the portal peer review. The current request is the religion portal. —sd31415 (sign here) 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in the Featured portal candidates page, perhaps under Nomination procedure should be "0. Consider using Portal peer review before submitting a Portal here." feydey 17:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! —sd31415 (sign here) 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotion of Portal:Vancouver

I noticed Portal:Vancouver has been promoted by nominator without dealing and satisfying all issues. I would request the promoter as well as nominator, i.e. Selmo, to de-promote the portal and make subsequent reverting. This is very serious issue of making promotion by a nominator or an involved party. Else I would have to nominate the portal for depromoting, even it does not suit the criteria for de-promotion. So this would be appreciable step for avoiding any edit-wars Shyam (T/C) 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I find such a precedent very disturbing, since the usual closer has decided to let this stand, [1] [2] Rfrisbietalk 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Concerns about precedent are understandable, but I don't think they are valid. While there is a clear conflict of interest in the nominator promoting their candidate, so long as they haven't defied consensus, there's no much point in arguing that process is process – it's the end result that matters. I've reviewed the candidacy and I would myself have promoted the portal on the basis that all actionable objections had been addressed. I think part of the problem here is that objections put forward with subjective reasoning are becoming to frequent; in order for issues to be considered applicable, they must have a sound argument based on one or more of the tenants of the criteria – otherwise, they can and will be discounted. The remaining point for this candidate was Web resources; while I do also dislike such sections (though I am partly to blame for their existence), they are not strictly disallowed by the criteria. If any further reasonable objections can be mounted, then I encourage a review. If not, then I ask all to be pragmatic and avoid fuss, and simply pursue improvements through usual discussion.--cj | talk 13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have addressed the issue on the policy page. If you want to share some comments, then please respond there. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The Village Pump is the wrong forum to propose an amendment to the criteria (which is not policy). Please transfer discussion to Wikipedia talk:What is a featured portal?. For what it's worth, I support your proposal in principle. This would be a good opportunity for other amendments, like those discussed above, to be put forwards.-cj | talk 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So I did.

Shyam (T/C) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--cj | talk 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I already have said I'm sorry, Shyam. My action was conducted in good faith. Edit-warring won't be nessesarry, I'm open to cooperate. -- Selmo (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for self de-promoting. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Which was an un-necessary step, ultimately. It is due for closure soon, and the result will likely be the same.--cj | talk 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solicitation on a grand scale

User:Absar re-introduced Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Turkey – which I had failed for incorrect filing and poor chance of success – and promptly solicited support from around 60 users (see Absar's contributions). I have removed this portal and left a note on his talk page requesting him to cease campaigning immediately, and advised him that Portal:Turkey will not be allowed a new candidacy until sufficient time has passed to ensure that an unbiased review can occur.--cj | talk 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCharts: Portal

Check out this WikiCharts: Portal tool. As the data matures, this could be an interesting way to help focus any improvement efforts, e.g., featured portal collaborations, on high traffic/impact portals. Rfrisbietalk 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings in candidate pages

Could I ask reviewers to please stop using headings on the candidate subpages – not only does it lengthen to the Table of Contents, it makes the discussion much harder to follow. Just discuss each comment under its initial placement by using indentations. Thanks,--cj | talk 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also echo the above suggestion. And recommend removing the headers if they still keep appearing in the future. feydey 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing

What, exactly, are the currently recognised criteria for closing? I'm asking because there seem to be at least two (and possibly four) nominations that could be closed, but no-one seems to be closing them. Two (Religon and Electronics) seem to have overhwelming support, and one (World War I) seems to meet the minimum requirement for promotion. Also, another one (China) seems to have been inactive for about a month. Can these be closed, or am I missing something in the guidelines regarding length, etc.? Carom 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It tends to be "whenever cj gets around to it", for the most part. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, then. ; ) (And, side note, is there anywhere onwikipedia that you aren't, Kirill? ; ) ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carom (talk • contribs).
Yeah, this is outrageous, Kirill! You answered Carom's question in two minutes! =D Keep up the great work, S.D. ¿п? § 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia_talk%7EFeatured_portal_candidates_4da6.html"