Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/February 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was not promoted 00:24, 15 February 2008.

[edit] Portal:Ice hockey

I've worked on this portal with User:Ryan Postlethwaite for the past two weeks and we think it meets the criteria. Big thanks to Ryan, he's helped me a lot with this, as this is my first major portal work. Thank you for your time, Maxim(talk) 02:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support (although I've done work on this portal myself (as Maxim said)) - We've taken ideas off a number of different featured portals and I believe it meets the featured portal criteria. If there's any problems - let us know and we'll gladly fix them ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Insufficient content. Show at least six months of good selected content in waiting for a month or two and I would reconsider. RichardF (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There was actually some good earlier selected content - the problem was, the formatting of the content was very different from the current portal and the archives would have looked fairly bad. It was a little inconsistent as well, so I cleared out the archives, and began them again from when Maxim started revamping the portal to bring it into line. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, that sounds like a good step. Now, the dated selections system needs to show a well-maintained reserve of items in each of the queues, so no one worries about them showing up as red links down the line. RichardF (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that's a very valid comment - I would hope that between me and Maxim, we can keep it up. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Me too. That's why featured portal candidates need to demonstrate it's actually happening. :-) RichardF (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
            • and we'll demonstrate it as well ;-) Thanks for your input. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I object to this. What's the point of updating a few months in advance. There's a Suggestions page for example - what's the use of it if everything's filled in. Let's say User X suggests Article Y. I'll have to say then, "Your Article has been scheduled to appear in four months. Adios!" Secondly, what demonstrates that I will abandon this portal once it's promoted (hopefully)? I've been an editor here for twelve months, and I'm certainly dedicated to this project, and I will most certainly not leave this portal up to dry. I put a lot of effort in to this, and there's no reason for me to abandon it. Also, see User:Maxim/Sandbox; it has some stuff that help me maintain the portal. I'm planning to make the March pages during the last week of February, probably. Maxim(talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria "3.4. Well-maintained. It is updated regularly to display different aspects of Wikipedia's content in an area." This portal doesn't demonstrate any track record or established mechanism for meeting this criterion. Promises aren't part of the deal. RichardF (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: good, non c'è niente da dire :-) --jskellj - the nice devil 13:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Maxim(talk) 21:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Well I obviously can't address the main concern, will this process run for six months? No thanks!

All you have to do to address the main concern is add content. Using something like {{Random portal component}} would address the concern of "waiting" to see the content. Nothing is stopping you from meeting the criteria that you can't address, if you choose to do so. RichardF (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Maxim, calm down a little - we can just work on the portal together for a few months then concerns should be addressed. It's not a big deal and there's a very legitimate concern that was raised. It doesn't matter when this portal gets featured, just as long as we can maintain it to a high standard so it will in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'm uncalm, and as it's not a big deal, well, there should be no problem in me pulling the nom, no? Maxim(talk) 23:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No big deal at all, but you're the one kicking off :-S Ryan Postlethwaite 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was not promoted 08:59, 25 February 2008.

[edit] Portal:Massachusetts

Self-nomination. I created the portal and have went through a portal peer review. After looking through some other states that are featured portals and improving mine, I think this portal is ready for a FP nom. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment You need to add archives for articles, bios, pictures, and cities.--Bedford 19:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Check markY Done STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • Expand Topics setion. It gives me the feel of Categories section.
  • Mention some Requested articles in Things You Can Do section.
  • Selected Picture section image captions should have the source name.
  • Lack of archives in all the sections.
  • Seperate purge link is redundant of Show new selections.
  • Remove External Links section. --- Shyam (T/C) 12:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I don't like the section external links, and the portal hasn't fundamental sections such attractions or selected quote. --jskellj - the nice devil 13:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You love opposing nominations on minor details, don't you? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: A lot of sections are possible but each one adds to clutter. And I don't think any are required beyond those in the portal guidelines. I support this portal in any case. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it possible to have the "spotlight town" in randomized form? (Similiar to selected articles) OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I could if you want me to. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, then please change it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. While it may not warrant opposition in and of itself (though personally, I think it does), Brískelly's comments are inline with the FPo criteria, or at least, my interpretation of it. Furthermore, OhanaUnited's request has not been acted upon (as far as I can see); same applies to Shyam's comments. I encourage the nominators to work on these requests, and to be more responsive in future FPoC nominations. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.