Wikipedia:Featured portal removal candidates/archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed demotion from featured status of the Portal below. Please do not modify it. Additional comments should be made on the Portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal removal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was Keep. Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 04:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Indonesia

Nominate: I can see a "red-link" for the selected article section. It's totally unexpected from a featured portal. Arman Aziz 04:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I know it's not being maintained for a while. Only a few people are active in the project, so it's a bit difficult to update recently. — Indon (reply) — 07:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually, it is being maintained quite well. Arman Aziz just saw it at a rare bad moment. What other concerns suggest it should be de-featured? --Merbabu 10:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.show me a perfect portal - all of them have their moments SatuSuro 11:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - What they said. Imoeng 15:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• The concern seems to have been addressed. Are there other grounds for de-listing? Rigadoun (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional keep - Agree that the red-link is no longer there. But I suggest you have a code in place that ensures in case of such rare moments the page defaults to an article and does not show a red link. A featured portal does not necessarily have to be 100% perfect. But showing a red link in place of the selected article is one of the biggest defects a portal can have; and a featured portal should avoid such moments at any cost. Arman Aziz 02:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and added the code myself. I'm confident the red link won't reappear anymore. In case the article of the week is missing (which is supposedly a rare but possible incident), the portal main page will by default show the article on Jakarta. Based on this, I am revoking my nomination for defeaturing this article. Admins maintaining this page may consider archiving this discussion. Arman Aziz 02:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Additional comments should be made on the Portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal removal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed demotion from featured status of the Portal below. Please do not modify it. Additional comments should be made on the Portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal removal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was Remove/De-list. Portal already de-listed, procedural closing. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Vancouver

As the nominator of this portal's successful featured status I find it even more difficult to fill out this candidate entry but I feel I cannot ignore what is so. This portal is no longer maintained nor as adequate content to be a featured portal at this time. I would say it fails almost every criteria point. Mkdw^talk 11:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Remove due to its current state.--cj | talk 12:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per above, no longer updated. --Phoenix 17:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Joe I 18:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Remove: Portal fails criteria. Happy editing, [sd] 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Can't believe there're red-links. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Request. The WikiProject Vancouver is going to try and update its content. For the month of June its been updated. I request that you give us until the end of July to make your final decision on its featured status. Thanks. Mkdw^talk 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  Although updates have been provided to some sections (for this month, at least), others (Did you know, Quotes) remain neglected. I would like to see these updated (and perhaps updates for others into coming months) before I change my position above.--cj | talk 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried using random portal component? This way you don't have to update as much. I still stand on my previous viewpoint, remove. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well the Quotes section since its introduction 3 months ago has rotated qutoes (about 11) every 2 mins. Does anyone have any suggestions where I may find quotes as I foresee problems trying to continuously source quotes about Vancouver to keep the section 'updated'? I will look into putting the Did you know into a rotation. Mkdw^talk 07:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How'd you go with the Did you know updates?--cj | talk 00:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not well. I don't know enough about coding to write a method for it to rotate pages unlike the quotes section. I've just been rotating them manually for the months. Kind of a hassle but gets the job done. Mkdw^talk 22:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Additional comments should be made on the Portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal removal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed demotion from featured status of the Portal below. Please do not modify it. Additional comments should be made on the Portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal removal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was Keep. Portal already kept, procedural closing. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 04:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Poetry

This portal hasn't been maintained since January. The editor who was responsible for it has drastically dialed back his Wikipedia involvement. I've placed a notice on both the portal's talk page and the WikiProject talk page and no response has come in a week's time. I'm in no position to do anything with this portal, as I'm no expert on the subject and am already maintaining two portals that are featured portal candidates. Unless someone wants to step up, this portal needs to be defeatured, as its current state is somewhat embarassing. Planetneutral ^talk 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove Keep- I've done some to keep this alive, but don't think it's the best use of limited time right now. Unless someone's ready to really carry it forward, it's time to let it pass on painlessly. A Musing (formerly Sam) 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Wow, I hadn't even had time to write my comment before you'd responded. Remarkable. Planetneutral ^talk 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  I've been watching for a while hoping someone would pick it up before we got to this process; I'd be happy to be one of several people maintaining it, but a portal that seems to interest only one person doesn't seem worthwhile, now, does it? A Musing (formerly Sam) 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I greatly appreciate the work done to randomize this; I'll make an effort to periodically add material with a good mix of cultures, time periods and languages. Best, A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove in the absence of a maintainer or action (ie, randomisation) to rectify the situation.--cj | talk 13:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Support keeping thanks to the excellent work by SD.--cj | talk 04:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove Joe I 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Good job SD. Joe I 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I hope the Poetry Portal is now up to date. The changes I made included (previous version):

• Colors and formatting
• Language corner: Randomized
• Quote: Randomized
• Poem: Randomized and show/hide
• Biography: Randomized
• Article: Randomized
• Picture: Randomized
• News: Removed
• Things you can do: Image
• Topics: Edited
• Categories: Two-column category tree
• WikiProjects: Added
• Associated Wikimedia: Added. Hopefully this will help keep the portal featured. Cheers, S.D. 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  A few more comments:

  • There are more poems and quotes in the archive that can be randomized.
  • If you would like, I can readd the Did you know... section and randomize the facts using {{Random subpage}}, removing the need for an dyk archive. Happy editing, S.D. 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Very nice. I think I can change my vote to keep (or withdraw my nomination if that's more appropriate). Planetneutral ^talk 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep looks ok now after making it randomized. feydey 14:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Additional comments should be made on the Portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal removal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed demotion from featured status of the Portal below. Please do not modify it. Additional comments should be made on the Portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal removal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was Keep. Portal already kept, procedural closing. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 04:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Cricket

Portal is not well maintained. Comparable to other featured portals it does not have news section and portal can have a news section. Portal is not well-maintained. Portal does not have selected picture type of section. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Which aspects are not well-maintained? It has certainly been updated in the last three months, which is what WP:WIAFPo requires. I can't see that a news section or a "selected picture" section is a requirement in WP:WIAFPo either. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Portal is easier to maintain if it is in template format. Without making any changes to portal it can be updated. Current/Most recent matches has not been updated for more than one month. Shyam ^(T/C) 10:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to convert it to the transcluded template format, be my guest. WP:WIAFPo does not require a specific format. Although there is no "news" section, there is, as you mention, a section with links to the articles on current and recent matches. I have just taken the opportunity to bring it up to date. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Like Aloan I don't think a pic or news section is required. It makes up for it in Point 1 - uniqueness. Whereas most portals have a similar look and become dull and boring after a while to look at, Portal:Cricket's different layout catches the eye, probably more than the other FPo's or for that matter, any portal. As for the current/recent matches section, rather than complain, you should Be Bold enough to update it, if it is a few weeks behind. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, none of the points mentioned are required for featured portal status. Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep echo DaGizza. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Also, as cricket is not overly suited to having a "picture of the day", why not have a "cricketer of the day" instead? Not only are there enough cricketers about with articles here, but it would act as an incentive to get people to improve the articles. It's also something else to put on the front page. I'll add this thought to the portal talk page too. Paddyohale 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: this portal is in violation of at least one requriement of the criteria. It has red links when it should not do. Maintainers of this portal please set about rectifying this. Thanks, --cj | talk 09:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Additional comments should be made on the Portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal removal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed demotion from featured status of the Portal below. Please do not modify it. Additional comments should be made on the Portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal removal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was Summarily demoted.

[edit] Portal:United States

Summarily demoted

Portal was summarily demoted from featured status after 3 months of no updates to rotatable sections, as is dictated by Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. This resulted from a lack of a maintainer.--cj | talk 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Additional comments should be made on the Portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal removal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.