Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/December 2006

< Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates | Failed log
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Portal:Turkey

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Portal:Asia

edit

Portal:Asia is a well designed and informative portal, that meets featured portal standards. The portal was created early this year and is currently updated monthly, with much time and effort put into constructing and mantaining it.--TBCΦtalk? 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few things that should be changed on the portal:

Give credit to the creator of the work at the end of the description in this format <small>Photo Credit: [[User:Fir0002]]</small>. Obviously the creator of the image will not always be fir0002 so replace that with whoever made the image. Regards, Gphototalk 01:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's a bit incorrect. The description of an image needs to include the source, not the uploader. The uploader's username is already listed under the history, so there's no point in listing it again. For example, in this case, User:Fir0002 was only the uploader of the image, not the source.--TBCΦtalk? 01:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, I was referring to several comments by Kirill Lokshin on this matter on this (the FPC) page, so you might want to look at them. As a side note, the main page has the photo credit for all of the featured pictures, so even if you do not have to add the credit, you might want to put up anyway. Regards, Gphototalk 02:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things that need fixing:

  • The news box needs an archive.
  • The image needs an explicit image credit (see, for example, how the Main Page POTD is shown.)

Other than that, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object

  • Looks like User:TBC's last edit was on 23 November. Is someone willing to support the portal and do some work on it? As otherwise it is stagnating and will at best be a medicore FP without regular updates.. feydey 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no list of categories. This is pretty much standard on portals, let alone featured portals. This portal's usefulness is damaged without it.
  • Image:Asiaportal.PNG, while pretty, is useless and creates extraneous spacing at the top of the portal. Please consider either removing it or trasferring it to Portal:Asia/Intro.
  • The Featured picture section is neglected by being placed after less significant sections; it should be given greater emphasis.
  • The introduction is a tad bit weak; it should be expanded.
Thanks,--cj | talk 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response
    • Added list of categories.
    • I disagree that the picture is completely "useless", as the picture contains the flags of every country in Asia. As for the idea of moving the picture to the intro, wouldn't it result in making the Portal messier?
    • I've moved the featured picture section upwards.
    • I've expanded the intro.--TBCΦtalk? 04:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great improvements. However, Image:Asiaportal.PNG should still be moved. Its present position increases the number a scrolls a reader must make to view the portal; this is not user-friendly. I don't think moving it to the intro would make the portal messy; now that you've expanded the intro, the image should sit nicely with correct formating. In fact, considering another objector has expressed concerns about the map in the intro, it might be efficient (kill two birds with one stone) to replace it with the flags image.--cj | talk 17:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've moved the image.--TBCΦtalk? 16:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Supposing you approve of the way I've formatted the image in the intro, I support this portal for promotion.--cj | talk 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
  • Support - sorry, one last thing, seperators in the countries, categories and topics boxes are all different. Should show some consistancy. Good job getting most things handled. Joe I 15:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    • Image on introduction section seems to be very old. It looks like that the portal is about te history of Asia. It should be a new one and non-disputed.
    • Featured articles for Asia are very large in number. So monthly basis of article does not suit to me. Weekly regular updation would be better.
    • Generally, did you know sections do not have very old informations. Like, Muhammad bin Saud has very old information.
    • There are many news available on wikinews related to Asia after November 9. That should need to be regularly updated.
    • No topics section.
    • I suppose, we need to have other six continents portals' in the related portals section rather than Asian countries portals. In the countries section, there is need to use portal's link wherever possible for the countries. Small area portals like, Kerala need to be removed from the related portals section.
    • No categories section.
    • I think, Map of Asia is an unnecessary section. The map could be replaced in the introduction section. The section could be replaced by Featured picture one.
  • Overall, there is need of serious amount of work before providing featured status. Shyam (T/C) 14:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response:
      • How is the map "disputed"?
      • I disagree; being updated monthly makes the portal much easier to main tain.
        • You are pretty correct that it is easier to maintain but regular updation could attract more people to watch the portal regularly. If it would not be updated regularly then it could be isolated one. Shyam (T/C)
          • Not entirely true. Monthly updates are often of higher quality than weekly ones, especially when a portal has very few maintainers like this one.--TBCΦtalk? 10:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see this as being an actionable objection, as the only requirement vis-à-vis frequency of rotation is that it be greater than three months. I do think, however, that there is a sufficient enough abundance of featured Asia-related content to increase this portal's frequency of rotation. The option that carries the least burden of maintenance would be randomised display (like that which is present on Portal:Science, among others). But again, this is merely recommendation, and not required by the criteria.--cj | talk 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Did You Know section can have history related questions, as long as it's relevant to Asia.
        • I did not mean that. I mean that information which has added, exist from December 12, 2003 on Wikipedia. So there is nothing new in that fact which is questionable to know. We use newly created information on Wikipedia. Shyam (T/C)
      • I've updated the news section.
      • Topics section has been added.
      • I've added a link to portals on other continents. However, portals on smaller regions like the Kerala portal are still relevant to Asia, so I disagree on removing them.
        • Then I think, you should use many portals like, Portal:Maharashtra, Portal:Gujarat, Portal:Karnataka, and many other states in other countries as well. It would make the portal more clumpsy. I suppose, countries in Asia section could be merged with related portals. Shyam (T/C)
          • As long as the portal is relevant to Asia, then it should be added. As for merging the Countries in Asia section with the Related Portals section, I strongly disagree as not all countries have portals and not all portals focus on one country.--TBCΦtalk? 10:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I also disagree with merging Countries in Asia and Related portals; the former section links to articles, the latter links to portals: they are incompatible. Conversely, I do somewhat agree that it is un-necessary to include subnational portals in Related portals. The Indian state portals, for example, are directly descendent to and accessible from Portal:India, which is in turn linked from Related portals on Portal:Asia.--cj | talk 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Categories section has been added.
      • Instead I've moved the Map of Asia section downwards. I agree that, though helpful, the map is not as important as the other sections.--TBCΦtalk? 04:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Lots of good collaboration to upgrade this portal. Rfrisbietalk 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising the objections:

  • Use wikipedia links wherever possible in news section. I have also explained an example above.
  • Remove portals of Indian states, Kerala and Indian city, Hyderabad.
  • Move countries section down.
  • In WikiProjects section, list projects only. e.g. replace India with Wikipedia:WikiProject India. In the subsections there is no need or prefix of country e.g. use States instead of Indian States. Shyam (T/C) 14:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • New objection there is no evidence to make me confident that this portal will be maintained. Updates for January are absent. The sole maintainer is often absent.--cj | talk 12:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Shreveport

edit

Thought I'd give it a shot, trying to get often overlooked city some attention, it has a lot of history and culture to share with the world Justin 03:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Failed_log/December_2006&oldid=193807879"