Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Northern Territory: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:38, 31 July 2019

Portal:Northern Territory

Long-abandoned mini-portal, which is almost unread. It consists of four 12-year-old redundant content forks, a pair of 12-years reports masquerading as "news", and a trio of 11-year-old DYKs.

Created in 2007 by Seb26 (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2018. The lead of WP:POG says Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained. Seb26's last edit to any portal was in March 2008[1].

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Northern Territory shows a modest set of subpages. The list is a bit misleading, because Portal:Northern Territory/Selected article/4, article/6, article/7, and article/8 are all blank. Of he non-blank pages:

There are only 4 selected articles. Portal:Northern Territory/Selected article/1, article/2, article/3, article/5. All are completely unchanged since their creaion in 2007, apart from driveby WP:Unlinkdates edits.
Portal:Northern Territory/News displays the same two items as in December 2007.[2] No year is displayed with either entry, so these 12 year-old items are presented as if they were from Dec 2018, i.e. 7 months old.
Portal:Northern Territory/Did you know displays 3 items. At least two of them do appear to be products of WP:DYK, which is a welcome change from the forests of fake DYKs on so many other portals. However, the set of entries is unchanged since 2009. Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this ten-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". However, the generally abysmal viewing figures for portals means that "broad" needs to be read as "very broad". This portal has had zero maintainers and almost no readers, so it's clearly nowhere near broad enough.

In January–June 2019, Portal:Northern Territory got an average of only 9 pageviews per day, compared with a daily average for the head article Northern Territory of 1,194 daily views. In other words, readers prefer the head article by a ratio of 129:1.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But the Wikipedia main page requires huge amounts of work; it is maintained by several large teams of busy editors. A mini-mainpage also needs lot of ongoing work if it is going to value over the head article. And in this case, the portal is massively less useful in every respect than the C-Class head article Northern Territory, which is is a much better showcase and navigational hub.

As with many portals, this one is a failed solution in search of a problem. Time to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I concur with the analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl, and had been considering nominating this portal myself. I am attaching metrics on portals on Australia and its states and territories:

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Comments	Ratio	Percent	Notes	Parent Portal	Type	Articles
Australia	77	17864	Last maintenance of articles appears to be 2012, but news is current and articles are extensive.	232.00	0.43%		Oceania	Country	100
Queensland	29	1917	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance 2014.	66.10	1.51%		Australia	State	35
New South Wales	18	2431	Originator inactive since 2018. Last maintenance 2013.	135.06	0.74%		Australia	State	14
Western Australia	13	1312	Originator last edited in 2012. Last maintenance 2010.	100.92	0.99%		Australia	State	28
Australian Capital Territory	9	723	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2012.	80.33	1.24%		Australia	State	11
Northern Territory	9	1194	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2008. Only three articles. Has blank entries for some articles.	132.67	0.75%		Australia	State	3
Victoria	9	1478	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2013.	164.22	0.61%	Has false blank entries for articles and biographies.	Australia	State	14
South Australia	9	942	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2013.	104.67	0.96%		Australia	State	17
Tasmania	9	2913	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance 2007.	323.67	0.31%		Australia	State	13

As can be seen, regional portals in general, especially below the national level, are not well-maintained. This portal appears to have been assessed, but the assessment evidently focused only on the absence of blatant errors and not on the absence of content. A quick look at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Northern_Territory would lead one to think that there are eight articles, but some of them are blank, perhaps because the portal wasn't finished. This portal should be deleted, but if another editor wants to develop a portal that does not rely on subpages, which are a failure, they know where Deletion Review is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this portal is terrible.Catfurball (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep: Could we please have a moratorium on deletions of regional portals? These reginal portals can be rebuilt and updated. This is just creating chaos with no benefit to Wikipedia. Please see User:Buaidh/Geographic portals for the current impact. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 23:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No moratorium. Thee abandoned portals have been wasting the the time and energy of`readers and editors for years. They don't just fail to add value; they actively mislead, by providing outdated or incomplete information.

The only chaos here is in Buaidh's imagination and in the list of redlinks which he has created. Wikipedia is significantly improved by the removal of unused, misleading, badly-designed portals which readers avoid.

It is very easy to to make glib statements that portals can be rebuilt and updated. The reality is that maintaining them requires a lot of ongoing work by a lot of editors, and in face of the evidence of long-term neglect it is utterly implausible to simply state that this can end. There might be some credibility to such a statement if there was evidence of a team of active maintainers had formed, but there is no such evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NEGLECT, I am also voting keep as I see no value in WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments. Wikipedia is a work in progress and the territory consists of a large part of Australia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Knowledgekid87, Wikipedia's content is a work-in-progress. This is not encyclopedic content; it is a failed and abandoned navigational device. WP:NEGLECT is all about articles, and this is not an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing in WP:NEGLECT that says that it is confined to articles. What do you mean by "content", and where are you citing your information? If it is on Wikipedia then it is by definition "content". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The lack of a specific exclusion doesn't alter fact the language is all about articles.
      Categories, portals, navboxes etc are not content: they are navigational tools. It is worrying that this crucial distinction needs to be explained so often to editors who get very indignant at the notion that we shouldn't continue to waste readers' time by luring them to a navigational device which has been abandoned for a decade as a rusty shell. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - There does not appear to be a consensus on the matter if it needs to be explained often without going into specifics. WP:BLP1E for example, only applies to living people as that is more straightforward. To be fair I think more time has been wasted with these discussions, the notion of "wasted time" is also a matter of personal preference. For some, going out to see a movie would be another person's waste of time. It hence bothers me a bit that most of these discussions are coming down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT per comments like "Delete this portal is terrible.Catfurball (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Knowledgekid87, as you well know, Catfurball was commenting in response to two screenfulls of evidence above. Your dismissal ';s comment as "IDONTLIKEIT" is achieved only by your omission of that crucial context, and as such it is a shameful misrepresentation. Please clean up your conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        What are you talking about? That was their deletion rationale... if it were on any other thing then it would be given no weight as being a personal opinion. You are not addressing my points here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary, Knowledgekid87, I am addressing them directly. Your substantive point is your misrepresentation of the status and content of essays. Your subsidiary point is your misrepresentation of the contributions to the discussions by other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to the call by User:Buaidh and others for a moratorium on the deletion of regional portals: Please discuss this at Village Pump where I have tried to mention the issue of regional portals. I will personally respect any request for a moratorium to allow discussion of the status of regional portals if it is made there via an RFC. (I cannot speak for any other editor.) I will ignore any moratorium request that is not made there. There have been many comments that nations, states of the United States, and other regions should have portals, but, until now, no serious discussion of the guidelines for such portals.

The statement that these portals should be kept so that they can be updated and rebuilt is silly. Most of them use thditor e failed paradigm of partial copies of pages, and if they are rebuilt, should be rebuilt from scratch with dynamite. Besides, if no one is maintaining them, why does it make sense to expect that Godot will upgrade them?

As to whether they do any harm, the answer is that many of them present no-longer-correct information, such as about heads of state who have been replaced either democratically or undemocratically. Obsolete information in portals is worse than in articles, because most editors do not know how to update portal subpages. They are not harmless, and no one is about to fix them.

Any editor who wants to propose that regional portals should have a special status may do so at WP:POG2019RFC.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No prejudice against future re-creation of a curated, maintained portal with an adequate amount of content. The topic itself meets the WP:POG criteria for topical broadness relative to the amount of coverage it has on English Wikipedia. See Category:Northern Territory and its subcategories for an overview of available coverage about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong prejudice against re-creation. @NA1K now knows very well that WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". I have absolutely no doubt that NA1K is aware of this, because it has been drawn to NA1K's attention in dozens of discussions.

So NA1K's attempt to define POG's criteria for topical broadness without mentioning the requirement for "large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" is clearly no accidental omission or oversight. It has been repeated by NA1K on so many occasions that it is unquestionably a pattern of deliberate deceit, a systematic effort to dishonestly misrepresent established guidelines.

The fact is that this topic has been shunned for a decade by both readers and editors, so it clearly fails POG. NAIK's campaign of lies, deceit and obfuscation should not obscure the fact that a rebuilt portal would still fail the POG's requirements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 *'''Comment''' – '''No prejudice against future re-creation''' of a curated, maintained portal with an adequate amount of content. The ''topic'' itself meets the [[WP:POG]] criteria for topical broadness relative to the amount of coverage it has on English Wikipedia. See [[:Category:Northern Territory]] and its subcategories for an overview of available coverage about the topic. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size: x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 13:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
+**'''Strong prejudice against re-creation'''.  @[[User:Northamerica1000|NA1K]] now knows very well that WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".  I have absolutely no doubt that NA1K is aware of this, because it has been drawn to NA1K's attention in dozens of discussions.
+::So NA1K's attempt to define POG's criteria for topical broadness without mentioning the requirement for ''"large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers''" is clearly no accidental omission or oversight.  It has been repeated by NA1K on so many occasions that it is unquestionably a pattern of deliberate deceit, a systematic effort to dishonestly misrepresent established guidelines.
+::The fact is that this topic has been shunned for a decade by both  readers and editors, so it clearly fails POG.   NAIK's campaign of lies, deceit and obfuscation should not obscure the fact that a rebuilt portal would still fail the POG's requirements. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)