Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport

Portal:Transport

Portal:Transport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neglected, stillborn portal.

Three never-updated selected articles created in December 2012. There is no way to edit these entries except to visit Portal:Transport/Selected article by finding a trapdoor (Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Transport). The apparent decision to stow-away essential editing functions has hastened this portal's death.

Twelve never-updated selected images created in July 2008.

Errors

• Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) has gained 50.7 km (31.5 mi)
• MTR has gained 6.6 km (4.1 mi) of track
• Moscow Metro is the most heavily used metro system in Europe, but not the world. Its rail length has increased by 119.4 km (74.2 mi)
• Eurocopter AS350 Écureuil is manufactured by Airbus Helicopters, not Eurocopter Group
• If a moving vehicle collides with another object, this is referred to as a "traffic collision," not a "traffic accident"
• Boeing ended production of the C-17 Globemaster III in 2015. India is not listed as an operator although it possesses the second-largest fleet. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep and Revert to this updated version of the portal. Actually, the portal was updated and expanded in early October 2019. Unfortunately, this was reverted by another user in a series of rapid, drive-by edits that they performed to dozens of portals, all in one day (diff). It is difficult to update portals when the work is erased four days later. In the process of the updates that occurred, entries listed at Portal:Transport/Selected article were added directly to the portal using transclusions (diff), which keeps the content up-to-date, verbatim with what's on the article pages. This should theoretically correct the various errors listed above in the nomination, unless that main article pages have not been corrected.

Additional new FA-class and GA-class articles were also added that were not present before, in accordance with WP:POG, where it states, "For the Selected article, Selected biography or other Selected content items, find a good number of articles, as many as you can, that could be showcased on the portal" that are "of high quality, either a featured article, a good article or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively". See the page's Revision history for more information. Articles were chosen using article lists generated by the Wikipedia Release Version Tools here and here, from results generated via talk page article assessments in project banners. The articles were first viewed and checked prior to being added; they were not just copied and pasted from the lists. Their overall suitability for the portal was also considered in this process. Additionally, other select articles rated as B-class were added, to round-out the portal to provide a more comprehensive overview of the overall topic. This occurred in accordance with the Article selection section of WP:POG, where it states that articles chosen that are not FA- or GA-class should deal with its subject "substantially or comprehensively". Furthermore, the portal receives decent page views and serves a functional purpose as a navigational option on Wikipedia for those that choose to use it. Below is a list of articles that were present prior to the reversion that occurred four days later.

Article list from this updated version of Portal:Transport

1=Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) 2=London congestion charge 3=MTR 4=London Underground 5=Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel 6=SS Christopher Columbus 7=Baltimore Steam Packet Company 8=AirTrain JFK 9=Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II 10=American Palestine Line 11=San Francisco tech bus protests 12=Congestion pricing in New York City 13=Greyhound Lines 14=Pony Express 15=Oil tanker 16=Congestion pricing 17=Metrorail (Miami-Dade County) 18=Ambulance 19=Bay Area Rapid Transit 20=Calais 21=Flag of convenience 22=Bayview Park ferry wharf 23=Port of Split 24=Northwest Seaport Alliance 25=NYC Ferry 26=Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 27=Port of Ploče 28=Road transport 29=Port Miami Tunnel 30=Semi-trailer truck 31=Kitsap Fast Ferries 32=Staten Island Ferry 33=Intermodal container 34=General aviation in the United Kingdom 35=List of Interstate Highways in Texas 36=List of railway stations in the West Midlands 37=Timeline of the London Underground 38=Manchester Liners 39=Innherredsferja 40=Rail transport 41=Transport in the Soviet Union 42=High-speed rail 43=Bulk carrier 44=Electric vehicle warning sounds 45=Electric vehicle 46=Goat Canyon Trestle 47=Kochi 48=Port of Skagen 49=Transportation in Omaha 50=Port of Rijeka 51=Ice trade 52=Skateboarding 53=Cycling 54=Car 55=Canadian Pacific Railway 56=Boeing 747 57=Winter service vehicle 58=Indian Railways 59=Forksville Covered Bridge 60=Interstate 355 61=Hybrid vehicle 62=Steam locomotive 63=New York State Route 28 64=Horses in the Middle Ages

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep updated version. Northamerica1000 has made similar changes to many portals, which were bulk-reverted with Twinkle and are now starting the tedious third phase of the BRD process. See Portal talk:Australia, where all but one editor have reached a consensus to reinstate a similar revamp. The changes which were reverted address the criticisms above about unmaintained pages with errors, by replacing outdated forks with transcluded excerpts which remain current. Certes (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep a version of this portal. No opinion on current/suggested revisions. It's a broad scale and at least has editors interested, and has an equivalent project. Kingsif (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Portal:Transport, as noted by User:Mark Schierbecker, has only three selected articles in its current state. However, this is a puzzling case, because it appears that there is an effort to improve and expand the portal by User:Northamerica1000 which has been reverted by User:BrownHairedGirl. BHG complains of a sneaky addition of articles, but if the portal was seriously deficient in articles, the addition of articles, even if the wrong articles, seems like an improvement. I would like an explanation from User:BrownHairedGirl of what she wants done with this portal. It doesn't seem reasonable to argue against improving a portal while also arguing that a portal should be deleted because it has been in need of improvement for years.
  • • This portal had 41 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, as contrasted with 1569 for the head article Transport (but readers mostly read about specific types of transport anyway).
    • I don't understand why BHG is opposing what appears to be an improvement of the portal. It would have been even better if the improvements had been discussed, but undiscussed improvements to a portal are still improvements.
    • I certainly don't think that the old version of the portal should be the basis for a deletion discussion.
    • I think that it might be in order to close this deletion discussion procedurally and wait until the discussion of improvements to the portal is resolved.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Northamerica1000's perferred version Wm335td (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. The comments above need a long reply, but it's getting late here, so this is not as full a reply as is needed.

So for now I will just note that:

1. I reverted NA1K's changes for the reasons set out in my edit summary "Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed"
2. NA1K has restructured dozens of portals into a format which displays no visible, linked list of the articles on rotation … and has sneakily added dozens of new articles to these portals with no visible list anywhere of the articles which have been added, without even a namecheck in the edit summary, let alone a link. None of the changes which I I reverted here (or any of the rest of NA1K's sneaky takeovers) linked to any discussion anywhere.
   I no see consensus anywhere that it is appropriate for one editor to wander around portal space, sneakily adding dozens of sneaky articles to many dozens of portals with no evident attempt at discussion or even at leaving informative edit summaries, let alone explaining the criteria for their choices. Portal-space is not one editor's private list-making playground.
3. NA1K has posted here the list of topics which they had added. The fact that this has been done only now serves to reinforce my point that there is no visible list on NA1K's version of the portal, because the manner in which NA1K chose to restructure the portal omits any list of the topics. Other models are available which avoids content forks but do display a list, e.g. Portal:Wind power. NA1K chose the sneaky format — and AFAICS did so with no prior discussion anywhere, and without even any subsequent explanation anywhere of why they they chose the hidden list format.
4. I reverted NA1K's edits in part because there is no visible list, and hence no scrutiny without disproportionate effort. The history of the article and its talk page shows that NA1K made no effort to explain their actions until the reverts were being discussed at ANI: NA1K's last "update" was on 8 Oct; I reverted on 12 Oct, ANI discussion opened the same day; NA1K posted[1] on 13 Oct a few notes which did not include any list of the articles). Note that only now that this portal is being discussed at MFD that NA1K posted a linked list[2] of the articles (using the sneakily uninformative edit summary +New comment).
5. Now that I have actually examined the list posted above I find that it is much worse than I had feared. 64 articles are listed above by NA1K. Of those, 19 are generic topics, without particular ties to one country. A majority of of the remainder (i.e 24 out of 45) specifically relate directly to the United States. That is a massive imbalance which indicates at best a flagrant disregard for NPOV and the avoidance of systemic bias. I hope that NA1K will urgently explain in detail why they considered it appropriate to create this grotesque imbalance (which was not visible anywhere on the face of the portal).
6. Portals have rotted because most of the WikiProjects which ever had interest in their portal have long since lost interest in it, so there is no longer any pool of editors scrutinising and maintaining the portal. There should be a centralised discussion about where this leaves portals, and how any remaining portals are to be maintained ... but rather than discuss the consequences of WikiProject disengagement, NA1K's preferred "remedy" has been to appoint themself with neither discussion nor disclosure to do a sneaky, stealthy, single-handed takeover of these portals, on a huge and diverse range of topics in which NA1K has no demonstrable experience or expertise. In this case there is a WP:WikiProject Transport, but NA1K made no attempt to consult or even notify the project about NA1K's takeover of the portal. Even now, NA1K has made no attempt to explain why they made this perverse selection.
7. I tried to assume that NA1K acted in good faith, but the evidence here points overwhelmingly to an attempt to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. However, also I have to note that if NA1K had a conscious goal to impose their own worldview on the portal with minimal risk of detection, then the course of action which they took in this case would have been ideal: ensure that there is no visible list, make no notification on the talk page, make no notification of the WikiPeoject, and a use series of edit summaries neither list nor link to any one of the articles added.
8. I have I have already written at length elsewhere about the issues raised by NA1K's unilateral, sneaky restructurings of many dozens of portals. NA1K and Certes are well aware of those explanations, but have chosen to post here as if those explanations did not exist. Their omission of any mention of that is sadly typical of the systematic misrepresentations and deceptive half-truths which they repeatedly post in discussions related to portals.
9. NA1K justifies their actions as being in accordance with WP:POG. Yet NA1K was one of the vocal advocates for the delisting of those guidelines, which are now tagged as a failed proposal. In other discussions, NA1K has repeatedly noted this deprecation of POG, so there is no room at all to AGF that NA1K was unaware of this. There can therefore be doubt whatsoever that either a) NA1K is so spectacularly incompetent that they see no contradiction in relying on a guideline which they themself led the deprecation of; or b) NA1K's choice to rely on POG without noting its status is a mendacious attempt to deceive and mislead the discussion into believing that NA!k had acted in accordance with a community consensus.
10. I have repeatedly asked elsewhere for NA1K to work with me to draft RFCs on how to structure and populate portals. They have repeatedly refused to do so. In particular, I note Certes's comment above that we are now starting the tedious third phase of the BRD process. Consensus-building is a cre policy of Wikipedia, and if Certes regards that process as Example text then they should reconsider their participation in a project based on consensus decision-making. If the do accept consensus as a core policy, then we should start those RFCs.
11. In summary, what we have here is a portal which:

    A/ was long-abandoned in a terrible state

    B/ a leading member of the portals project set out to completely rebuild with no prior notification of the portals project, the topic-specific WikiProject, r any other location that I have found. This was unilateral, solo takeover.

    C/ was rebuilt sneakily, with no disclosure until challenged of what was done and why

    D/ rebuilt in a stealthy form which impedes scrutiny of the articles within its scope (the lack of a plainly visible linked list makes it much much harder to examine the list)

    E/ was hijacked to become massively imbalanced towards one country. I cannot know whether this hijack was by due to intentional bias or to incompetence, but the resulting lack of balance is outrageous.

    and

    F/ a hijacker who even a month later is wholly unrepentant about their any part of their actions

    G/ a hijacker who remains ins stubborn denial of all the evidenced criticisms of their hijack

    H/ a hijacker who vocally objects to holding RFCs to resolve the systemic issued raised by their hijacking, complete with a cheerleader

    I/ 4 editors who posted here after the unbalanced list of articles was belatedly published, none of whom spotted the massive unbalance which NA1K had created.

Houston, we have a problem. And its's a systemic problem: under-scrutinised portals, with little or no WikiProject involvement, which have been rotting for years ... and are now being stealthily subject to exceptionally poor quality "improvements" while being hijacked to create severe regional bias.

There is a broad decision of principle to be made here. Do we:

• i/ endorse this landgrab by NA1K's one-person Portal-Rescue-Squadron, and accept this practise of sneakily adding dozens of POV-selected articles to a list which NA1K has hidden from the face of the portal?, or
• ii/ delete the portals whose WikiProjects have abandoned them?, or
• iii/ devise some broad criteria for selecting articles, and some methodology for ensuring that changes to these lists are properly scrutinised?

Pinging the editors who have commented above: @Wm335td, Robert McClenon, Kingsif, Certes, Northamerica1000, and Mark Schierbecker. Please do take a few minutes to read this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep updated copy, especially considering the updated version should be sufficiently improved for the nominator. The wall of text above this comment is not appreciated, nor accusations of 'sneaking around'. What we do here on Wikipedia is edit and improve pages. Whether it's single edits to individual articles or overhauls of one, it doesn't matter, nor is consensus needed for such a mundane improvement. ɱ (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ɱ: it seems that you are entirely unconcerned about the fact NA1K's sneakily-implemented version creates a massive bias towards towards the United States (24 out of 45 articles with ties to a particular country specifically relate directly to the United States). I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please can you clarify whether you find that acceptable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't identify that trend before. I think that so long as there's sufficient quality content, you are correct that selected articles should be more broad than just the United States. I'm not sure if there's a rule to back up this point, but regardless, they had constructive edits. If you'd like to swap many of them out with more global examples, please do so. Content removal is less helpful. ɱ (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I explained it above, before you posted your !vote.

Note that I reverted NA1K's edit before I was aware of this, because NA1K sneaky additions and conversion of the portal to a black box had made scrutiny unnecessarily difficult. Now that the portal has been scrutinised, it is clear that what NA1K actually did was as I feared: they created a massive biased selection, not just in geographical distribution, but also chronologically (almost nothing on the pre-industrial history of transport) and between modes of transport (there's almost nothing on non-mechanical transport, sea transport, or aviation). And all of this was hidden from scrutiny because of NA1K's choices: using a "black box" model of portal, not linking or even naming additions in edit summaries, and not making any visible list until MFD.

So on what basis do you describe any of this as constructive? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't read every point in your wall of text, but faults in Wikipedia's global quality aren't an issue here. As Northamerica said, most GAs and FAs are related to the US/UK/Western world. Perhaps consider translating articles from other-language Wikipedias, or writing new articles on global subjects. ɱ (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You are also still welcome to edit NA1K's list to include more pre-Industrial Revolution topics and other modes of transit. ɱ (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Ɱ: if you choose to not even speed-read a numbered list of points, that is your choice. But a lot of issues have been raised by NA1K's repeated FUD tactics, so don't complain that they are addressed, and don't complain that your choice not to read it led you to miss a crucial point. In any case, it seems that you didn't even scrutinise NA1K's list of articles before you pronounced it an improvement: even at a cursory glance, it shouts "USA USA".

Your first point is a straw man. Faults in Wikipedia's global quality do not mean that a portal will inevitably be biased, unless the pool of available content is too small ... in which case the portal should be deleted.

WP:NPOV is not just policy, it is one of the Five pillars Wikipedia; but there is not even a guideline, let alone a policy requiring the existence of a portal on any topic. As a result, if you can't or won't make an NPOV portal, policy requires that you don't make a POV portal.

For the reasons below, the decision to create a list which focuses more on NA1K's own country of residence was a choice made by NA1K.

You write most GAs and FAs are related to the US/UK/Western world, but NA1K made a choice which is over 50% US. There are many ways in what could have been avoided. These include, but are not limited to:

1. Making a shorter list, by omitting some of the articles on over-represented topics. Most portals have an article list much shorter than 64 articles, but NA1K chose to prioritise their personal preference for a high number over the core policy on NPOV.
2. Using articles which are not assessed as GA or FA. NA1K's post of 13 October[New content was added, including Featured-class and Good-class articles] says only that New content was added, including Featured-class and Good-class articles. It does not say that the list was restricted to GA/Fa class. (I am personally unconvinced that lower quality articles ware appropriate, but since NA1K chose not exclude B and C class, they had a much wider pool available).
3. Using transport-related articles which have been assessed by other projects. The topic of transport includes air transport and sea transport, but the list created by NA1K massively under-represents those topics. For example, taking only FA and GA class, there is Category:FA-Class aviation articles+subcats (138 articles), Category:GA-Class aviation articles+subcats (438 articles), Category:FA-Class Ships articles (264 pages) and Category:GA-Class Ships articles (1,517 articles), Category:FA-Class London Transport articles (33 articles), Category:GA-Class London Transport articles (104 articles). Sure, many of the ships and aviation articles are military, but there are literally hundreds of non-military topics there.
   And even that lot is only the tip of the iceberg: Category:WikiProject Transport shows a total of 23 transport Wikiprojects, all with their own assessment categories. So any suggestion that NA1K had only a small pool of articles to work with is just another of the falsehoods routinely repeated by portal fans.

Note that in this discussion, as in all similar discussions, NA1K has repeatedly failed to respond to requests to disclose clearly how exactly they selected the article for their list. So I cannot sustain any assumption that this hideously unbalanced list is the work of a competent editor trying to uphold policy. It's the result of either blatant incompetence or wilful POV-pushing, or some combination of both. And it has been hidden by NA1K's sneaky editing practices.

And a result of inadequate scrutiny by other editors of NA1K's poor quality contributions, several editors have rushed to this page to endorse NA1K's flagrant breach of one of Wikipedia's Five pillars. Mark Schierbecker even restored the POV version while discussion is underway. This is almighty mess: an admin has sneakily and avoidably built a massively POV portal, has responded to queries with evasion, deception and denial ... and may get away with their campaign of deceit unless other editors start to recognise that NPOV is core policy.⋅--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the reverts are bewildering. Accordingly, I've reverted to NA1000's edit. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have undone that, and restored the status quo ante while the discussion is underway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – The WP:HOUNDING, badgering and personal attacks from BHG needs to stop.

• The additions to the portal were not "sneaky" as BHG incorrectly assumes, as though if I was trying to deviantly hide them or some nonsense such as this. It is inappropriate for BHG to make personal attacks against my character such as this. They are wrong, and it is wrong.
• I left a clear message on the Portal talk:Transport page on 13 October 2019 (UTC) (diff) summarizing the changes that occurred. At that talk page notice, note where I posted:

– " The articles added can be readily viewed in this version of the portal, and then selecting the Edit link (here). Then scroll down."

• This is not "sneaky". It is transparent. BHG chose not to discuss matters on the portal talk page after reverting the improvements. This was their choice, not mine.
• As I stated above, articles were added in accordance with WP:POG, where it states, "For the Selected article, Selected biography or other Selected content items, find a good number of articles, as many as you can, that could be showcased on the portal" that are "of high quality, either a featured article, a good article or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively".
• Perhaps some sort of drive should occur to encourage the creation of more FA- and GA-class articles related to transport. Many of the GA-classs articles available are U.S. centric. For a list of them, see Wikipedia Release Version Tools (GA articles). The same goes for FA-class articles, listed at Wikipedia Release Version Tools (FA articles). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  NA1k, POG was never a guideline at all. Moreover, that fact was established since over two weeks before your "changes" to the portal. And while maybe BHG calling your changes "sneaky" probably wasn't the best choice of words, her point that you never even bothered to seek community consensus for those changes still stands nonetheless. Might as well start an RfC for that reason. ToThAc (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

These aren't factors for deletion, and community consensus is not necessary for simply improving articles or portals. It would only be now that some people have disputed the changes. ɱ (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reply to NA1K NA1K's reprehensible conduct of sneaky takeovers, biased selections, list hiding, and false accusations of houndings and personal attacks all need to stop. NA1K is using classic FUD tactics to deflect editors from scrutinising the very poor quality of their work and the sneaky way in which it has been done.

I have not made attacks against NA1K's character. I have criticised their conduct, and questioned their competence in the tasks which they have set out to perform. I will continue to do so far as long as those problems persist.

I note that NA1K continues to repeat a bunch of demonstrable falsehoods:

1. NA!K says "This is not "sneaky"". Yes it is, in multiple ways. NA1K converted the portal to a format which does not display a list, and added dozens of articles in multiple edits without listing any of them in edit summaries. After NA1K's edits, there was no visible indication anywhere of what new content had been added.
2. As noted above, the note which NA1K left on the talk page was after my revert on 8th October. NA1K chose not to notify me in any way of the existence of this message, but has the brazen hypocrisy to criticise me for chose not to discuss matters on the portal talk page. NA1K has chosen criticise me for not participating in a discussion which they chose not to notify me of, even though you NA1K opened the discussion in response to their revert. That is a form of entrapment, and such vile conduct has no place on Wikipedia.
3. NA1K's message on the talk page did not include either a linked list of the articles chosen (to facilitate scrutiny), nor any explanation of how they were chosen apart from the absurdly vague statement content was added, including Featured-class and Good-class articles. It added precisely nothing to the ability of other editors to evaluate the changes which NA1K had made. (NA1K's posting of a link list once this discussion opened is a tactic and belated acknowledgement of the deficiency).
4. NA1K makes no attempt to explain, let alone justify, why they chose to create a list of topics which is massively-biased towards the country in which they claim to live (User:Northamerica1000 says "this user lives in the United States of America"). I had hoped for an explanation which might allow for AGFing that the extreme bias which they introduced was a by-product of using some other criterion without adequately assessing its consequences ... but NA1K's choice not to offer any such explanation makes tilts the evidence towards a conclusion that it was conscious POV-pushing.
5. NA1K again cites WP:POG in their support. However, POG is not a guideline; it is a failed proposal. It was delisted per an RFC this year, in which NA1K themself made a long post supporting its delisting.
   Yet now, for the second time in this discussion, NA1K has cited POG as if it still had community support, and omits to mention that it is a failed proposal, even tho that had been pointed out to NA1K above.
   This degree of deception is extraordinarily bad conduct. In 13 years as an admin, I have never before seen any editor, let alone an admin, cite in their support a page which was deprecated on their own insistence that it never received actual formal discussion to be enacted as a real English Wikipedia guideline page. I could never have imagined a situation where an actual admin would repeat that deception in a discussion where the error had already been noted in the post to which they were replying.
   We are now well past the point this sort of deception could be excused as a good faith oversight by a competent editor. This sort of extreme misrepresentation of facts seems tome to be explicable only as either: a) NA1K exercising extreme mendacity, or b) NA1K having very low comprehension skills. It is not for me to judge what combination of the two applies in this case, but I can see no basis on which consensus-formation can work in the company of a verbose editor so detached from reality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

That's odd: POG was good enough for 900 MfDs which used it as a deletion rationale this year. But we get your message loud and clear: editors who disagree with you are liars and idiots. Exemption from our usual responses to personal attacks is not a licence to repeat them in every possible forum. Certes (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)