Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Costa Rica/Intro

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nabla (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 16 December 2023 (→‎Portal:Costa Rica/Intro: delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Portal:Costa Rica/Intro

Portal:Costa Rica/Intro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Unused, and unlikely to be used, given we can transclude the well-sourced lead of the Costa Rica article. Cremastra (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose does the portal serve, which is not better served by either Costa Rica or Wikipedia:WikiProject Costa Rica? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's not turn this into a general discussion on the portal. This subpage is unnecessary, the portal itself is completely necessary. Cremastra (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Unnecessary” is not a deletion reason. Why not archive?
You think a portal is “completely necessary”? What would happen without it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archive. Don’t delete history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When portals are updated to rely on transclusion instead of on outdated and non-policy-compliant redacted copies of articles or article content, those pages should always be deleted.—Alalch E. 22:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alalch E. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive per SmokeyJoe. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 18:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the page, or Mark Historical, because it is a content fork of the main article. This page is a leftover of the old portal architecture that used fragmentary copies of selected pages. This architecture was never a good idea, because it resulted in the views of the articles failing to reflect changes in the articles. This page, like other fragmentary copies, should never have existed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:Cremastra - What non-mystical purpose does the portal serve? I am aware that portals have a mystical function, but I have been waiting for four years to be informed what purpose portals have that is not equally well served by the lead article and by Categories and Links. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'll have to give me your definition of "non-mystical" or at least "mystical". I don't plan to defend the portal by saying that the gods ordered it to be kept, but I don't think that what you mean. . Cremastra (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The portal had an average of 6 daily pageviews in 2021, and an average of 6 daily pageviews in 2022. The lead article, Costa Rica, had an average of 3193 daily pageviews in 2021 and 4672 daily pageviews in 2023. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: And I'm working on improving the portal, and adding links from pages. Average pageviews have risen in the past few weeks. Look at ~6-8 in September & October, then the sudden rise around the start of December. Low pageviews don't reflect the quality of the portal, they reflect how many places the portal is linked from, which I'm working to fix. The daily average of pageviews this month is up to seventeen – that's doubled and it coincides exactly with when I started adding links in earnest. Cremastra (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:SmokeyJoe - What do you mean by Archive? Archive to where? Is that the same as Mark Historical? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: I can’t speak for SmokeyJoe, but when I !voted to ‘archive’, I think I intended it to mean the same as ‘mark historical’. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 21:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the term 'Archive' confusing, because article talk pages, noticeboards, and some user talk pages are archived, usually by a bot, which moves material to a subpage, and MFD is the correct venue for requests to delete material from talk pages. Maybe we should agree that 'Archive' may mean either Move to Subpage or Mark Historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not confusing. There is not good reason to be prescriptive. MfD is not a good forum to decide on how to archive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SmokeyJoe is speaking for himself when he says it is not confusing. It is confusing to me, and I am also a long-time editor. So the statement "It's not confusing" should be qualified as to perspective, and I said that I found it confusing. I was never saying that MFD should be prescriptive as to how archiving is done, but was implying that there are different definitions of what is meant by archiving. See Wikipedia:Archiving, which is about talk page archiving and web archiving, both of which involve moving or copying. I was not aware that tagging is considered a method of archiving, and there are probably other editors who also understand archiving to involve moving or copying. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with 'mark historical'. Cremastra (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Costa_Rica/Intro&oldid=1190255470"