The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion is keep. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this portal fell into some kind of permanent hibernation shortly after receiving the promotion to featured portal status in 2008: The latest "news" are from January 2008 (e.g. Bobby Fischer's death in Reykjavík), and there wasn't much change in the other sections as well. For example, the selection of 13 pictures for the "Selected picture" section is from 2007 and was not changed or expanded since then. So, in my opinion, it doesn't fulfill Featured portal criteria (d) - it isn't well-maintained. It is a nice-looking portal for sure, but unless there are people willing to rejuvenate and maintain it, I do not think it deserves the "featured" status anymore. In fact, criteria (d) states "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted"... so is there even a discussion needed? The news section at least certainly would require maintenance and updates, but was ignored for years... But I would like to give the portal a chance. Maybe an option would be to re-design it in way that needs less maintenance, e.g. by removing the "news" section? Gestumblindi (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant parties notified: User:Husond, User:Sd31415, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iceland. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being updated by myself right now.--Snaevar (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as being maintained. Sadly haven't got much time lately for editing. Húsönd 19:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was Kept. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Featured Portal delisting review. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not the portal meets the Featured Portal criteria. If the determination is made that it does not meet those criteria by the end of the delisting review period (one month), it will have it's status as a Featured Portal revoked. Improvements can be made during this procedure, and indeed are encouraged, however because many improvements are promised but never delivered, a commitment to improve the portal in the future is not a valid rationale for keeping the portal at Featured status.

Rationale: I have nominated this for delisting because it has only one selected image, one selected list, eleven selected articles, and thirteen DYKs, all well below what I would expect to see for a portal with a scope of this size. Additionally, the DYK section appears to be static, meaning that only four of them are actually used. According to the count at WikiProject Cricket, there are 78 FA class cricket articles (most of which are biographies; there is likely not enough to split into selected articles and a separate selected biographies). There are dozens of Cricket-related Featured Lists, certainly enough to populate the section with 20 entries. I haven't done a count, because there's no real easy way to do one, but there has to be more than just 13 cricket DYKs to choose from. I'm not sure if there are 20 FP quality Cricket images, but between Commons' valued and FP pictures and this project's FPs, we should be able to field a decent selection. Simply put, this portal is underpopulated. As it is, it does not meet criteria 1(a) and 1(d). Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a shame, this was one of the very first featured portals (and maybe one of the first portals all together). I'm working on improving it to hopefully avoid a delisting. So far I've added 13 selected articles, bringing the total to 24, and will work on the other sections over the weekend and into next week. the wub "?!" 00:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I seriously doubt that anyone else is going to show up and comment here unless one of the two of us grabs them and asks, so take your time. It'll be a solid two/three weeks before I even remember to check back on this, so there's not that much of a rush. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note - I've moved this to Wikipedia:Featured portal review, which is the correct venue for delisting nominations. Bencherlite^Talk 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: My thanks to the wub (talk · contribs) for taking this on. Good luck with the attempt at a save here, — Cirt (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not sure where this was initially posted, but this is the page that I am watchlisting for this purpose. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The oft neglected Wikipedia:Portal peer review. I forgot this page existed and put it there. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've left the wub a query regarding getting an update on status of progress here. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oops, I did quite a bit of editing on this and then forgot to post here having been distracted by work. There are now 24 featured article selections, 10 featured lists, 6 selected pictures (was really struggling to find these) and 12 batches of four/five DYKs. True, there are many more cricket-related featured articles and lists, but I've tried to select a variety (so it's not just lists of centuries and five-wicket hauls popping up all the time) and also steer away from currently active players/teams where the blurbs will quickly go out of date. Hopefully this is acceptable.
• I also spruced up the styling a bit, and changed the featured material section to transclude WikiProject Cricket's page, which is actually kept up to date. the wub "?!" 14:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sven Manguard and Cirt: Any thoughts? the wub "?!" 22:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, my attention has been on Commons for the last few days. It's very nice. I don't think that it has enough content to be featured on the main page, should Featured Portals ever reach that point, but it's no longer in embarrassing shape. It's not in immediate delisting territory right now anymore, in my opinion. I actually really like the formatting you've done. It's lighter and airier, and that makes it more appealing. I may have to casually steal it in the near future. Thank you very much for doing this, the wub. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kept as issues have been addressed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was Keep. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WP:BIOLOGY and its parent project, WP:SCIENCE; Ausir (talk · contribs), Cyde (talk · contribs) (names in the Directory) and Papa Lima Whiskey (talk · contribs) (carried out the Sept 2008 updates). Samsara (talk · contribs), who nominated the portal for FPo status, is no longer active, so no message left.

Fails 1(d) "well-maintained" and 1(a) "useful". Note that the Featured portal criteria say that portals that are not updated for three months are summarily delisted.

• Selected biography (Louis Pasteur) not updated since September 2008, so more than 2 years ago.
• Selected picture (Staph. aureus) not updated since September 2008 either.
• DYK not updated since Dec 2008, so approaching 2 years as well.
• Article (cougar) not updated since June 2010, so just over three months - and before that, it had been prion since (you guessed it) September 2008.

As relying on updates by portal maintainers, associated WikiProjects or passers-by clearly isn't working, the portal needs to be changed to one using random subpages, with a proper level of decent content for the article, biography and picture section. The DYK section needs to be expanded to use only hooks that have appeared on the main page through DYK, and lots of them, in random subpages. There is a working "biology news" section at Wikinews, so perhaps a news section ought to be added here. A lot of work is needed to bring this up to current standards. Bencherlite^Talk 11:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to restrict content to DYK, but the attitude that says that we have to restrict ourselves in that way makes me less surprised that you're short of portal maintainers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to come across as having an "attitude", so my apologies if I inadvertantly gave that impression. I said that DYK hooks should be taken from the WP:DYK selections because (a) that seems to be the standard that has evolved in more recent FPo noms (this portal was promoted in August 2006), and (b) it has the advantage that the hook has been checked by someone else. Bencherlite^Talk 09:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the selected article, picture and biography have been updated today by MisterDub (talk · contribs); DYKs are still old. I don't know whether MisterDub intends to revamp the portal to move to random subpages, or to keep up with regular rotation of articles, so I will invite MisterDub to comment here. Bencherlite^Talk 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of a newb here, so I'm not sure how to make the portal use random subpages, but I was planning to update it every so often (perhaps once a month like the Physics portal, if not more frequent). Maybe I can learn how to do the random subpages (could anyone point me to a resource for this?) and do that at a later date. MisterDub (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of the more recently created portals use random subpages, so you can click on "edit" at e.g. Portal:Barack Obama or Portal:Law of England and Wales to see two slightly different ways of setting up the subpages. Suggestion: if you can come up with, say, 10 FA/FL/GA pages for a "selected article" section, I'll convert that to a random subpage section to get you started. Bencherlite^Talk 22:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any updates on how the above is moving along? -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, MisterDub hadn't edited after 1 November until 28 December, so I don't know whether the offer of monthly updates is still available or, indeed, realistic and reliable. I've left a message on MD's talk page asking for an update here if possible. Bencherlite^Talk 14:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my absence as of late... holidays and all. The offer is still available and I will begin working on changing the current information immediately, in addition to compiling a list of articles for future use. Again, my apologies. MisterDub (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any further updates on status of this? -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:MisterDub made updates in April 2011. The only component that was not updated is the DYK section (which is not a big deal). It appears that the majority of the concerns have been appropriately addressed. Closing this as keep. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

No consensus. Portal retains its featured status. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuba portal has not been maintained for a long time. The "In The News" section has had no direct new postings since March 2010, and the import from Wikinews have sporadic use, and nothing since 15 October 2010 which was an inconsequential post. Similarly with the "Selected Biography" and the "Quote of the Day" sections which are stale and repeating.

It does not seem to have support from their community. The Talk page states a concern that it would be listed at FPR. This dates from 8 May 2009 (1-1/2 year ago) and it states that it has not been taken care of for the previous 13 months.

It is not useful in its current state, being so out of date, and it is not maintained, therefore failing two of the most important featured portal criteria. I don't see any reason to retain its featured status when there are many other portals more deserving that do not have it. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified main contributors. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The portal uses randomly rotating content (9 articles, 23 pictures, 11 biographies, 100+ DYKs, and 1 quote for every day of the week). As I understand the conventions around here, that means that it counts as "well-maintained" for the purposes of WP:FPO?, because it does not need to be manually updated to present different selections to readers. As for the lack of news updates from Wikinews, well, that's unfortunate but the sad fact is that Wikinews is not a very active project at present and so it's not particularly surprising that no-one is writing lots of news stories about Cuba. I don't feel that the portal is out of date or not useful. If there is to be a new standard that Wikinews stories must be written regularly about the portal topic, then I think many portals would fail. If there is to be a new standard that randomly rotating content is no longer good enough, that would be a massive change to the system of featured portals and I shudder to think how few would be left. Bencherlite^Talk 13:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Not maintained. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant WikiProjects and significant contributors notified? Cirt (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject England, User:Ryan Postlethwaite. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qst was the main maintainer of this portal but he's pretty much inactive these days. If you give me a couple of days, I'll transfer everything onto the random content generator - hopefully that will alleviate the concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the main section for what it's worth. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Selected article, biography and image now on random portal content generator. I'll get to the selected quote and Did you know? later today or tomorrow. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• All now converted to random content generator so hopefully that will alleviate the concerns. Please let me know if there are any more problems. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great now. Thanks for the good job, Ryan. I say keep. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This portal is kept. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified (None known). RichardF (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This nomination should be completed using the current Featured portal review two-stage process. RichardF (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 selected article, 1 selected recipe, 1 selected quote, 1 selected person, 1 selected picture, 1 selected ingredient. Also lacking captions on images, red links in topics and categories. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 11:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is because the archive was removed for all of last year, I have been personally updating the portal each month and I have chosen to go in favor of the random portal tool which I just haven't had time yet this month to work on. I teach full-time and I am working on my thesis, just give me a couple days and I'll fix it. My intention originally was to just update it for this month but I haven't gotten to it yet. I have been working pretty hard to keep this portal updated each month and do not think it should be removed from Featured status due to me being a few days behind.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each section has had a number of articles added to it, additionally any red links were removed and a "New Selections" purge fucntion was added.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting this discussion. This portal looks a lot better than when it was nominated for review in February. However, the selections of articles, recipes, quotes, ingredients, and pictures are still short of retaining its featured portal status. Portal:Food/Selected article/9 requires an image replacement, if not removing it. And news section requires an update.

WikiProject Food and drink has been notified for this review and hopefully, someone will come and improve this portal. If this portal does not get improved within 7 days, it will be sent to Featured portal removal candidates where members of the community will determine if it will retain its status. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "7-day" time limit comes at a particularly bad time as I am away at a chef convention in Las Vegas for the next week and I am the only person who really works on the portal.--Chef Tanner (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When can you get to it? RichardF (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get back from Las Vegas on the 20th, however, another editor has updated the selected articles to 20 now, tonight after I get done with my seminars and dinner I will update the news section and if I have time perhaps another section of selected items.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the problematic Selected Article with a new FA, so that's fixed. I'll see what I can do about fixing the news stuff. :) Hope this doesn't restart the discussion! haha Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have significantly updated how this portal functions and have begun adding more articles, pictures, quotes, etc. It should be fine as of now. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was kept OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Review commentary

Notified (None known) RichardF (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This nomination was started as a Featured portal removal candidate. RichardF (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is... (No carry over applicable, since no review discussion took place.) RichardF (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal fails criteria 3. It's been 4 months without a selected article, over half a year without a selected picture, no news update since June, no randomised content. Unless someone is willing to update and regularly maintain this, it really doesn't deserve featured status. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retract what I said. Now keep OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Shudde (talk · contribs) is currently updating the portal to incorporate randomization. [sd] 00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to help out too. I much prefer building up to tearing down. RichardF (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Selected articles are randomized. RichardF (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • News imported from Wikinews by bot. RichardF (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Selected pics are randomized. RichardF (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This thing is easy enough to automate. RichardF (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Heavenly subject; could use some more DYKs however.--Bedford 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look for some. RichardF (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used AWB to find all the "Solar System" DYKs and I added them to the list. RichardF (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was kept 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

Notified (None known). RichardF (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This nomination should be completed using the current Featured portal review two-stage process. RichardF (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not had any featured articles added for months, and the main page was last edited in September 2007. There has not been any significant update in months, minus "bot" edits, and other minor things. This is pretty inactive currently. Soxred93 | talk count bot 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've updated the selected content (mostly replacing GAs with FAs). I'll look to update the news soon, although I am pretty busy with school right now. Teemu08 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This portal is kept. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WP:WINE and WP:FOOD.

• The portal is not maintained, per 1d. No one has updated the articles and sub-pages in a year; the only update has been me when I fixed a broken link. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done some structural changes to the portal and its sub pages, but I have not updated any of the pages themselves. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have always felt that the wine portal was a bit too ambitious for the editors participating in WikiProject Wine, most of whom are probably (like me) busy professionals who find it more important to spend our scarce available time improving the wine articles than maintaining this portal. A good portal, in my view, shouldn't need frequent maintenance. I have no objection to removing the "featured" status from this portal, and reconfigure the page into a useful static directory that needs only occasional maintenance. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Amatulic sums up my view as well. I'm much more concerned with the quality of our wine articles than a portal that gets a mere fraction of the page views in contrast to some of the most pressing wine articles in need of improvement like French wine, Italian wine, Wine tasting, etc. Featured or not doesn't really matter much to our readers and thusly doesn't concern me. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't even know a portal could be featured. I concur with Amatulic and Agne.--Nwinther (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me the articles, I will maintain the portal. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the proper bots in place, this portal could maintain itself. There's already a template that shows a random quote every time the page is viewed. I'm thinking a bot similar to the auto-archive bot could cycle through all the Category:GA-Class Wine articles and Category:FA-Class Wine articles, say one per week, and include their lead sections on the portal page. Similar things could be done with the Selected Winery and Selected Person sections, but I personally think we're better off without those. The "news" section could disappear, too. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the templates, I created them... Bot would be good. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep.show me a perfect portal - all of them have their moments SatuSuro 11:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - What they said. Imoeng 15:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The concern seems to have been addressed. Are there other grounds for de-listing? Rigadoun (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

This is a Featured Portal delisting review. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not the portal meets the Featured Portal criteria. If the determination is made that it does not meet those criteria by the end of the delisting review period (one month), it will have it's status as a Featured Portal revoked. Improvements can be made during this procedure, and indeed are encouraged, however because many improvements are promised but never delivered, a commitment to improve the portal in the future is not a valid rationale for keeping the portal at Featured status.

Rationale: Requesting summary delisting per requirement 1(d), which states "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted.". This portal requires manual maintenance and was last updated in 2007. Additionally, the quality of content is low, there are serious formatting issues, and all of the key sections are underpopulated (only seven articles, seven biographies, and a dozen images). Sven Manguard Wha? 05:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Husond, could you comment here? If you start work on changing the portal to a more dynamic format, such as for example Portal:Arts or Portal:Society, I'd be more than comfortable giving you some time to make progress on it. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've fixed the small font problem, so reviewers can see how the portal is (I think) intended to be viewed. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Let's wait one more week and revisit to see if there's any progress here, and unfortunately, if not, probably not going to stay at this level of quality. — Cirt (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Husond or Espresso Addict, any chance you were going to address above? — Cirt (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Why is this not delisted yet after over six months of "review" without any improvement? The portal has been last updated in 2007. Featuring a portal that displays "news" from 2007 is really embarrassing. --ELEKHH^T 08:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing as delisted. Bencherlite^Talk 11:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Most sections of the portal do not appear to have been updated since 2011. Selected article and Selected picture are red links. There is only one image visible (under DYK). The New pages box is empty, except for a link to a bot-created list that has not updated since March 2011. News is automatically generated from WikiNews, but only the first item is reasonably current (December 2012). One of the categories is a red link. The lack of content in the Selected article and Selected picture boxes means that the columns do not balance. I left informal notifications at several related WikiProjects earlier in January, but have received no response.

I believe the portal thus fails under criteria 1b (aesthetically pleasing, no formatting issues, no red links), 1c (ergonomic), 1d (well-maintained), and 3 (images where appropriate). Espresso Addict (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Portal creator Prsephone1674, featured portal nominator Feyday, significant contributor KF, the main maintaining WikiProjects Books, Novels & Literature, as well as peripherally related sub-projects Poetry, Theatre, Children's Literature & Science Fiction. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it needs fixing and I don't have the time to do it. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Insufficient interest. Needs suggested outlines, for example. Not there. I had thought there should be a section (in non-existent outline) that contained "literary criticism" for a genre (and works). I thought this was kind of basic. I asked about this and received no answer. BTW, I had placed such a criticism under "Science Fiction." It was erased! I had looked here for support, found none and asked. What good is the Project fulfilling if it can't answer a basic question nor recommend fundamental outlines

Having said that, most Projects have outdated outlines from five years ago. But at least they were there! Most Projects start out with heady goals and come to this. Kumioko was trying to address this fact with American geography Projects and rolling them up into one. There are just too many projects and too few people interested in working at this higher level stuff which gets little attention. Student7 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as delist: "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted" and we have many more than three months of redlinked sections here. Bencherlite^Talk 12:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Previous review from 2009 is at Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Wine. This portal fails several criteria:

• 1d well maintained: the newest item in the news section is from Feb 2008.
• 1b attractive: the "Things you can do" section is visually unattractive.

Portal:Wine/Selected person section has only 5 articles, the second being a stub, and none featured quality.

• 3 images: some of the content could have images, but it doesn't, such as Portal:Wine/Selected grape/4 where the former image has been deleted.

These are the very first observations, is likely there are more issues. --ELEKHH^T 22:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink, User:Jerem43. --ELEKHH^T 22:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a+1c useful+ergonomic: an important feature of a portal is to provide an easy navigation index of sub-topics (this is one of the few "required" components of any portal). This function here is spread out in three separate windows (Categories, Lists, Topics), none of them in an attractive form. Suggest having a look at fr:Portail:Vigne et vin which has a much more comprehensive topics index function, and four time more page views. --ELEKHH^T 22:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am going to start off saying you should talk to the people at WP:Wine as they are also involved in this.

Second you reasoning has some merits an more faults. I am going to start out by addressing some of your faults:

• This is the standard layout of most if not all portals on WP. To state that you don't like how it is laid out is a reason to have it stricken as a featured portal is not a very good reason to have it stricken from the records.
• The image issue has been fixed, so that is no longer a problem.
• The French Wine Portal page well, is French. They have a much smaller audience that has a greater depth of wine culture, so their page stats are going to be different. You are comparing apples to grapes.

Now as to your merits:

• It hasn't been updated in a while, and that is a problem. I only maintain the code side of the page. The person who used to maintain the content side has since quit WP. I suggest you bring the winos from WP:Wine in on this and let them have a go at it. As I stated in the first FP review, if the supplied me with the articles, I would update this portal. They didn't, so I didn't.

Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you don't deny that it's not maintained, but disagree with your other comments. Also note that WP:Wine has been notified from the start per due process, as highlighted above. Please don't forget that the purpose of this review is to improve the portal. Recognising the weaknesses and areas of possible improvement is the first precondition. --ELEKHH^T 05:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am a WP:WINE member and, admittedly, one of the reasons why I haven't paid much attention to the Portal is because I don't really see the use in portals on Wikipedia in general. Every non-Wikipedian that I've talked to (especially the ones in the wine industry) don't even know that these portals exist or what they are used for. While Jeremy's willingness to take care of the technical side of things is greatly appreciated (and frankly, the outstanding work he does project-wise, not just for WP:WINE is not recognized enough IMO), I'm just not convinced that maintaining the portal offers much benefit to the project in getting our content out in front of a larger audience. Maybe if there was the carrot of Main Page exposure with a Featured Portal section, it would be worth getting it back up to snuff but that idea doesn't seem to ever get traction. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portals can be useful for readers generally interested in a topic, and wanting to browse between its articles. Portals have been neglected on the English wiki for years, and now the standard is very low, with mediocre portals having featured status. In the meanwhile on other language wikis portals are more successful, by providing well organised content, like an index you can find in many books. This is possible to achieve on the English Wikipedia as well: for instance the constant maintenance and improvement of the Renewable energy portal has slowly increased the number of views from less than 1,000 to 5,000 per month. --ELEKHH^T 22:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Updated all the random portal component numbers which were wrong, added 1 SG, and suspended the five years ago updated "news" section. While these edits cleared some of the most discouraging aspects, the portal is far from "Wikipedia's finest work", and given that key editors above showed no intention for improvement, and the limited quality content related to the topic, I regretfully suggest speedy delist. --ELEKHH^T 16:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This portal certainly wouldn't have my support for promotion to featured in its current state, and if members of the appropriate WikiProject are indifferent to it, it's long-term improvement is unlikely. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• De-list. I agree with Agne that without main page exposure of featured portals, there isn't any motivation to maintain a portal's "featured" status. The usefulness, visibility, or hit count of this portal will likely not change at all if it is de-listed from the featured list. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is quality content and usefulness which attracts readers, not the star. The motivation to maintain portals at high quality should be readers focused, not the "featured" status, which is more of a recognition than a promotion. --ELEKHH^T 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Delisted. — Cirt (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

This portal fails multiple criteria

• 1d: is not being maintained since 2008, many redlinks not having been fixed since (SB2, SP2, SP6). The first line displays outdated population data from 2000.
• 1b: the "On this day in Indianapolis history..." has many redlinks with over half of the days being redlinks. There is a large error message at "Sister cities"
• Many images are very poor quality.

These are the most obvious issues, further scrutiny will probably reveal more. --ELEKHH^T 09:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indiana/Indianapolis, User:Bedford, User:TheHoosierState89. ELEKHH^T 09:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The fact that one of the portal's biography subjects was deleted in 2010 without anyone noticing is not a good sign of the health of the associated WikiProject. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Delisted. — Cirt (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Speedy delist – per the criteria, "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted." Bencherlite^Talk 10:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WikiProject France, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Europe, NYArtsnWords

Fails 1d. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 09:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was delist because it failed criteria 1(d). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been a selected picture since December 2009, same with a selected article and biography. It looks embarrassing on the right-hand side when it says "On this day", and there is nothing for February 4. It lists Hurricane Emily (1987) as an FAC, but it hasn't been there since August 2009. Finally, the recent and ongoing weather includes links to meteorology in 2008-2009. Clearly the portal hasn't been updated in ages. Therefore, I highly disagree with it being a featured portal. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delist: the criteria say "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted" and this is a clear-cut case. However, for some reason, neither of the current FPo Directors seem willing to enforce this, and perhaps the criteria need to be discussed - there's no point in having this threat if no-one enforces it. Bencherlite^Talk 11:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Have talk pages of users and relevant WikiProjects been notified? -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure who else to comment but the Meteorology WikiProject. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, since nobody seems to be wanting to fix it up, could I have a bit of time to get it cleaned up and back up to FPO standards? Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. It seems User:Runningonbrains who was maintaining this portal has gone inactive. I set the featured article, picture, and biography on a permanent selection so there won't be embarrassing red links. It's still a great portal, but until someone else adopts and cares for it again it'll have to be delisted and sit and collect dust. -- œ^™ 04:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - I'm really not interested in upkeeping this portal. (BTW, OlEnglish, I disabled the biography because I wasn't sure how to lock it and I didn't want to either leave a bunch of redlinks or write the biographies.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'M BACK BABY Still going to be quite inactive, but I plan on being around to at least update this every once in a while. I am also going to work on just setting the selected articles and pictures to cycle randomly, so that if I miss a month or two of updates they don't show up as red links. Is this acceptable? Sorry I haven't been around, grad school's a bitch :) -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 10:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine with me. I say all portals should automatically cycle random content. That way none of them will need to be delisted. -- œ^™ 08:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  All reorganization should be done now. Let me know if you see any red links; I may have messed up some of the indexing. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm seeing a red link for Portal:Weather/On this day list/May 21 under "This week in weather history..." OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  A few more red links: Portal:Weather/On this day list/February 4, Portal:Weather/On this day list/March 24, Portal:Weather/On this day list/May 17, Portal:Weather/On this day list/May 26, Portal:Weather/On this day list/June 14, Portal:Weather/On this day list/July 27, Portal:Weather/On this day list/November 18, Portal:Weather/On this day list/December 6, Portal:Weather/On this day list/December 10, Portal:Weather/On this day list/December 13, Portal:Weather/On this day list/December 18, and Portal:Weather/On this day list/December 23. I noticed that a lot of the current entries are US-centric (e.g. February, March, May, June) so I would request (not a demand though) if you can find some non-US stories and fill up the red links above. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been trying overtime to find events notable enough to have articles on all those days, but I have been unable to as of now. The main problem with making this non-US-centric is that A) Most events which occur in non-English-speaking countries will not have articles due to a dearth of sources, B) of the English-speaking countries, the US has by far the largest area of significant population, and thus human impact from weather disasters, C) The US Government is by far the most open and well-documented about its weather disasters, and D) the US has the worst weather in the world^{[citation needed]}. All these factors add up to there being a large majority of weather-related articles on Wikipedia on US events, and I want each "On this day" item to point to an article. I'd love to get some help on finding events; User:Runningonbrains/Portal needed dates is where I've been keeping track. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still active? I'm not sure how long featured portal reviews are supposed to remain open, but this one's been open for over a year now... Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean, I'm still developing the "On this day", but there are still some dates that just refuse to have a notable weather event (down to like 12 now). I don't plan on making many new selected articles/pictures/whatever in the future, just keeping the current ones in rotation. I'll update the DYK once in a while. That's about it. If that's insufficient for a Featured Portal, go ahead and remove it, I'm not especially needy for recognition. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 01:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been running for 16 months; the length of time that this has been running is a disgrace to the Featured Portals structure and the FPo Directors should be ashamed of themselves for letting this drag on as long as it has. If it meets the current standards, close it as "retain status"; if it doesn't, close it as "delist". Personally I'd suggest using ((#ifexist)) (and a comment like "X June: no notable weather events recorded") to get rid of the odd day that doesn't have a entry and fix it that way; if that's fixed, then I'd say retain but if it's not fixed within the next 7 days I'd say delist. Bencherlite^Talk 16:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment could have been phrased a bit more politely, hopefully in the future the commenter will do so in a more kind manner. I hope he noticed I'd already left a note for the user working on this portal, higher up on that user's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you addressing me in the third person, Cirt? Strange. This commentator stands by the content and phrasing of his message. I look forward to hearing you and OhanaUnited explaining why leaving a FPo review open for 16 months is a good idea. (Of course, Cirt, if it's one of your portals that you want to get promoted, you're rather keen to ensure that discussions don't drag on for 16 months, even if it means promoting your own nomination.) And, yes, I had noticed that you left a message for Runningonbrains on 19 May 2012. What you forgot to mention in your reply to me was that Runningonbrains did not respond either on your talk page or his, and since you left that message he has eliminated only one of the remaining redlinks. Tell me, Cirt, is that an acceptable rate of progress for a portal revamp that has taken 13 months already, particularly where the portal could and should have been speedily delisted according to the criteria as soon as it was nominated in February 2011? Is the FPoR process fit for purpose in your opinion, Cirt? Bencherlite^Talk 19:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that sort of wait of time necessitates this sort of brusque response. I see no reason why you can't be more polite and kind about all this. There's simply no reason to get upset. — Cirt (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, shoot the messenger, ignore the wider problem, that's fine by me. Actually, I'm not upset, just disappointed. I think that portals, and the featured portals process, are good things. I have taken the time and trouble to bring one portal to FPo standards, and I have another not far off. I try to comment on all FPO reviews and FPo candidates to help improve them. I want featured portals and the process that judges them to be as highly respected within Wikipedia as our other featured content and their processes are. But every time we let featured portals rot with redlinks for "selected article" etc for months or years without anyone doing anything about it, we undermine the integrity of the whole FPo system, and devalue the featured star on all the other portals. Similarly with reviews that take well over a year with no edits at all to the review for 10.5 months! What sort of message does that send out to readers and editors about FPo standards? That is why I think that the speedy delisting provision ("Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted") ought to be used, but I cannot see that you or OhanaUnited have ever used this provision when it should have been. I think that you and OhanaUnited need to take better responsibility for moving FPoRs along - Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Houston, the last to be closed, took almost a year as well. The workload is hardly time-consuming and I really don't know why you are letting them drag on so long - a question, Cirt, that you are noticeably not answering. Bencherlite^Talk 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please consider the option of embracing the messenger, fixing the wider problem, and remaining civil throughout the process. None of these actions are mutually exclusive. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Jesus Christ people, it's not that big of a deal. As I mentioned above, I'm not especially hung up on official recognition for my work. I'm not going to change the standards I set up for "on this day" (event must have an article) just to get some gold star on my profile. 16 months is way too long...this should have been closed 15 1/2 months ago. I appreciate that some have given me time to make improvements, but it's really not a matter of time at this point, it's just a matter of finding significant (notable enough for an article) weather-related events which occurred on these dates. I'm interested in making an interesting portal, that's all. If consensus is that having a few red links makes it not a Featured Portal, then by all means, delist. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Runningonbrains: Okay, will do, thanks for your input, — Cirt (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was delist. Here is my rationale. It failed to meet 1(a) and 1(d) of the criteria. The subject of this portal is substantial enough to provide large selections of high-quality pieces to the portal (as shown by a long list in the "Recommended articles" section). Yet in each component of the portal (DYK, biographies, pictures & articles), the number of pages showcased is much less than desired. On top of that, during a quick spot check, I observed that quite a number of article selections showcased aren't of high quality (good or featured articles). Also, the portal seems to have stopped updating since June 2011. Photos did not provide linked credits so it also failed to meet criteria #3. Hence my decision is to remove/delist this portal of its featured status. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This portal hasn't been updated since 2009, and doesn't select content randomly; in its current state it offers no content. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WP:Houston / WP:Texas / WP:US (Gyrobo had already notified Postoak (talk · contribs), who nominated the portal for featured status and who was the last person to update it, at the time of launching this FPoR.) This meets the criteria for speedy delisting and I will do so in 1 week unless efforts are started to rescue it. Bencherlite^Talk 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I concur. I think there is plenty of content but it will take considerable time to rebuild the portal. My recommendation is that it be delisted, the problems fixed and then it can be resubmitted. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Kumioko, it has seven redlinks since more than two years, rendering the "Featured" title meaningless. --Elekhh (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I rework it so it doesn't have to be maintained as much?

One of the issues is that it has to be updated every month, while newer portals only have to have a certain amount of content "cycled"

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newer portals use ((random portal component)) and related templates to cycle through a series of sub-pages. So, for example, "my" portal P:ENGLAW has code like this:

((Random portal component with nominate|max=29|header=Selected article|footer=More articles...| subpage=Selected article|seed=3))

((Random portal component with nominate|max=13|header=Selected biography|footer=More biographies...| subpage=Selected biography|seed=5))

((Random portal component with nominate|max=13|header=Selected case|footer=More cases...| subpage=Selected case|seed=11))

((Random portal component with nominate|max=15|header=Selected picture|footer=More pictures...| subpage=Selected picture|seed=7))

((Random portal component with nominate|max=15|header=Selected legislation|footer=More legislation...| subpage=Selected legislation|seed=13))

((Random portal component with nominate|max=10|header=Did you know...|footer=More facts...|subpage=Did you know|seed=19))

I'll convert the DYK section as an example for you to follow, if you're interested. Bencherlite^Talk 07:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What that shows is that there's a lot of similarity between the groups of hooks used in the past, so some variety will be needed (including eliminating duplicates) and some new hooks found to make up the numbers. You can also automate updating of the featured/good content box by using User:JL-Bot/Project content. Hope this helps; let me know if you need more. Bencherlite^Talk 07:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Let me look at the portal and try to finish rewriting it... WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update we are no longer in speedy delisting territory. WhisperToMe has almost finished rebuilding the portal using random components, and then it should be a relatively simple matter to make the last few tweaks to finish bringing it up to modern standards. Bencherlite^Talk 20:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks for updating. The portal was created back in 2006 and I kept it updated as much as possible. I don't think the dynamic update was available back when the portal became featured, thanks for making these revisions. Postoak (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing we need to do is fill up the quotes section: Portal:Houston/Selected quote WhisperToMe (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeated the four quotes until they filled the quotes section. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is from June? ResMar 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at user talk:Cirt some days ago after he asked me what my views now were, "Well, it would be nice to have more than 4 quotes but that's hardly a deal-breaker. Close it as a "retain status", I suggest." Hopefully someone will do the honours sometime soon... Bencherlite^Talk 11:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was delist. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WP:WikiProject New South Wales and its parent project, WP:WikiProject Australia; and Users: Euryalus (talk · contribs), Daniel (talk · contribs), Riana (talk · contribs) and DarkFalls (talk · contribs) (original nominator). Could not notify User:Spebi - page protected, user inactive. --Elekhh (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Fails 1(b) "attractive" and 1(d) "well-maintained".

• 1(b) Is not attractive: page layout is unbalanced, uses low quality graphics (Australia map), lack of contrast between title font colour and its background, red links.
• 1(d) It is not well maintained.It seems to have had limited activity after creation and subsequent promotion to featured status, with almost no discussion regarding maintenance or improvements on the talk page.
  • DYK was last updated in 2007.
  • Selected picture not maintained since 2008. (With 4 days exception in 2010)
  • Selected article not maintained since 2008. (With the exception of December 2010 SA which repeated October 2008 SA)
  • News section recently removed as not maintained for two years and "unlikely to be regularly adjusted".

The very low number of views (below 500 in December 2010) suggest limited usefulness. --Elekhh (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delist; under the criteria, portals not maintained for more than three months will be summarily demoted. However, for some reason, neither of the current FPo Directors seem willing to enforce this, and perhaps the criteria need to be discussed - there's no point in having this threat if no-one enforces it. Bencherlite^Talk 11:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone let me know if/when either or both of these is delisted, for The Signpost? Tony (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This portal was promoted in July 2006, and was abandoned just a few months later, to all intents and purposes. As a result, it spectacularly fails the Featured portal criteria in relation to frequency of updating, which notes that portals which are not updated for 3 months will be summarily demoted. The portal uses a system of manual updating, rather than randomised content.

The "selected article/biography/place" were last changed in Sept 2006; "DYK" in Dec 2007; "picture" in Feb 2009; "quote" Feb 2009; the news dates from Feb 2007 (!); the list of new articles stops in Dec 2007. There is also a "requested article" section: but the requested article was created as long ago as June 2007!

Concern was expressed back in 2007 that the portal had stagnated, but nothing came of it. It is far short of modern standards. Bencherlite^Talk 17:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: original nominator Mário (talk · contribs) has not edited since Nov 2009, so no message left; messages left with WikiProject Portugal and WikiProject Europe (WikiProject Portuguese geography and WikiProject Porto are both marked as inactive) and with the listed maintainers Husond (talk · contribs), Joaopais (talk · contribs) (1 edit this month, otherwise nothing since 2009, so virtually inactive), and PedroPVZ (talk · contribs). Bencherlite^Talk 17:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, the Selected article, Selected biography, Selected place and Selected picture has not been updated. This should have been updated with the random portal component template.
• The Portugal-related featured content has not been not been updated, because several articles, list and pictures have been demoted to Featured content status like History of Portugal (1777–1834), 1755 Lisbon earthquake, List of municipalities of Portugal, List of Portuguese monarchs and File:WInd Rose Aguiar.png. JJ98 (Talk) 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The portal doesn't use random subpages, so I don't understand your first point.
• As for the second, there are no rules that says that only featured material can be used (whether in fixed subpages or in random subpages), or that material can only be used once in fixed subpages. Two of the articles in Category:FA-Class Portugal articles have not been used, it seems. There are also eight articles in Category:GA-Class Portugal articles that could be considered. Bencherlite^Talk 10:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Been open about two weeks with no responses to address concerns. I notified Mário (talk · contribs). Will probably wait at least another week or so before checking back at this one. -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mário still has not edited in 2010. Time to close? Bencherlite^Talk 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. 1d issues still exist on this portal. No one hasn't maintained or addressed those issues recently. JJ98 (Talk) 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Notified: Nishkid64, WikiProject Business, WikiProject Finance

I am nominating this atricle because of it failing criteria 3d (well-maintained). The portal's sections (Selected article, Selected picture, Selected economy, Did you know... and Selected quote) are shown not created. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The selected article, picture and economy have been updated. Not quite sure where to get DYKs and quotes from, if someone would like to add those would be very welcome. - EdoDodo ^talk 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no items for September and no links to archive or suggest. Even if the portal were converted to autorotate through old content, the market indices section (currently rather embarrassingly fixed at 1 May) badly needs the update bot fixing. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist needs to be converted to autorotate content using the "random subpage" system of most of the more recent Featured Portals; and as Espresso Addict notes, the 4-month old indices are another issue to address. As the bot operator Dinojerm (talk · contribs) has left Wikipedia (last two edits Aug 2007 and Nov 2008) that might be difficult... Bencherlite^Talk 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have given another notice to User talk:Nishkid64 and to User talk:EdoDodo. -- Cirt (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Will likely check back on this one in another two weeks, to see if there has been any progress. If not, I will delist it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Side note: my apologies for somehow getting it wrong and listing this as a removal at The Signpost's "Features and admins" page. I must have been very tired at the time. Tony (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per Bencherlite. Apparently, nobody hasn't maintained the portal recently. JJ98 (Talk) 07:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Notified - WikiProject Space, WikiProject Astronomy, Shrewpelt

Reason: Failure of 1d (Well-maintained). GamerPro64 (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

More notifications could be given, User talk:Python eggs, WikiProject Science, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified WikiProject Mars, Solar System, and Astronomical objects. I don't know if I should notify Python eggs, though. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• the portal is neglected so much, the selected/featured article and picture (may the two most important things in any portal) is just a red links, though we are in the 20th day of the month (and these should to be updated just a one time in the month!). further more, "Did you know?" paragraph hadn`t updated from 2008 year! and it`s the same with the other portal`s contents (the last update for the news was in 3 may 2008!!) --Abbad Dira (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • I have notified User talk:Python eggs, and User talk:Shrewpelt. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Fails 1(d) ("Well maintained"). The "Selected article", "Selected picture" and "Selected anniversary" sections have all been redlinks since August 2008, so well over a year; DYKs have not been added to since 2006 when the portal was nominated. Left messages with WikiProject Disaster management and Nishkid64 (FPC nominator) 10 days ago, but no response or action visible. Have left messages about this FPR with both. Bencherlite^Talk 14:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't look good, does it? I might have time to do some work on this portal (my interest in this topic area has been re-awakened by watching a documentary about the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami - the 5-year anniversary). Could someone help out by making a list of what things need: (a) doing to bring this up to the required level again; and (b) what needs doing regularly (e.g. every day, week, month, year)? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for not getting back here before now. I've redirected the Jan 2010 redlinks to Jan 2007 selection to I have no great experience of portals, but have put together one myself relatively recently. I followed a lot of the formatting / coding of Portal:Nevada in particular, which was recently made a featured portal.
    1. Ideally, you need a decent list of quality content (FA / GA) to work from. You can generate one in your userspace or in portal space using User:JL-Bot/Project content. You can then check which articles ought to be showcased but aren't, and which ought to be retired (if any) – I gather that portals are meant to showcase FA/GA level articles, or B-level at a pinch.
    2. Next, the major change since this portal was featured back in 2006 is the use of ((Random portal component)) to save having to update the subpages every month. You can probably simply move the selected article and selected pictures from (e.g.) "/October 2006" to "/1", "/November 2006" to "/2", etc. For the selected anniversary, you could move the pages to ((CURRENTMONTH)) subpages. Once the random components are in place, nothing critical should need doing, apart from adding new pictures / DYK / quality content every so often.
    3. You can update the DYK list by working from the JL-Bot output.
  • Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 00:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! That's very helpful. I'll try and do something this week or next weekend, unless someone else makes a start before then. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. When the bot runs, it should generate something at Portal:Disasters/Recognized content for you. Bencherlite^Talk 08:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still the same problems, 2 1/2 months after nomination at FPR, and 19 months after the redlinks started to appear. Whatever happened to "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted" in the Featured portal criteria? Bencherlite^Talk 08:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I haven't found the time yet (how long does it take to repair a portal like this?). I would make a new promise to do something by Wednesday (I have some free time coming up next week), but I've learnt not to keep promising to do something when it turns out I didn't have the time after all. :-( If you want to do something, please do. If it needs to be de-featured, that's not a problem (clearly it can't stay featured in its current state). What I will do is take a quick look and see how long it will take to fix at least the redlinks problem. Carcharoth (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a look now. Carcharoth (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did discover that there is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes and I've left a note there to ask if anyone there is interested in maintaining the portal (ideally Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management would, but no-one really responded to that note). Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might be interested. ceranthor 12:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I am willing to improve this portal up to a featured standard. I've just finished one selected article, and I'm sure I'd be able to get more done today. Hopefully by Monday I will be able to improve it significantly. ceranthor 13:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cough? Bencherlite^Talk 14:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• COUGH?? Bencherlite^Talk 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I'd mentioned here that it was on my to-do list. Unfortunately, I also thought I mentioned that I didn't have the time to improve it at the moment but I'll try to get to it as soon as possible. In other wods, I can't fix it up before it's delisted. ceranthor 23:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't having a go at you, I assure you. It was a complaint directed towards the failure of the Featured Portal system that allows such an inadequate portal to remain for months – 20 months after the "selected content" sections became permanent redlinks, and over 3 months since the matter was raised here. Would one of the Featured Portal directors care to explain this, with particular reference to "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted" in the Featured portal criteria? This has been eligible for summary demotion for 17 months! Bencherlite^Talk 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Left a query for Carcharoth (talk · contribs) and Ceranthor (talk · contribs) to ask if they intend to work on this portal. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No time (or motivation) to work on this at the moment. It should (as Bencherlite said) have been defeatured ages ago. The trouble is, if it gets defeatured and only then do people start working on it to get it back to featured status, that will look a bit bad. But if that is what is needed, that is what is needed. If I do work on it at a later date, I won't claim any credit for it, as I should have worked on it earlier. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Posted notices for J Milburn (talk · contribs) and Yomangan (talk · contribs). (Both were listed as previously being involved with the portal, at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Perhaps the suggestion to check the Directory could be added to the instructions to nominators. Bencherlite^Talk 00:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, that is a good point. No objections here. :P -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added, although I must confess that I only saw Nishkid64's name there, even in some old page revisions that I checked, so I'm not sure where you spotted their previous involvement. Better eyesight than me, probably - or did you get confused with sharks, the only portal in the directory where their names are on the same portal? Bencherlite^Talk 00:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those folks were listed for Sharks. I will de-feature this now. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• De-featured. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet the criteria 1.(d) Well-maintained. Is inactive since 2008.

• Notifications completed; Elekhh (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: notification messages were left here to User:Ultraviolet scissor flame- main contributor to the portal, on Portal talk:James Bond and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond all prior to 25-October-2009. Elekhh (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• Remove, not kept up-to-date as the news section hasn't been properly edited since 2008 and therefore not well-maintained. Bencherlite^Talk 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Result was removed. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: not maintained --Jack Pinchwife (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify relevant WikiProjects. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have significant contributors been notified? Cirt (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia, User:Imoeng. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the exact procedure here, but is it possible that this could be extended by a week? I'm going to give it a go at getting it back up to featured status but I'm not free until Monday to start. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm not going to have time to do this - Moving back to uni tomorrow. I'll try and get it back up to featured status soon and renominate it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Will keep it open a couple more weeks, barring any objections. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Portal has had redlinks to "selected material" since the early part of 2008, so not well maintained. Bencherlite^Talk 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Nominating for review per 1(b) and 1(d). Not maintained; entire categories entirely redlinked: Selected article, Selected quote, Did you know..., Selected biography, and Selected picture. It's a shame to put this up for delisting, especially since I've done a fair amount of work that could help fill in those gaps: FP,[1][2][3] DYK,[4][5] GA.[6] But these additions by themselves can't fill the gap of entirely absent sections, and project participants have never responded to my notices at their talk page. This simply isn't featured-level material. Durova^Charge! 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist with regret. Appears to have been a good portal in the past; however, it is currently lacking in core content. This is an indication that the project is no longer being maintained. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Can hardly be featured with so many broken sections... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Argh, red links are hurting my eyes! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as Delisted. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was Summarily demoted.

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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Remove due to its current state.--cj | talk 12:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per above, no longer updated. --Phoenix 17:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Joe I 18:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove: Portal fails criteria. Happy editing, [sd] 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. Can't believe there're red-links. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.