The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The overwhelming consensus is that this portal is largely unmaintained and therefore it routinely serves outdated content to readers. Like many other portals, it doesn't provide much benefit over the main article on tanks and its associated links, categories, and navigation templates. While there was also some discussion about the fate of all remaining templates, this would not be an appropriate venue for such a discussion. Also, one editor expressed a preference to "archive" the portal instead of deleting it so that its history can be preserved for wikiarcheologists, but it's important to understand that deleting a page doesn't actually delete any data, it just hides the content, so any future wikiarcheologists with the appropriate level of access could still properly view the portal in all its splendor. No prejudice against creating a redirect here, if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Tanks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Very poorly maintained portal. This is not a big enough topic to populate. Arbitrary selection of selected articles: a mix of start-, B- and C-class articles, plus some GA and featured articles. Selection contains items that are not tanks or tank-related (e.g. Heuschrecke 10, SU-100, Aleksandr Vasilevsky). One selected image, File:Char-FCM-2c camouflaged.jpg, is deleted from Commons. There is both a "General images" section and a "Selected images" section. Why? Truly puzzling. Schierbecker (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tank: Redirect to the article it was to be a portal to. The article tank serves readers much better than the portal ever could. Nearly all moribund portals could be quietly archived like this. There is no justification in deletion of most portals. MfD should not be used to process moribund portals one by one. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose semi-random deletion of portals. Most are moribund and should be archived, or deleted, or transformed into WikiPeoject pages. Some few portals are defensible. Something systematic should be done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear:

  1st preference: archive, and archive all moribund portals.

  2nd preference: delete, and delete all moribund portals.

  3rd preference: No nothing, continue to link and present in maintained out of date information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – There is no requirement that portals must be constantly maintained. It is easy for the portal to be expanded, because lots of quality content exists on Wikipedia about tanks on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the page is functional and used by WP:READERS. As of this post, the page has received an average of 99 page views per day over the last thirty days. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As BHG said, the amount of views a portal gets doesn't mean anything if the portal isn't properly maintained. It's a distraction at best and misinformation at worst. We shouldn't be serving outdated material to our readers when the articles can do the job just fine.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I removed the deleted image at Commons from the portal. This took about three seconds. The General images section is exactly what it is, "images from various tank-related articles on Wikipedia", and is in place to provide readers with additional information through a visual overview of the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is very little quality content about tanks on Wikipedia. Take it from an editor who is active in this space. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force. Schierbecker (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the inclusion criteria for general images vs selected images, User:Northamerica1000. The selection appears to be totally random. Schierbecker (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am not a fan of portals and have not previously looked at this one. I am inclined to agree with all of the nominator's reasons, but feel that they amount to a rag bag of "I don't like it" with no basis in policy. I can't see how this amounts to a reason to remove a long-standing part of Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Previous MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tanks Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like most portals, this one is not maintained, and, arguably worse, is a poor combination of a mini-Main Page and WikiProject central (the "Things to do" section, etc, is certainly not appropriate for a reader-facing page). The duplicate General Images & Selected Images sections are also a mark against it. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Moribund portal. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a stalled and unmaintained portal. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, echoing entirely the rationale given by BrownHairedGirl in the previous discussion. As a second preference, deprecate and archive as SmokeyJoe suggests, but in the understanding that the portal link would be removed from all pages on which it's used either way. A systematic approach to the question of moribund portals is something that should be considered. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as less helpful to our readers than the main tank article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete – Very little has changed since 2019. The Keep voters 3½ years ago said, with respect to various issues, that those could be fixed. Yes, and they may say the same thing again, but it is obvious that nothing is being fixed. User:Northamerica1000 tweaks portals when they are nominated for deletion. That hasn't changed since 2019. This is just waving a dead rat. The portal has rats (and a tank is not the most effective weapon to use against rats).
  • • An editor states that there is no requirement that portals be actively maintained. That statement is true but useless. There are no requirements about portals. The portal guidelines were never properly approved, and an RFC to approve what had previously been thought to be the portal guidelines did not receive a consensus in 2019. This means that the guideline that applies to portals is use common sense, but common sense is not always in evidence when it comes to portals.
    • Portal enthusiasts have not provided a consistent explanation of why they want portals. My conclusion is that portals are seen as having some mystical value. That would explain why their advocates cannot explain why they want them. (I am more interested in two other forms of mysticism, one of which is two thousand years old, and the other of which has recently received new attention.)
    • This portal, like most old portals, has an unsound architecture, in which subpages have partial copies of the selected articles, so that the reader who uses the portal is looking at an old version of the article. The subpage is a content fork. A better architecture is used for some more recent portals in which the selected articles are transcluded rather than copied. But changing the architecture of an old portal would be blowing it up and starting over, and we might as well just blow it up.
    • This portal was created in 2008, and was not maintained between 2013 and 2019, when it was tweaked in order to preserve it, and has had occasional tweaks since then, but still has forked subpages.
    • In the year 2021, this portal had an average of 107 daily page views, which makes it one of the more frequently viewed portals, but that means that editors were viewing poorly maintained copies, sometimes not current, of pages that were not being maintained. The main article tank had 1263 daily page views, and its readers could learn more about the subject via links and categories.
    • SmokeyJoe writes:

      Oppose semi-random deletion of portals. Most are moribund and should be archived, or deleted, or transformed into WikiPeoject pages. Some few portals are defensible. Something systematic should be done

      .
    • Yes, doing something systematic would be a good idea, and would have been a good idea in 2019, but an effort at developing a new set of portal guidelines fizzled out. In the meantime, we are here, and this is a moribund portal. It would still or again be a good idea to do something systematic about these unmaintained portals, such as delete them.
    • What is meant by archiving them, anyway? Does that mean blank and redirect them to the main articles? Why?
    • I think that efforts to do something systematic about abandoned or moribund portals are unlikely to succeed because the advocacy of portals is mystical.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Oh boy, portals portals portals. This is only a mini home page and a WikiProject to do list (???) and unmaintained. ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 15:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Robert McClenon, and other detailed deletion arguments in the past MfD, which are still very relevant. I believe that a suggestion to redirect as an alternative rests not on the utility of the redirect (utility ~ 0), but on the idea that MfD was not necessary and economical in the first place, especially seeing how there are many portals that deserve the same treatment, so if we were to bring each of them to MfD it would be a waste of time. But successful "quiet" BLARing seems unrealistic. Maybe a few of those could be tried though. —Alalch E. 23:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Seeing the vote is heavily tilted towards delete, I would suggest redirecting to Portal:War as the closest related portal instead. –Vipz (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirecting a very thin portal to a less thin portal is a very good idea, and I encourage someone to do this boldly, and to only come to MfD if they are opposed (eg their redirect edit is reverted). SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“What is meant by archiving them, anyway? Does that mean blank and redirect them to the main articles? Why?”

Archiving can include “blank and redirect”, which devolves to “redirect”. Redirect to the main article, because that is the best place to go to instead. Why not just delete? For the sake of wikiarcheology. Because Portals are Wikipedia history, and it is always better to keep history available to wikiarcheologists than to delete it. Deletion should be reserved for things that should not have been created in the first place.

Another reason to archive is that archiving can be done boldly, can be done without feeding each through and mfd process.

I know that no one else supports archiving over deletion. That disappoints me. If Portal pages are not to be archived, then deletion is my second preference. I see them as having no ongoing useful role in the project.

Of course it will be better to do something systematic, over doing this one at a time per portal. This is not intended to be a reason to keep, this one this week. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I'm sympathetic to the Wikiarcheology argument, and would be more in favor of it, if I knew there were a significant interest in content preservation across Wikipedia. Even formalizing it as a type of Wikifauna would be a good idea, as then that could be something used as an argument to keep at deletion discussions. As it currently stands, my stance is that portals are worse than useless, and that the lack of updates and maintenance while definitions and events are changing would actually bring harm to Wikipedia. But I don't disagree with your general point. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I wanted to be clear that my preference to archive is not a !vote to “keep”, as in do nothing and let them continue. I believe that Portals are a net negative to the project, negative in reader experience, as well as negative in the consumption of volunteer time. What I don’t understand, and would like to understand one day, is why several quality Wikipedians support the continuance of portals. A form of mysticism? A sentimental attachment to portals in the pre search engine days of the internet? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: portals being 'a form of mysticism' is a subjective view. Many things may seem weird until you acquaint yourself with them. They are like the Main Page but for specific topics. –Vipz (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective, yes. These words are someone else’s. I find the notion very interesting. Humans can have strong irrational drive for mysticism. There could be something in this notion.

Portals are like the Main Page? Yes. The Main Page, the Wikipedia landing page, is very successful. Do lesser “Main Pages” add, or detract, from the purpose of the Main Page? I think the top ~10 Portals do did, but the rest detract. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As BrownHairedGirl put it in the last nom for this portal: Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But the Wikipedia main page requires huge amounts of work; it is maintained by several large teams of busy editors. A mini-mainpage also needs lot of ongoing work if it is going to value over the head article. And in this case, that work has not been done, so GB's analysis shows that the portal doesn't add value for readers. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.