The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great deal of information about the Shining Series of video games on Wikipedia, and so it seems natural that there should be a portal about it. It is one of the largest and most expansive series - having been around for 15 years, and spanning 16 games, with more inevitably to come. This may seem trivial to some, and relative to the other proposals here, it is, but I still believe it would be useful. See Shining Force Series. ---Godheval 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose far too narrow. bd2412 T 22:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agreed too narrow. Mecu 18:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, too naroow. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too narrow, work on the articles. Bibliomaniac15 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I agree that the topic is too narrow. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a cult subject, not Portal material. Shouldn't even be a subportal of Video Games. There are hundreds of very successful video games, and we don't need a wikiPortal for them all. WikiPortals are not fan sites. I tell alot of people this: If you wouldn't need it for a A+ school project, then you don't need it on wikipedia. 'appy Editing --(wforlines) 18:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (wforlines)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow 06:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - countries should generally qualify for Portals unless they are very tiny (e.g. Tonga) or very new (e.g. East Timor). bd2412 T 15:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I love mountainous countries and on top of that list is Nepal, a Portal about Nepal would be a good idea Baku87 09:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree with BD2412. Bibliomaniac15 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative support. In theory, I agree that countries should qualify for portals. Though, I've visited a number of country portals to find many poorly maintained. For Portal:Nepal, special attention is needed to ensure news is updated often, among other aspects of the portal. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a week has passed it general agreement, I'm taking this portal off the construction cat and as created. This Fire Burns.....Always 21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aussieprince 10:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclined to oppose at this time; this would be a rather two-dimensional Portal (pun intended). bd2412 T 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - South Park is not a 'broad subject area' as required. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogout&returnto=Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals

• Oppose. This portal would suffer from the same limitations as Portal:Pokemon, which has no images. Anything related to South Park would be fair use and not allowed in the portal namespace. I'm not convinced a portal would work well for this topic. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose This is stupid and cult like. NOT wikiPortal material. WikiPortals are NOT fan sites. --(wforlines) 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (GA, USA)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow 01:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. This Fire Burns....Always 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm withdrawing my nomination and support for this portal, because I think that this portal will indeed clash with Portal:U.S. Government. Please put this up for deletion. This Fire Burns.....Always 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak object. I'm not sure if the portal will have enough info for keeping and updating. --Brand спойт 09:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, there are a lot of different articles to display. Its not only bios of presidents, but stuff like "Emancipation Proclamation," "Louisiana Purchase," big policies, presidency during wars, events exhibiting the importance of the presidency, scandals/impeachments, great speeches, assassinations, critical articles and presidential elections. The bio options include unique presidential contenders, first ladies, vice presidents as well as stuff about the White House, presidential traditions, institutions, history. Rama's Arrow 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many facts for DYK, and for "News," you have important stuff about Presidential powers such as executive orders, the line-item veto and the recent striking down of president-created courts to try Guantanamo Bay detainees. Rama's Arrow 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'll try something to do there. May be a link in the US portal should be, a kind of "see also". Brand спойт 10:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this is far too narrow a topic for a portal. Worldtraveller 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This portal topic is no narrower than Portal:United States Marine Corps. The Presidency is an institution with a complex history - there are more than 200 articles (biographies, elections, events, policies, administrations, misc. events) than can be covered by this portal. This Fire Burns....Always 05:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to that portal existing as well - my impression has been that it was kept mainly due to the vociferous lobbying of military enthusiasts. The presidency of the US can hardly be described as a broad topic area, which is what portals are supposed to cover. Why is a portal required? What does it give that an article on the subject, which links to many more, can't provide? Worldtraveller 10:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you cannot pin down the broadness of the U.S. presidency topics through a map. But the U.S. presidency is very important - to U.S., world history; foreign policy; military conflicts; global issues and policy-making; communications and mass media; Over 200 years, the U.S. presidency has evolved and expanded in importance 100 times; there are 200 articles directly relevant to it. It would be great if a portal can thus cover a broad topic as comlpex and winding as this. This Fire Burns.....Always 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is not the US presidency, but US history and politics generally. The US portal should already cover this. Worldtraveller 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make it Portal:Executive Branch of the United States and you've got my support. Should cover almost the same ground, but allows for a bit more depth (all presidents all the time can get boring). bd2412 T 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the audience for a portal with that title would be tiny. I can't understand why people seem so keen to create large numbers of narrow portals. The more portals there are, the less likely a reader is to find a given one useful. What you're suggesting here would be a bit like having a Portal:Ionised nebulae - sure, there's probably enough articles to show off one every month, but why bother? Hardly anyone will find it useful. Portal:Astronomy will be far more widely read. Worldtraveller 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing it to subportal of the US portal? --Brand спойт 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The exec is huge - it covers el presidente and all the agencies - CIA, FBI, EPA, IRS, OSHA, NLRB, Treasury Dep't, and everyone who's been in one of those, and everything they do. bd2412 T 21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Governments spawn quangos and agencies like bacteria dividing, but I really don't think that implies the need for a portal. Consider a title like 'Encyclopaedia of the executive branch of the united states government', or 'encyclopaedia of the presidency of the united states'. If that was a book, would you expect it to be popular and widely read? Portals are front pages to subsets of wikipedia - like mini-encyclopaedias in their own right. That's why it's imperative that they're broad and of substantial interest to large numbers of readers. Otherwise, people are spending time and effort maintaining unread portals when they could be improving articles. Worldtraveller 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how this works. People work on what they want to work on. If they aren't working on a Portal that interests them it doesn't mean they are going to spend that same time working on an article that doesn't interest them. They're just as likely to go hang out on IRC. --Ideogram 01:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per BD2412, the proposed portal's scope is expanded. This Fire Burns.....Always 07:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm concerned this would overlap Portal:Government of the United States with the change BD2412 suggests. RA's response here shifts me to undecided/neutral.--Chaser T 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, obviously needed! bd2412 T 13:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you're aware of the Arbcom case regarding this. I haven't completely read everything with it, but believe Portal:China is intended to cover geographic aspects of China, whereas Portal:People's Republic of China is for political aspects. And, there is Portal:Taiwan that is also part of the Arbcom case. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm aware of those. China is big enough to support multiple Portals for multiple aspects of its existence. bd2412 T 15:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have now read through some of the arguments, and support this portal. There is more than enough content on geographic/historical aspects of China for this to work. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport China is incredible rich in history and culture and a Portal will give a more realistic and detailed view on this Baku87 09:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - multiple portals is far too confusing for the reader, and introduces substantial duplication of effort and splitting of resources. I also don't like the creation of portals before consensus has been reached here. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no duplication of effort and splitting of resources because I am maintaining all the portals. --Ideogram 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  By this argument we shouldn't have separate articles for China, Taiwan, PRC and ROC either, but we do and they are fine. --Ideogram 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're maintaining four portals yourself, that's certainly splitting your personal resources. Articles fulfil an entirely different function to portals, and one portal per article would clearly be absurd. As front pages to subsets of Wikipedia, it doesn't make any sense to have four portals covering two countries which are part of the same geo-cultural entity anyway. Worldtraveller 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Support. I question the need for two China portals. If you ask me, all these aspects should be combined into one portal.
• Support for exactly one China portal - I'd like to see it up and running for a while before a second and third one is created. Johntex\^talk 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Portal:Taiwan. I have not yet looked closely at the arbcom case, so won't comment yet. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out this Portal has already been approved. Ideogram 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. "Taiwan" is an appropriate name, as it parallels the article Taiwan. As well, consensus seems to support the name, Portal:Taiwan. (see Portal_talk:Taiwan#Vote_for_portal_name) Anyway, this portal was created in October 2005, so it has indeed already been approved. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the political situation between The Republic of China on Taiwan and The People's Republic of China on the mainland, we feel it is best to have one pair of portals devoted to the History, Geography, and People (China, Taiwan) and one pair devoted to the Politics and Government (People's Republic of China, Republic of China). Note that we already have a Portal:Hong Kong. Ideogram 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems like a reasonable compromise to cover politics and government here, separate from Portal:China and Portal:Taiwan. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reason as Portal:China. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the same reason as Portal:China. bd2412 T 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture and has recently given birth to a snappily named, bouncing baby wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planning which will focus it's attentions on planning and urban design articles, mostly to be found in Category:Urban studies and planning. The subject requires a portal.--Mcginnly 08:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's plenty of material to justify a portal, and it would be a handy way of laying out the different approaches to planning issues. My only question is whether it's best called "Planning," "Urban planning," or "Urban studies and planning." I'm inclined towards the longer (more inclusive) name. --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 09:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Please name some of the best articles for this topic, which could be showcased in the portal? Thanks. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly been contributing to the UK side of things and in all fairness one of the reasons for setting up the wikiproject and portal is to encourage interest, establish a community and improve pages; but I believe these pages to be ok-

• City
• Central business district
• Town and country planning in the United Kingdom
• City hall
• Berlin
• National parks of England and Wales
• Hyde Park, London
• Street
• Mammoth Cave National Park
• London

etc.etc

Support, with a few more articles to mention: Urban planning, Jane Jacobs, Haussmann's renovation of Paris, Zoning. DVD+ R/W 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there is yet a critical mass of featured or good articles to support a portal, so I'll have to oppose, for now. City hall is still a stub, though with a nice gallery of pictures. I think a WikiProject is the way to go, to work on expanding coverage of the urban studies and planning topic. In fact, I may sign up for the WikiProject and help, as the topic relates to my interests. For now, I think that Urban studies and planning articles can be featured as part of Portal:Architecture and/or Portal:Geography. As well, the WikiProject can be advertised on both portals. In a few months, once the critical mass of good and featured articles is there, then I would support a portal. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - don't see enought to really support a Portal, and I find the name to be confusing, as anything can be "planned" - a Portal name should leave little question as to what it will be about. bd2412 T 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've renamed the portal proposal as per your suggestion. Looks like we'll be running the wikiproject for a bit before resubmitting this request, but would you be more comfortable with this name? --Mcginnly 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name sounds good to me. Now, let's just build up more content that we can put on the portal. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote changed to neutral under new name, pending an outline of how the Portal is to be presentated (perhaps of a mock-up of the Portal?). bd2412 T 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Portal:Architecture covers this already. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right of course, but the idea was to differentiate those aspects relating to urban planning from those that relate to architecture. Architects are not planners and vice versa, consequently, different disciplines have evolved, and whilst there is some overlap in their knowledge base, a planner will generally have a different skills set and knowledge to an architect. It seems more strange to me, to present them in the same portal.--Mcginnly 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this is a wonderful idea. As long as it can be mantained! Good Luck--(wforlines) 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (GA, USA)[reply]
• Support This seems to be a reasonabl portal. However, could Architecture and Urban Studies be merged into Civil Engineeering --Whytecypress 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.224.182.96 01:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Anon proposal without any meat to it, but I could see the potential for such a Portal, and would likely support a real proposal. bd2412 T 16:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Having a Martial Arts portal prevents portals of different types of martial arts that are too narrow. Bibliomaniac15 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sub Portal, Please should be a sub portal of Arts --(wforlines) 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (GA, USA)[reply]
  • Huh? How exactly does Martial Arts fall under Art, except that they both have the word in the title? Might as well put War under Art as well, per The Art of War. Martial arts are about kicking and punching people, and breaking stuff with your fists, feet, head, etc. bd2412 T 20:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Martial Arts are actually Arts (Which is why it has Ar tin the name...) They are actually forms of dance, using movements of the body to strengthen the body and mind and to create a performance. While this point has been overlooked in Western culture (through media, etc.), it is present in countries that reguarly practice Martial Arts. And about the art of war, that would be using art in a differnt context, as an advanced skill. Speak with an admin of Arts Portal possibly to see if they approve. Thanks. --'appy editing! 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So what I mean is... There should be a Portal on Martial Arts, just categorized under other portals to make it more accessible.--'appy editing! --wforlines 06:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  We do not have sub-Portals - it's all or nothing! bd2412 T 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of stuff for this role-playing game. There could be a listing for the races, cities, worlds, monsters, anything! With news about the upcoming accessory books as well as lot of information about older versions.

• Featured articles:
  • Dungeons & Dragons
  • Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Spells of Dungeons & Dragons
  • Forgotten Realms
  • Eberron
  • Wizards of the Coast
  • Elminster Aumar
  • Cormyr
  • Waterdeep (city)
  • Baldur's Gate (city)

(Label 23:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

• Oppose Too specific to a product owned by one company. How about Portal:Role-playing games or Portal:RPG instead? - Davodd 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, use the proposed content to enhance Portal:Role-playing games. bd2412 T 16:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm surprised that I'm saying this, because I actually despise Dungeons & Dragons. However, I recognize its immense following, as well as the huge influence it has had on other media, such as video games, books, etc. A "Role Playing Games" portal is fine and dandy, but D&D has a specific and noteworthy history behind it that merits its own separate portal. Godheval 20:15, 29 June 2006
• Oppose, not a broad subject area. Agree with Davodd's suggestion of a broader portal. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Should be under another portal. Guidelines state that 30 well written articles should be written to make a portal, wikiProjects made too. Make a wikiProject --(wforlines) 18:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if someone could make a portal for Sega, they have lead the way with console technology even though most of us don't know about it. Im sure many gamers on wikipedia would gladly contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. I don't think the topic is broad enough, and would much rather see Portal:Computer and video games get needed attention and include coverage about Sega. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, sega is big, but not big enough.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too specific to a product owned by one company. - Davodd 21:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - You detractors are insane. Sega's not big enough? It has only been the leading publisher of games in the world, perhaps since the dawn of the industry itself. Having a portal about all things Sega is not some kind of corporate favoritism, but a necessary crossroads that would extend to at least a hundred different articles on Wikipedia. You've got the systems, the games, the staff, etc. There's plenty of information to justify a portal. I've seen portals created for less. --Godheval 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sega might be big, but it hardly qualifies as a subject, let alone a broad one. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even Microsoft doesn't deserve a Portal. Sega should be a wikiProject. This is HUGE. Look at the most successful WikiPortals: "Art", "Technology", "Science". Not "Nintendo", "Sega", and "DOOM". --(wforlines) 18:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Kentucky will be created and maintained by the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky and is being announced at Category_talk:Wikipedians_in_Kentucky and other places. CQ 11:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. Could the proposer indulge us of the possible articles (good, FAs?), that could be showcased on the portal. feydey 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sure. An obvious featured article would be Louisville, Kentucky. A Selected biography might be Thomas D. Clark, the beloved Historian. An extensive collection of Kentucky's geographical features (such as the Cumberland Gap article) and rich History (such as the Battle of Blue Licks article) would be included. BTW Did you know that The Battle of Blue Licks, on August 19, 1782 was the last major battle of the American Revolutionary War? The field is ripe, I tell ya. -- CQ 23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, only one FA, no good articles (GA) presented. Perhaps start with a Southern United States Portal? feydey 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Comment Where's it say FAs are required for a portal? Not a valid ground to me. Constructed Languages is an FP, yet I think there are no FAs in that area. Rlevse 23:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was referring to Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Procedure point no. 2, the nominator did not convince me that there are enough good articles to support the Portal. Thanks, feydey 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyway, my reasoning probably doesn't really matter, since it seems that people will create the Portals despite opposition (like Portal:LGBT). feydey 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Well, your reasoning certainly matters, Feydey. The Portal namespace is already clogged with abandoned portals (like Portal:Florida). My focus and reasoning for going through the proper channels is to work toward fulfilling a comprehensive project/portal system as a logical subset of Portal:United States. I'm just trying to streamline the process a bit. Thanks for your comment. -- CQ 14:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, mainly because I don't think that permission should be required for obvious portal subjects (given all the other states' portals). Kentucky has a rich potential for articles, and a portal should drive more interest in Wikipedians working on Kentucky-related articles. Also, I know another good Kentucky-related article: History of Louisville, Kentucky--I'm sure we could locate or create others in short order. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. In theory, I support the idea, but have concerns that there isn't enough material yet to keep the portal updated. A "rich potential for articles" should materialize. I would like to see a list of featured or Wikipedia:Good articles drafted. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - we really need a way to streamline obvious portals like this one. The word "Kentucky" is mentioned in 12,862 Wikipedia namespace articles, which shows enough interest that should allow it to bypass this process. - Davodd 21:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't think individual US states warrant individual portals. Portals on administrative subdivisions are unlikely to attract wide readership, and are likely to embody serious systemic bias. Who's ever going to create Portal:Barotseland, Portal:Putumayo, Portal:Hebei Province and so on, and who would ever read them anyway? I disagree that any subject should be exempt from discussion here as well. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Some states certainly merit portals - see Portal:New York, Portal:Texas, Portal:Florida. The question is, does Kentucky fall into that category? bd2412 T 21:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This would mean that all other states must be included. Southern United States would work. GA, AL, TN, SC, NC, LA, MS, FL. --'appy editing! 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would strongly support a Portal:Southeastern United States. bd2412 T 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of Portal:Southeastern United States. Talk:Maryland is full of debate as to whether Maryland is a southern or northern state. I'd say it's some of both, but trying to carve up the United States into regions like this is problematic. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: (as of 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

• support - 3 (counting proposer - me)
• oppose - 3
• neutral - 1

Thanks for your comments and votes everyone. Looks like a tie, to me. For now, Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/Portal will continue to hold a draft and outline for a Kentucky Portal. Meanwhile, have a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPPlaces for a conserted effort and alternative strategy for dealing with Place-oriented content. I think it's possible that in time, Portal:United States will develop a streamlined system for covering its subnational entities. CQ 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A portal all about Marvel. This is instead of the X-men portal. It will still contain information on the characters, the teams, the films, the comics, the games, the locations etc. but it will include information on other comics. Including characters like Wolverine (comics) and Magneto (comics), locations like Cerebro, and games like X2: Wolverine's Revenge.

• Comment, why not a Portal:Marvel instead?--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 12:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too specific to a product owned by one company. - Davodd 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How about a Portal:Comic books? bd2412 T 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Seems like a no-brainer to me. Marvel has a longer history than some countries, and the sheer number of books under the label (not to mention sub-labels) easily justifies creating a portal. ---Godheval 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not a broad enough topic to be of interest to most readers.
• Strongly Oppose This is a WikiPortal on SUBJECTS, not a fansite for a brand of cartoon caraters. See my postings for "Sega", "Dungeons&Dragons", etc. -- (wforlines) 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuetral After thought, I have changed my mind. I was a little too harsh in the last comment. Forgive me. I do believe that Marvel stands a chance as a wikiPortal. As long as others believe that there are enough supporters to maintain the site.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Althouhg there is a portal for Nintendo as I am writing this, it was created out of process, as I can't find any discussion. The portal would be a partner to Wikiproject Nintendo in such a way that it would list the many articles under the scope of Nintendo. (see Category:Nintendo and the Article examples section at Wikiproject nintendo for examples).

• Support As proposer--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --DivineShadow218 19:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seeing how shoddily done the current Nintendo portal is, I have to agree. Just a question. Are there any other portals for other game systems, or portals exclusively for Nintendo game systems? Bibliomaniac15 19:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. I would like to see Portal:Computer and video games maintained better. With Nintendo video games, how many are unique to the Nintendo platform? I looked at a few articles (e.g. Shadow the Hedgehog (video game)) and see that many are made for GameCube, as well as Xbox and Playstation. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, but Nintendo also has several exclusive franchises (Mario series, The Legend of Zelda (series), Super Smash Bros. series, just to name a few). Also, there's a Portal:Pokemon, so why not this?--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; current portal is a bit rubbish as it doesn't really have any content. I'd be happy to help maintain it. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this portal is currently crap and needs to be heavily improved. I originally created the portal, hoping to get it to the same status that the Food Portal is at, but due to recent stress I haven't had any time to actually work on it. --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry TBC, I plan on doing some heavy work on the portal as soon as I make Mudkip a good article, which shouldn't take long.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - far better to have a well-maintained computer and video games portal. There is not a lot specific to nintendo that a portal could cover, and the readership would be small compared to that for a general computer and video games portal. Worldtraveller 21:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a "well-maintained computer and video games portal" would be nice, but I believe it should be in addition to a Nintendo portal. Nintendo certainly has done enough things to deserve their own portal in my opinion - Bagel7 21:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They've done enough to warrant a fairly long article, but portals are supposed to cover 'broad subject areas', and I don't see how Nintendo can be considered a broad subject area. Computer and video games can though. Worldtraveller 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think nintendo isn't broad enough, then why is there a whole Category for them. Also, there's a portal for Pokemon, which is just a subsection of Nintendo.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the self reference at the top of the portal is really tacky.-technosphere
  • What self reference? You mean where it says "The Nintendo Portal"? All the portals have that.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too specific to a product owned by one company. - Davodd 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For the same reasons I gave for Sega. Nintendo is a pioneer and a major force in the gaming industry. For that matter I don't even understand why any portal linking more than say, 10 articles, would be rejected. It's just a means of facilitating the search for information. Easy choice here.---Godheval 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose Too specific... --'appy editing! --wforlines 06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A portal to collect the various and varied LGBT-related articles, lists, directories, projects and collaborations (Examples: featured: AIDS, WP:Good Articles: Gay bathhouse, Same-sex marriage in Canada - Others: Same-sex marriage, Brokeback Mountain, Gay village, Timeline of LGBT history, and Polari) . The goal would be on highlighting the best quality articles and those that need work/cleanup to improve their quality up to WP:GA and WP:FA standards. This proposal includes possible redirects of Portal:Gay, Portal:Lesbian, Portal:Bisexual, Portal:Transgender and Portal:Homosexuality to the main Portal:LGBT centralized location. - Davodd 08:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'd rather see an effort made to bring Portal:Sexuality up to standard before any subportals are created.--cj | talk 10:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Adambiswanger1 11:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support not just because it is deserving on its own merits, and utterly unrelated to the Portal "Sexuality" in my humble opinion, but also for the entirely personal reason that I've become annoyed by a number of posters who have been inserting into various literary pages discussions about the preferences of the author or characters involved, whether such discussions are relevant or irrelevant and regardless of the level of support or merit to the claims, and who by making continual spurious claims belittle the real scholarship in the area, and I think this will be best dealt with by encouraging a portal that can help centralize such discussion and hold it to standards. Sam 13:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Although I'm not quite sure what you are refering to, I feel it pertinent to point out that portals do not serve as forums. Therefore, the creation of a Portal:LGBT would not "help centralize such discussion and hold it to standards". Also, I'd dispute that Portal:Sexuality is unrelated, especially when the nominator makes direct reference to topics descendant of it.--cj | talk 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps "utterly unrelated" was overstating and I should have said "only tangentially related." I read the LGBT purpose as relating to issues of sexual preference and gender, which are a couple of steps removed from the sexual behavior issues focused on by the sexuality portal. I don't think being gay is all about sex, in other words. On my own little issue, I think a portal bring together the good, the bad and the ugly with respect to topics involving LGBT issues, and bringing those together will, I hope, improve the weak stepchildren in the crowd. For an example of what I'm referencing as far as weak stepchildren, see the articles on Gilgamesh or on Ghazals. Sam 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Agree with cj on this one. Rlevse 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per cj. Johntex\^talk 07:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Whilst it would be nice to see Portal:Sexuality up to scratch, I don't see that as precluding the creation of this portal. Hiding Talk 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Supporting Comment: I believe there is a mistaken assumption running through this discussion that a LGBT portal is a subportal of Portal:Sexuality - it isn't, although there is some overlap. Furthermore, forcing that status on it would be inaccurate and limiting - since it would prevent inclusion of non-sexuality articles such as LGBT political movements (LGBT history), LGBT linguistics (Polari, Gay slang), LGBT history (Stonewall riots), LGBT art (Rent)], LGBT biographies (Tammy Baldwin), and LGBT media (Boy Meets Boy), LOGO channel), LGBT impact on society (Domestic partnership, Civil union) etc. That said, the fact we have a Portal:Nintendo and a Portal:LOST with no (or little) opposition whereas Portal:LGBT is opposed only goes to show that the portal proposal process is broken, not that the viability of a portal on such a rich subject matter (LGBT studies is an accepted university subject of study) is undo-able. If that is the case, the rules for this particular "portal proposal" concept are broken in that they hamper the ability to use portals in their intended way. There are hundreds of LGBT-related articles scattered about Wikipedia in Entertainment, Sexuality, Politics, medical and other categories. This one subject area is a prime example the main reasons portals exist - to provide a one-stop-shop experience for easy reference for an interdisciplinary topic. Unless I am mistaken, the process of "applying" for the right to make a portal is so that unnecessary portals are not created - only to be deleted because they were ill-thought-out or patently unneeded i.e.: Portal:Butter or Portal:Halloween masks. The concept that one portal must wait until another, partially-related portal further develops is a classic example of instruction creep, which should be avoided in wiki projects. Because of this, although I agree with the intent of the portal proposal process, I am ignoring it (in re: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) because it is hampering this project from being a better encyclopedia to users and researchers interested in LGBT studies. - Davodd 23:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I never opposed the portal, but strongly oppose to the "ignore all rules" approach. It sets a bad example. Now we have Portal:Guitar, Portal:Sega, and others created with disregard for consensus. We also have numerous poorly (or unmaintained) portals. For example, the "news" in Portal:Sexuality hasn't been updated since October. In my view, Portal:LGBT would be a sub/related portal of Portal:Sexuality. However, this absolutely does not limit what Portal:LGBT can include. Other aspects of the topic, such as society impact, history, culture, etc. are more than welcome, and Portal:LGBT can be a sub/related portal of Portal:Society and any number of others. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was neutral until I read Davodd's comments. Now I have a clearer understanding of the benefits. CyntWorkStuff 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Davodd. Seems petty to deny one portal because another is not ready. I agree with Davodd that LGBT is not a subset of sexuality, but does overlap. I'd be interested to see where the "consensus" was decided that this would be disregarding. If there is a rationale that makes sense to me, I'll change my vote, but without seeing that discussion, I don't see a reason to discourage any portals that will eventually be useful. They may well inspire someone to work on the ones that are missing. -- Samuel Wantman 05:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support, for similar reasons to Davodd — OwenBlacker 09:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - for reasons given by others, and the question of why not?? ---Godheval 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support by Davodd. —Nightstallion (?) 09:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It’s one year that I write in wikipedia, mostly around classical music and classical guitar, as I am myself a professional concert guitarist. I almost never use a user name. I started to write a template for the articles about guitar to try to organize all those articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Guitar

I think that it would also help to make a portal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Guitar

Tommaso456

• Seems a little narrow how about a portal for musical instruments? bd2412 T 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Portal:Music already exists and covers this. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A portal for musical intruments would be better. (Also, if you want to sign your name, use four tildes: [~~~~]) Bibliomaniac15 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with above opposements, too narrow, Portals a huge and hard to keep up with. Try and make a WikiProject! And keep on playing classical guitar! (Where at?) -- -Wesley Forlines (wforlines) 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--cj | talk 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would, as one can see above, a portal for left-of-center belief systems, including Wicca and Magic (both with a K and without). To emphasize a point, this is not to include international religions that are national religions, but not quite on the same scale as the "Big Three" (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity). Meaning Buddhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, even Scientology are not to be included in this portal, as not to offend followers of said faiths.Eyeball kid 05:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - if managed properly, this could be a very useful portal. I've found myself (as a religion major) quite interested in the ideas of people like Aleister Crowley, as well as both eastern and western Alchemy, which I think would probably fit here as well. There's just so much information already here and no real central reference point for finding it. ---Godheval 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A slightly broader and more general 'paranormal' portal could be really interesting. Ghosts, UFOs, etc. Just concentrating on the pseudo-religions would be a bit narrow I think. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly a 'cryptosociology' portal for cults and related groups, and a paranorma portal for UFOs and supposedly Supernatural phenomena. --Whytecypress 23:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the two guys (or gals) above me whoes signatures begin with a "W" --(wforlines) 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In that case, do we go about creating it yet? (however that's done)Or do we wait for some sort of administrative approval prior to proceeding--Whytecypress 00:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Communism is broad enough to have its own Portal. Along with that, several featured level and good communism-related articles exist in Wikipedia. Other political ideologies have their own Portal, so, I believe Communism can have its own. Afonso Silva 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What are some of these "featured level and good" articles? Also, would you be maintaining the portal? Is there a WikiProject Communism, with people willing to help? --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick search:

• Featured articles:
  • Che Guevara
  • Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
  • Military history of the Soviet Union
  • History of Poland (1945–1989)
  • Samantha Smith
  • People's Republic of China

• Good articles (officially):
  • Portuguese Communist Party

• Other good articles:
  • Communism
  • Marxism
  • Leon Trotsky
  • Comintern
  • Soviet Union
  • Cuba
  • History of the Portuguese Communist Party
  • Class struggle
  • Karl Marx

Obviiusly, there are lots and lots of other quality articles.

And where does it says that we need a Wikiproject? There's no Wikiproject Portugal and, currently, Portal:Portugal is listed in FPCAN, with support votes only, I'm the only maintainer. It's not that difficult changing content each two weeks or something. But surely, there will be some other editors willing to help. There are lots of communism related articles, and I have only written two or three. Afonso Silva 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProjects are one factor that I consider, as indication of active community support and involvement with a particular topic. I would prefer more than one maintainer (what if you go on holiday? the news becomes stale?) Though, with Communism, I don't see any need for a "news" feature. Given the good number of articles listed above, along with your track record with Portal:Portugal, I give you my support. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't contacted any other editors yet, but some will certainly show up and help. I don't believe that's a problem. Communism is a broad theme, much broader than other themes which have their own portal, such as Marvel or Industrial Design, for example. News, perhaps, wouldn't be much useful. Anyway, I'll try to do my best. Afonso Silva 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Communism is a broad enough topic. It also helps that Portal:Politics, short of any new objections, will become featured. With that, I support subportals of Politics, and have confidence that you will do fine. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how developed the subject is, I guess I'll throw my support. Bibliomaniac15 04:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create the Portal? Afonso Silva 09:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A portal about the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest 2004 , Ruslana. It will be created and maintened by the very newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Ruslana.

• Oppose. The topic is much too narrow. I don't see such a portal working, as the number of articles (yet alone featured articles) is much too small to keep the portal supplied with content. Instead, I encourage you to be involved with Portal:Eurovision and ensure it's kept updated. It needs the "selected artist" updated, among other updates. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose obviously not getting the attention it needs, plus it doesn't meet portal scope requirements as it covers one specific person. See its speedy delete page.Rlevse 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Not broad enough. Afonso Silva 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A portal about field hockey. Not because there will necessarily be lots of viewers, but mainly to look at collaborating the current lists of articles about field hockey into something a little more structured. --Nunners 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a rethink about how best to go about updating all the hockey pages, and indeed I've found some more entries on WP, that have started things off a bit more. I'm therefore suggesting a Project, rather than a Portal, but eventually a portal may come out of it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Field_Hockey - as part of the Wiki Project:Sports --Nunners 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there’s a real need for a portal about Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is a country, located at the crossroads between Asia and Europe, with rich and eventful history. It is one of the new independent states of the former USSR, and frequently gets in the focus of the media attention due to its strategic location and vast oil resources. Sometimes we make headlines because of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. We have a number of very well written Azerbaijan-related articles, such as Fuzûlî, Nesîmî, Baku Metro, Palace of the Shirvanshahs, Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, Ali-Agha Shikhlinski, and many more. The article Azerbaijani people has become a featured article. The articles Farman Salmanov, Hussein Khan Nakhichevanski, Muslim Magomayev, Israfil Mamedov and Ramana have been featured in DYK section on the main page. Also there are articles currently nominated to the status of a good article, such as History of Baku. With consideration to the above I would like to ask for your support for creation of the portal about Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree a portal about Azerbaijan is definitly required as we try to show a more detailed view of Azerbaijan. These articles mentioned by Grandmaster indicate that we are experienced users who will make a excellent contribution with this portal. Baku87 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support With the opening of the BTC pipeline and rapid growth of the economy, opening up of greater diplomatic representations and publications of books, Azerbaijan is becoming more popular and known as a tourist, scientific and business destination. --AdilBaguirov 12:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Great idea and will help the portal wherever I can. Good luck to Azeri friends.--Kober 15:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The amount of content looks sufficient to support a portal. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's already the time and we are ready I think. --Brand спойт 19:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I join my colleagues, and also want to add that creation of this portal will be a strong positive stimulus for development of Azerbaijan-related entries on WP. --Tabib 17:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(continued from Talk:Current events#Should Current events be in the portal namespace?)

This is a proposal to move Current events to the portal namespace, for reasons outlined in the earlier discussion linked above. As seen in Talk:Current events, the proposal has received across-the-board support so far, so it seems appropriate to turn it into a proposal.

The current events article attracts a built-in group of editors already, making maintainence challenges a non-issue. There are also plenty of showcase articles that fit the portal already.

I am working on a mockup. Because of the maturity of the existing Current events layout, changes are likely to be minimal, at least initially. An example of a minor change would be to turn the ((Current events articles)) at the bottom into a portal-specific ((browsebar)) at the top), though of course this is a topic that needs discussion as part of this proposal.

If accepted, the navigation link to current events present on every wikipedia page would be changed to link to the new current events portal.

In addition to any votes of support (or opposition), I am hoping commenters will identify any internal or visible changes to the current events article that you think are critical to the first version of such a portal. Thanks. Kayaker (talk · contribs) 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Support. Portal:Current events doesn't need to have the same look and feel as all the other portals. The layout could stay much the same as it is now. Though, I'm open to any good ideas for improving it. As part of this proposal, I also suggest Current sports events be merged with Portal:Sports and games (which has a poorly maintained news feature), Current events in the United States (poorly maintained, until my recent cleanups) with Portal:United States, etc. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. It might seem like a waste to say I am neutral, but we already have Wikinews, so I question the need for a portal about the same subject. Bibliomaniac15 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This kind of portal would serve a different function to that of Wikinews and of "In the news" - but the emphasis, like "In the news", should be on the articles, not the news, though maybe, unlike "In the news" it could also act like the news-ticker that many people seem to either want or expect. I also suggest that such a portal be organised in such a way as to help the selection of items for Template:In the news. See also the discussion here. Carcharoth 16:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The week is almost over. I'm concerned that this proposal needs a bit more scrutiny, so I'm thinking I should mention it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Meanwhile, I've created a mockup here which proposes only two changes:

1. a ((browsebar)) for region and country-specific news portals is introduced at the top.
2. the ((In the news)) template is incorporated immediately below the browsebar, prompted by the comment from Carcharoth.

Mockup-specific suggestions can be posted on the proposal's talk page. Thanks – Kayaker (talk · contribs) 09:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

New mock-up looks nice. How much support do you need for this to go ahead? Carcharoth 01:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the mock-up too, except that we also have topical news pages, (e.g. Current_science_and_technology_events, Current sports events, and there is one for video games). The current sports events page is updated frequently, but the others sparingly so. Meanwhile, Portal:Sports and games has a news feature that is rarely updated. I would like to see the sports events page and sports portal combined. The issue of combining these topical news pages with the appropriate portal could be handled separately, but somewhere on the mock-up we need links to the topic news pages. --Aude (talk contribs) 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added science/tech and sports to the browse bar in the latest version of the portal mockup. The current version now only links to current event articles that were updated in June, with two exceptions: I left China and India in as well, simply because they are such large countries. Assuming this proposal goes through, I'll create a ((newsbrowsebar)) from that section of the mockup and note on its talk page that criteria for what gets included in the newsbrowsebar need to be defined. Thanks–Kayaker (talk · contribs)00:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Support This is a great idea. It's time for Current events to graduate to a more prominent location on Wikipedia (it is after all linked from the left sidebar). joturner 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Unless it is a transwiki redirect to the Wikinews home page. I think a much better idea would be Portal:2006, Portal:2005 and such - since they would be more encyclopedic and tap into more areas of this project and be more broad-based other than just recreating Wikinews. - Davodd 21:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is not necessarily incompatible with the current proposal. Part of my goal for the current proposal this was to turn Current events into a portal without a major redesign of its layout, its internal structure, or of the processes (such as Wikipedia:How to archive Current Events and Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page) which surround the existing approach. It makes sense to me for the creation/update of year-specific portals to be part of the current events archival process. Thanks–Kayaker (talk · contribs)00:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Support, I dig the concept, this would work well in Portal space. bd2412 T 16:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think this step would further the goal of bringing Current events up a level in terms of organization and quality.--Pharos 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I think this could work. We should possibly also redesign the page while we're at it... —Nightstallion (?) 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the proposal has received enough support to consider it approved, I have created the portal, the accompanying template (((newsbrowsebar))), and am in the process of making it active (barring any unforeseen problem brought up at Talk:Current events#Switch to Portal:Current events). Thanks—Kayaker 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 05:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I overlook this? Does it already exist? It probably does but I couldn't find it. This portal could have articles of living and dead poets (primarily), poetic devices, poetic forms, schools of poetry (there are more than 56 on Wikipedia), poetry news, a did you know? section, philosophy projects, and links to wikibooks, wikisource, etc. A "Literature" portal already exists, but only under as a subportal under "Arts". "Comics" are given their own separate from "Visual Arts". There is no information regarding poetry to found on the front page of the "literature" portal. I find the fact that the definition of "Literature" as encompassing poetry to be irrelevant. Our goal is usefulness, not compliance to the English language. The vastness of the topic and obvious distinction from prose begs you to support this. Support as nominator.Adambiswanger1 20:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since there doesn't seem to be a portal about poetry. lenko 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions Are you involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry? would it be just you maintaining the portal? I would avoid putting up a "news" section on the portal, as they have tendency to become embarassingly outdated. Though, if you are committed to keeping it updated, then it's fine with me. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer I have no life. I would be happy to maintain it. I am also looking to get involved in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Also, I will go to whatever necessary lengths to enlist the support of others. Just as a little note, it is relegated to the last "current project" listed on the Literature portal. Adambiswanger1 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Thanks for the quick response. The main problem we've had with portals are some that get created and then neglected. I don't believe that's the case here, though. The topic is definitely broad enough, and of interest to many people. As well, people involved with the WikiProject may help out with maintenance. Feel free to help out with Portal:Literature too. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • HUGE support. Surprising one isn't made already. NTDOY Fanboy 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'll be happy to help out. Stumps 08:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd be tempted to integrate it into literature - I'd rather have one strong portal than two weak ones, and Literature is already kind of so-so. Sam 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I've thought about that too, but the fact is that poetry is simply too broad of an area to share a portal with Literature, and the current Literature portal contains no front page Poetry info. There is even a blurb about Hegel, a philosopher. And Harry Potter and Middle Earth subportals are displayed prominently. As I said above, I realize that the definition of Literature encompasses poetry. But we are in the business of making the encyclopedia useful, without being constrained by the limitations of the English language. I think what we have here is a chance to have a fully functional, vibrant portal displaying much-needed information to many interested people. Adambiswanger1 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not opposed to the idea; I'd like to see a poetry portal. However, my impression of the literature portal is that's it's somewhat moribund and could use the help, and that it would be much upgraded by the inclusion of a heavy Poetry component. There is also a lot of overlap (e.g., most schools of poetry are part of broader schools of literature, and, these days, its often hard to tell whether you're reading poetry or prose). So, not at all oppposed. Sam 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That seems about right--However, I think a wiser approach would be to simultaneously start a Literature portal improvement drive, using help from WikiProject members, while making known on that page the existence of Poetry Portal. And your right, the line is being blurred between poetry and prose these days, but much of the work discussed in articles related to centuries-old schools of thought. Perhaps in Shakespeare the line is often blurred, but especially with structured verse, the difference is black and white. Adambiswanger1 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, having had my say, consider me to Support you in these efforts; I may chip in from time to time, but am more likely to focus more on the articles. Sam 13:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 05:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A portal aboutNarnia, The_Chronicles_of_Narnia and of course the master himself C. S. Lewis. The basic idea would be a portal similar to those about portal:Harry_Potter and about LOTR. Put simply it should contain, characters, info about the books and films, about C. S. Lewis, maybe a map, a timeline, list of races of Narnia, relation with Christianity. Or just and copy of the Harry Potter portal just modified for Narnia, I belies there is lot of stuff and need to get and overview of Narnia, that a portal would create.

• Support, presuming there is enough interest. Kukini 00:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have some concerns about the narrowness of this topic. In Category:Narnia, there are only four subcategories. Though, it might be enough to make the portal work. Is there a WikiProject for Narnia? or other related WikiProjects? While it's possible for one person to maintain a portal on their own, it helps to have multiple users to help maintain the portal. An active WikiProject would be one indication of this interest. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think this may be a bit too narrow. Portals need to encompass an absolutely enormous subject area. Adambiswanger1 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as too narrow.--cj | talk 10:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until the individual pages are more built out; right now I don't think there is much to port to. I could be supportive once they are. Sam 13:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opinion I'll be neutral in this vote, but I am not sure whether relationship to Christianity should be in there. Opinions should be kept to a low, and an article or mention of this can suddenly turn into a forum and violate NPOV. Bibliomaniac15 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 05:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A portal about Electromagnetism (Electrostatics, magnetostatics, electronics...). In short, everything that has to do with electricity and magnetism for which the articles are already countless. Although electromagnetism is a part of physics it should have its own portal since it is a very spread subject and most of our technology is based on it.

• Support as proposer. --lenko 11:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I just don't think it will attract the readership. I think it would be better to ensure this aspect of physics is well represented in the physics portal. On its own I fear it would be under-appreciated by the general public. Worldtraveller 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it does look very good. I think it's a bit strange, though, to create a portal before approval has been given. Would be better to have waited. I am still concerned that the potential readership for this portal will be very small, if it's approved. Worldtraveller 21:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, I am sorry about the early creation of the portal, but when reading the portal-making procedure I've missed the last point(I'm kinda new to editing Wikipedia). Besides I had some good ideas and some extra time over the weekend. The reason I made this portal, besides the fun of making it, was to concentrate more public attention to the electromagnetism articles, that are at least in my view still poorly developed and full of mistakes and bad article structure. I will take some time to review some more important articles and hopefully expand them. And I really don't see why this portal shouldn't be approved, with approved portals like Mars or Fire respectfully, that are, at least in my opinion, a way smaller area of knowledge than electromagnetism that holds the roots for most of the modern technologies. As for the readership of the portal, I believe there are enough people that might be interested in reading it or at least take a glance at the featured picture. --lenko 22:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as you're new I'm sure no-one will mind too much :) If EM articles are underdeveloped, though, that suggests to me that a Wikiproject is needed before a portal is necessary. As for those other portals, I really don't think either of them should exist. I did once suggest dropping the Mars portal and concentrating on the astronomy one, and I'm flabbergasted that anyone thinks fire counts as a broad subject area. In my opinion, the number of portals needs to be quite small for them to have value. Maintaining them takes away article writing time. Although this portal does look very nice indeed, and it interests me as an astronomer, I am not convinced the wider public has sufficient physics enthusiasm to warrant there being portals for physics, astronomy, Mars and EM. Really I would prefer that you and other editors improved the articles in the topic area rather than spend time maintaining a portal. Worldtraveller 23:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it has been created and seems to be a) very full of information and b) nicely done. I think it will generate more interest as people discover it. Kukini 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as my son thinks its cool. Sam 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 05:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A portal about Newar aka Newa people (eg- Ranjitkar, Rajkarnikar , Joshi etc), their languages (eg- Nepal Bhasa , Nepali), their localities (Kathmandu , Nepal), their history, culture, festivals, religion (Buddhism , Hinduism), music etc. and various aspects pertaining to Newa.--Eukesh 22:34, 2 June 2006

• Support as proposer.--Eukesh 22:34, 2 June 2006

• Support- Lymphokine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eukesh (talk • contribs)

Lymphokine is not a legitimate, registered user. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There does not seem to be enough, well-developed articles yet for this topic to keep the portal supplied. I suggest instead a WikiProject to organize a group of users to work on developing the articles more, and keep building up content. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kmf164.--cj | talk 06:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kfm164 Adambiswanger1 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 05:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a portal about Chinese pop music. There has been a growing international growing popularity of Chinese music and several Chinese singers like Jay Chou and Lee-Hom Wang. MTV Chi is a demonstration of the increasing demand for a worldwide access to Chinese music, even in the Western world. Arsonal 05:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions. While they all don't have to be featured articles or good articles, a number of articles should be. Are any of the Cpop articles either featured or good articles? Aside from those, what other articles would be featured in the portal? Is there a category you can point me to? My concern is that there's not enough good content yet to supply the portal and keep it maintained. --Aude (talk | contribs) 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• At a minimum, the name should be Chinese Pop or Chinese Popular Music as most of us have no idea what Cpop would mean. Rlevse 13:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose from what I've seen, there will not be enough good material to supply this portal if it were created now. Get the individual (artiste, album?, ...) articles into better shape first. And if created, this should be Portal:Chinese pop music, not "Cpop". Kimchi.sg 08:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no need for it.--cj | talk 06:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the brevity of the Cpop article is just one reason why this subject is not well-developed enough. Adambiswanger1 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I like Chinese pop music, it seems too narrow. Try getting the articles to be shaped up. Bibliomaniac15 19:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.