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

The portal was promoted 10:41, 24 May 2008.

Portal:Anglicanism[edit]

FPOC 1 FPOC 2 FPOC 3

Support as nominator portal complies with all offical criteria. I have found it disgusting that some editors choose to ignore the existing criteria and in the past have threatened, and I quote "the portal (will not be) promoted, unless (we) accept...the unofficial criteria." This is the last time I will nominate this. Any further recourse to "unofficial criteria" will result in me taking this matter to RfC.

We have been accused of a refusal to address concerns. Every actionable suggestion was corrected as soon as it was posted. We have indeed acted in a collaborative fashion and hopefully the additional offical criteria will make this process easier in the future. Appaling attitudes, indeed. -- Secisek (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Qst

Oppose. While I applaud the few improvements made to this by Secisek, there are still quite a few issues, which were not even commented on at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Anglicanism/archive3. The credit on the selected picture needs linking to the actual other or copyright holder, or if the copyright is held by a Wikipedia user, they must be credited. The topics should, ideally, be revamped to show properly and not just with an article namespace template. Some of the biographies still need cutting down. I'd like to see more selected pictures (nine is not enough, really,) and their sizes decreased; More DYK subpages and more selected articles would be nice (the unofficial max is ten, but I think that is too low.) The subject of the picture in the selected picture which you are linking to should be emboldened. That's all I have, for now. And by all means, feel free to take this matter to RfC if you feel it can't be resolved by other steps. Contrary to your comments on my talk page, I don't think my attitude is bad, really. Qst (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. -- Secisek (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Anglicanism/archive3. I'm not trying to make this difficult for you, and I don't like arguing with you, but please, just accept that this is what is expected of portals nowadays. Qst (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria page begins "A featured portal has the following attributes..." That page details what is expected of portals. If you feel the criteria need to be amended, propose the changes or be bold and add them, but don't expect the nomination to fail because of your "unoffical criteria". Here we go again with the ever-present moving goal posts: "there are still quite a few issues, which were not even commented on at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Anglicanism/archive3". Does this portal meet the criteria stated at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria or not? -- Secisek (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support! Finally, it took a while, but you got there. :-) Qst (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - despite some rather unfortunate, almost argumentative comments of nominator. Several of the official criteria are less then absolutely clear, and it is to be expected that a degree of personal opinion would go into the review process. After all, I would personally consider Oppose - as appalling ugly perhaps a reasonable response in some cases, if required. But it does seem to meet all actionable criteria. Further esthetic judgements unless extremely pronounced probably shouldn't enter into it. For what it's worth, I'm currently involved in a much delayed FAC, Preity Zinta, and I can understand the impatience displayed above. But we should remember that in some, hopefully not many, but some, cases the defined terms we do reasonably seek won't be available. John Carter (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- a portal has clean layout and sufficient amount of content is attached. Sushant gupta (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will support based on the fact that issues that were previously unresolved now are. Rudget (Help?) 10:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My only very minor comments are that "Noms" feels a little informal to me, and one of the images under DYKs has been deleted as a fair-use violation. Otherwise it is looking very good. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

All concerns addressed, consensus reached, so promote Rudget (Help?) 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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