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 . Even though we have arguments that would suggest nuking all of portal space, there is still a consensus to delete everything in this nomination. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portals for the Birds[edit]

It appears that woodpeckers are part of a family and not a whole family. I will be bundling other taxa that seem to have been created in the Portal Spree. Tapping away at these portals is like being a woodpecker looking for insects. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parrots are an order. Most of these are families. That just illustrates that there was no grand pattern to the creation of the portals.

Delete all Wikiproject Birds never asked for these and at least one of their members was at MfD trying to delete a similar page. Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Legacypac - Good rename. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Portal:Gruidae – Does not meet Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines at this time, drawing from only 13 articles for its selected articles section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete Portal:Birds-of-paradise~~ – Does not meet Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines at this time, drawing from only 9 articles for its selected articles section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Now check it. — The Transhumanist 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral regarding Portal:Birds-of-paradise now. Modified my initial !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  I disabled the stub filter on the selected articles section with nostubs=no. Bird stubs tend to have pictures, which works well for bird portals. — The Transhumanist 03:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portal:Parrots – The portal meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, draws from an appropriate selection of articles, and serves as a useful navigational page. The nomination for deletion entirely lacks a policy-or guideline-based rationale for deletion. There is no requirement for portals to be created per hierarcical taxonomic ranks, such as upon whether or not an animal is classified as being in a biological family or subfamily. Also, the notion that a WikiProject did not ask for a portal is not a valid rationale for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portal:Sparrows – Meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, draws from an appropriate selection of articles, and is a useful navigational page. The nomination for deletion has no policy-or guideline-based rationale for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making multiple bolded Votes! on nominations. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, please stop making inappropriate, erroneous orders to users. Multiple !votes are allowed for bundled nominations. Otherwise, people would have to !vote for all at once in only one manner or another (e.g. keep or delete). This makes it easy to state "delete all" for those who, for example, dislike portals, but is an inferior method that discourages objective analysis of each separate page. My !votes are entirely valid and stand. See WP:TRAINWRECK for additional information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be cleaner if you combined all your !votes in one paragraph, certainly all your !votes with identical votes and reasons. (And your reasons are, in fact, contrary to current guidelines for portals.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portal:Penguins – Meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, draws from an appropriate selection of articles (over twenty in this case), and is a useful navigational page. Furthermore, the nomination for deletion has no policy-or guideline-based rationale for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot - I was about to nominate cranes - but hell get rid of all of them. The rationale is this - each family page, and bar one these are all family pages, is all the navigation you will need, or is all the navigation you will need with its associated "list of species" page. These are not large enough subjects to warrant a portal, even if there are more than twenty species you could hypothetically include in the portal. We do not need, in any way, a page on cranes that links to all the articles about cranes and an attached portal that also links to some of the articles about cranes. Bird is a subject wide enough that an overview of the subject warrants a portal. A family isn't, and even an order (the parrots) doesn't really either. They certainly don't need half arsed portals where the images are directly harvested and dumped into the picture with without captions. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Cranes is up there but under the scientific name. I added the redirect for Cranes for good measure. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot - portals are obsolete....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The community came to a consensus that portals are not obsolete in a full RfC. An MfD about a handful of arbitrarily grouped individual portals cannot override this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them - they serve no useful purpose Craigthebirder (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete A vote based on my preference that portals be expurgated from wikipedia, the same reasons that apply to them all. cygnis insignis 22:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That is completely irrelevant to the individual portals under discussion. Also the community consensus was firmly against deleting all portals. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above comments. Note: even the links to Wikiversity etc are just searches (e.g. many of the links shown by the link on the penguins portal are to pages about Penguin Books) - in some cases there are no results from the search (contrast this with, for example, interwiki links on articles that list things that actually exist). Readers would be better off using the links from the articles or just googling. DexDor^(talk) 21:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, subjects too minor to warrant even well thought portals, never mind these things. For example portal penguins, which got a "keep" above as "a useful navigational page", has a poorly layouted introduction, where the second image is then reused as the default "selected image" (a common failing of many of these automated portal creations), and is otherwise mainly a rehash of the navigation template which is already included on all these pages. A poorer duplication of what we already have avaialable to serve our readers, so no need to keep this. Fram (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep where they coincide with natural-English categorization like "woodpeckers"; rename as needed. Merge and redirect in some other cases. Given the intense interest in birds and birdwatching, killing off portals about large groups of birds is a terrible idea. In most cases we should upmerge genera, and do likewise with small families, and possibly even orders that have too few members. Some such portals need to be renamed to use the WP:COMMONNAME (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Psittacinae, which has some cases like this, though psittacinae itself should merge to Portal:Parrots – yet that, too, has been nominated for deletion above. It's like someone has just said "I wonder how many portals I can nominate for deletion in a single day" without any regard for what they are. This is verging on WP:POINT disruption). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC); revised 18:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also related mass-nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Psittacinae; and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pipilo. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a general process of cleaning up this mess. Until and unless someone comes up with some good reason for having portals at all, or people agree on a sensible and straightforward method of getting rid of them, we should just carry on with this interminable timesink. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments are not related to the individual portals under discussion, and also contradict the recent community consensus in favour of portals as a class. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comments that apply to all portals obviously also apply to each portal individually. DexDor^(talk) 13:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The community decided strongly that portals should remain, so it is necessary to determine whether these portals specifically should or should not be deleted. Your comment is actively unhelpful to forming a consensus about this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Portals should be about broad topics. Individual families of birds don't need portals. They already have well written articles with the same pictures and navigational links. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all without prejudice to merging where there is consensus to merge related portals per SMcCandlish. Improvements are possible to some of these portals, but that's not a reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "merge"? If Portal:Foobar is the top of the Foobar article (and searches for "foobar") and Portal:Barfoo is the top of the Barfoo article etc then merging isn't really possible. DexDor^(talk) 13:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean incorporate the content of Portal:Foo and PortalBar into portal:Foobar, whether this by copying curated content, adjusting templates, doesn't really matter. I.e. I mean "merge" in the same way that the word "merge" is commonly used on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. The word "merge" means "taking code from page X and bringing it to page Y, with reference to the editors who created code X, and with the necessity to keep page X for attribution in most cases". With these portals though, there is zero code, zero content in these portals, they are empty shells. There is in many cases no curated content, no adjusted templates, nothing. In this particular case, there is one adjustment, the choice of an image for the introductory article, which you can hardly copy ("merge") to a higher level portal which already has an introduction with presumably an image. In most cases where you (and a few others) suggested merge, there wasn't even this one adjustment. (by the way, you didn't reply to me here like you said in your edit summary, but to DexDor, but that's not really that important). Fram (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2019 (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.