Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alexander Korda

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: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Alexander Korda

Too narrow a scope for a portal: only 53 articles, which are almost entirely a list of Alexander Korda's films. A set with this low a number of pages is better served by a head article and a navbox; we already have both (see Template:Alexander Korda). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS This is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesome standalone page rather than handily appended to an article. I see nothing in WP:Portal guidelines#Purposes_of_portals to support this usage of a portal as a facier navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the subject is very well served by the portal in ways that the article and navbox do not. For example, navboxes do not filter out stubs. Portals do. The "Selected general articles" slideshow is keyed to the navbox. But the navbox for Alexander Korda is loaded with stubs. So, this portal skips those, and shows you the excerpts from all the ones with substance. Making the Read more... link very useful indeed. This gives you options: If you want to read the stubs, use the navigation footer (it is also provided in the portal for your convenience). If you don't want to be bothered with stubs, use the portal's excerpt slideshow to browse the topics. As the stubs get fleshed out and are no longer stubs, the portal will display those too, automatically. For a more complete explanation of the benefits that portals provide, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Body piercing. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 11:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply @The Transhumanist: lots of words, mostly about the technical features of portals. But I see no attempt by you to engage with my central concern: why deploy this technology for such a tiny set of articles? Is it just as a stub filter on the navbox? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fifty-three articles is pretty long reading list, and there are about a hundred more stubs that will eventually grow past the stub-stage, at which time they will automatically be displayed by this portal. Speaking of display, I use the new portals for the enhanced interface, of course. Slideshows! A very convenient way to browse content samples of the subtopic articles related to the head article. Once you come to one you would like to delve in deeper to, click the Read more... link. Simple and elegant, and best of all, ergonomic. Faster and more convenient (less mouse jiggling) than browsing a list of links. If all the supplemental articles can fit on the portal, that makes the portal even more useful in a particular way: between it and the head article, you can survey the entire subject. That is, actually read the material. Portals are nice because they gather the material all on one page, and the slideshows switch between topics instantly, so once the page is loaded you don't have any more interrim waiting while you browse the excerpts. Having to wait for a page to load every time you click a link is like turning the pages of a book ever so slowly. — The Transhumanist 06:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 53 is plenty of articles to constitute a broad enough scope for a portal. A portal is much more than a collection of links to articles plus a bit of information about the main subject - the idea that a head article and navbox serve the same purpose between them is nonsense. WaggersTALK 12:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Waggers: please can you expand on that? When the portal has the same scope as a navbox, what exactly does it add other than a bit of information about the main subject plus a snippet on the subtopics? As far as I can see, what you are describing is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesomestandalone page rather than hnadily appended to an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think @The Transhumanist: has already addressed that very clearly at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Body piercing. Selected pictures, recent events, "did you know", and a far more immersive & deeper user experience than a simple list of links, to name a few. Let's not repeat the exact same discussion on every single MfD. Waggers TALK 13:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers: your core rationale of far more immersive & deeper user experience than a simple list of links basically amounts to "alternative presentation of the contents of a navbox". Where is the consensus to use portals as narrow scope alt-navboxes? Where is the evidence that readers want or use portal-as-alt-navbox?

Given the narrow scope, the chances of recent events and DYKs within the scope are vanishingly small. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

53 articles is not a narrow scope. Navboxes just contain article titles, not content from articles, so no, a portal is not just an "alternative presentation of the contents of a navbox". Where is the consensus that defines the minimum scope required for a portal to exist? These manifold MfD nominations are based on your personal opinion, not on any guideline or policy. As User:Godsy says, let's get an agreed guideline in place and then we can determine which portals meet it or fail to. Waggers TALK 12:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If there is to be a minimum number of articles within a portal's scope for it to be appropriate (or some other broadness of topic clause), then a guideline should be established to that effect. Handling them individually without established guidance is undesirable and inefficient. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godsy et el. –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A useful navigational aid for those interested in the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – the guideline currently in place sets a low end threshold of articles needed of "about 20 articles". See Wikipedia:Portal guidelines#Article selection. — The Transhumanist 19:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on portal creation criteria

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Time for some portal creation criteria?. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 16:47, 26 September 2018 (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.