Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Portals guideline
See also
[edit]Essays, guidelines, and policies that are important to consider
Essays on consensus building strategies
[edit]Creating a draft
[edit]Hi all, I'm pinging you because you commented on the portal guidelines thread at the Village Pump. It's worthwhile to develop a new proposal that reflects current consensus based on the last RfC. While a lot of people were opposed to deleting all portals, there was a variety of opinion on what to do with them once they were kept. There's a lot of debate about what to do with portals, partly because the current guideline is so vague. By getting a summary of ideas we can hopefully develop an RfC to determine which ideas have widest support. You can help by refactoring the draft at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC: Portals guideline and inviting others to do so as well. pinging VPPOL participants @Robert McClenon, Certes, BrownHairedGirl, Northamerica1000, Pbsouthwood, SmokeyJoe, Blueboar, and Alanscottwalker: Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- We need to remember that the purpose of this exercise is to develop an RFC to ask well-formulated questions, not to develop the answers at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- A good point. The "Proposals" section has been retitled to "What questions should the RfC ask?" with existing discussion put under headings for specific questions.
- We need to remember that the purpose of this exercise is to develop an RFC to ask well-formulated questions, not to develop the answers at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Proposed Breakdown
[edit]The input that we have so far is very useful but needs organizing into parts of the RFC, or RFCs. I suggest that the RFC consist of at least the following parts:
- 1. What are the intended purposes of portals? Vote Yes or No on each; vote for 0 to N purposes.
- 2. Should the existing portal guidelines be authorized/re-authorized and given the status of a guideline?
- 3. What should be the status of Regional Portals? (I am about to write this up on the front side.)
- 4. Should the three-part Action Plan of User:BrownHairedGirl be put into force as a plan?
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Additional Reasons for Portals
[edit]Reasons 9 and 10 are conclusions from the discussion of deletion of portals. There is sometimes considerable discussion of the Did You Know items, such as that new DYKs illustrate that a portal is being maintained. For reason 10, which, like most of the other reasons, is a good-faith reason, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Folklore. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Is It Time?
[edit]Should the first two parts of the RFC, the reasons for portals, and re-activating the portal guidelines, be published, and started running for 30 days? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- As good a time as any. I refactored the "why portals" section to make it a bit better for an RfC. What's your plan for starting it? Wug·a·po·des 03:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)