Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blu-ray

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 . No consensus to delete this individual portal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Blu-ray

Portal:Blu-ray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal on depreciated technology complete with a News section listing breaking events from 2003 and 2007! You can learn exciting current events like "As of July 30, 2008 more than 720 Blu-ray Disc titles have been released in the United States and more than 460 Blu-ray Disc titles have been released in Japan." Why should we be wasting effort to update this when Blu-ray is the answer for information (and that page needs updates too). Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Why? The discussion does not prevent the deletion of some of the worst ones anymore than it prevents the improvement of Portals by editors trying revive Portals WikiProject. There are a great many editors that want to see the worst ones deleted. Legacypac (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For now at least it makes more sense to get the RFC out of the way first - If the RFC is closed as Keep then by all means renominate but as the RFC is currently open it could pose issues so for now keeping seems more sensible..... –Davey2010Talk 20:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What issues? While I don't have strong feelings against postponement, I do think that 3 portal-related MFDs can move ahead on their own merits as the cluster* over at the VP(P) proceeds. After all, the notice at all the individual portals explicitly allows further editing of each portal as the discussion is going on, so why not an MFD? (I would, however, strongly oppose a mass nomination of hundreds or thousands of portal-related MFDs until after the RFC is finished. In fact, I would counsel against opening more than a handful of them.) - dcljr (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take a good look at Blu-ray. Efforts on the topic are better expended to update that page. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portals and articles are very different things, as you well know, and I have personally never found "effort can be better spent elsewhere" arguments at all convincing. Bringing editors' attention to things they may mant to work on is sometimes effective; trying to encourage editing in one place by suppressing it elsewhere (e.g., by deleting something) is, I think, never effective. (In fact, if some editors do start working on the portal again, they may well end up improving other related areas of Wikipedia—including the Blu-ray article—as they do so.) - dcljr (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portals Declined 13 years ago. Most WikiProjects 10 years ago. Most WikiProject activity is people outside the WikiProjects assigning things to them. Some WikiProjects remain active, but in most cases the notion of advising WikiProjects is farcical. Portals and WikiProjects are remnants of the exponential growth phase of Wikipedia, which ended 2006-2008. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics has been pretty active, with nontrivial amounts of discussion and recent requests actually acted upon. I just notified them of this discussion. - dcljr (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC) — And the other two, as well. Talk page posts are cheap… - dcljr (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some WikiProjects are active, for sure. I don’t advocate archiving WikiProjects. Inactive and defunct WikiProjects can be tagged as inactive or defunct. The average WikiProject is inactive. There are far more Portals than active WikiProjects. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, how is this a reply to my comment? I don't see the connection. - dcljr (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I seem to have been responding to the notion that Portals should be moved or redirected to their respective WikiProjects. Some has said this, but that is not what you said. Notifying WikiProjects is a good idea, cheap, could be helpful (WikiProjects are well watched), and can’t hurt. Sorry, my fault. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lagacypac Comment I'm in two minds about this one. I'm not sure that Blu-ray ever needed to have a portal, but I oppose this completely misguided nomination. Pages should not be removed on Wikipedia because a technology has gone obsolete. Notability is not temporary. If it was, we would have to delete electrical telegraph. This applies to portals just as much as it does to mainspace. And since when has Blu-ray been deprecated? That's news to me. As for the out of date news, that's only slightly worse than the main page news. Just delete the news section; Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. SpinningSpark 00:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - There is an ongoing overlapping discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals which should close first to avoid skirting consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid comment that has nothing to do with the portal under discussion. Stop being disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:AGF. And it has everything to do with this portal, as that other deletion proposal is for all portals, including this one.    — The Transhumanist   07:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Legacypac: With all due respect this discussion could have been held off. Right now there is a major discussion regarding the fate of every portal on Wikipedia which has amounted to a deletion discussion. Do you think that after the RfC closes we are going to hash the same arguments out on a mass MfD of the portals? The portals are either going to be kept or mass deleted per the consensus of the RfC. I just don't see all of the portals going to MfD at once. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are part of a portals task force which is ongoing while there is an RFC to eliminate all portals. Part of the task force SHOULD be to eliminate the abandoned and broken portals. Removing the worst must be part of the cleanup. If removing the worst is out of process why is an organized rescue attempt also not out of process? Legacypac (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am part of a task force for cleanup regarding anime and manga related articles. I understand the need to delete abandoned and broken portals, but right now multiple deletion discussions at once is just going to cause confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We can always come back to this one later, but no page or item on Wikipedia should have two separate deletion discussions at the same time. It divides efforts and focus. If it comes down to it, we can come back here once the subject has been given proper review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close - nomination is out of order - the portal has already been nominated for deletion (along with all other portals) in a current deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals, which proposes the following: "Should the system of portals be ended? This would include the deletion of all portal pages and the removal of the portal namespace." Therefore, this portal is up for deletion twice, in two locations on Wikipedia at the same time. There are two deletion notices on the portal page! It is a form of double jeopardy. Please close this MfD, and let the folks at the RfC determine what to do about portals. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   08:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is very clear: delete all portal pages. Including this one. That it is a system is irrelevant; it was the set of pages that was proposed for deletion, and this page is a member of that set.    — The Transhumanist   14:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and
arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; to say nothing about WP:Wikilawyering. SpinningSpark 15:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll bite: What's really going on here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective the RfC raised a broad issue that many editors have long felt strongly about. Some editors oppose deletion and instead want to reform the Portal system. I went to work on reform by picking a few Portals that were particularly worthy of deletion regardless of what the RfC result was. Say the RfC result ends up Keep - that should not preclude deletion of this portal or that portal. No "keep" voter here has even come close to advancing anything but a perceived procedural reason not to discuss deleting any specific portal page group. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid vote as it does not address this portal. Every time a portal is brought up for deletion there are editors that want to deal with them globally. When an effort is made to deal with them globally editors say they want to deal with them each on their merits. If you are not going to deal with the topic being discussed don't expect your !vote to count for much. Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Portals should be dealt with collectively and sensibly, not piecemeal randomly one by one. It’s fine to delete non-portals, and inappropriate portals, but that does not include this one. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & speedy close The rationale is that it's a deprecated/dated technology? That's not a valid reason to delete anything on Wikipedia. Sure, the Blu-ray DVD player has been largely replaced by newer technologies, but nothing about that fact suggests deleting content regarding it. That's like saying to delete all history-related portals because the information is dated and deprecated and no longer current events. That's like saying that encyclopedia manufacturers should tear out the pages that are no longer relevant in the present-day. This is why Wikipedia has actual policies and guidelines regarding when and why to delete, and this is why it's so frustrating that your proposal for deletion contains zero of them. This discussion should not be occurring right now per
    WP:FORUMSHOP. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]


There is a lack of interest in maintaining both the portal and the article because the topic is now unpopular. The article gets far more traffic so focus our efforts on the place that serves the readers best. Brandon tze Wizard is abusive with his comments. Pretty rich for someone who created a new portal in the middle of a discussion that he claims precludes deleting a different portal. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that there are a lot of assumptions stated as fact in the previous comment. Please provide evidence that 1) There is a lack of interest; 2 the topic is unpopular; and 3) data on article vs portal traffic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are fact Paul. No substantive edits since 2015 or earlier on the Portal. Obviously out of date info. All portals get a small fraction of the traffic of the matching articles. In this case 266 page views [1] in the last 30 days (which part of the time it has been under deletion discussion which would increase views) vs 52,147 views in the last 30 days for the [[Blu-ray] page [2]. You can also see the number of edits, editors and watchers to gauge editor interest in the portal vs the page. Compare inbound links and other factors. The readers have decided the portal is about 1/2 of 1% as useful as the one page, and that's not even adding on all the related pages around the Portal is supposed to encompass. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to be civil, I'm just asking questions. As far as "out of date" information, that's a reason to edit it rather than delete it. 266 page views of the portal shows that there's some interest, so that seems to be a reason to keep it rather than delete it. Wikipedia isn't about driving web traffic. I am also quite sure that no one can determine what "the readers have decided" about anything from these numbers, much less putting a numerical measurement on how "useful" the portal is. Wikipedia is not being built in an organized fashion and there is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested my statements were wrong. I give hard facts and links you could have checked yourself instead of calling me a liar. Your response is less that satisfactory. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not call you a liar, I said it seemed assumptive and asked for more details. I then addressed those details as how I interpreted them in this discussion. I'm sorry if you took it as an accusation, it was not meant that way. I stand with my position as stated above.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So in your view 266 views a month is enough to justify keeping a page which no editor is willing to maintain, while we have another page in mainspace that covers the same ground that gets 200 times the traffic. Is there a minimim traffic threshold you would accept for deleting a portal? Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Three thoughts come to mind: First off,
WP:NOTFIXEDYET is also clear that inaction by editors is not a reason to delete and is listed among the arguments to avoid on discussion pages.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:24, 29 April 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Blu-ray&oldid=1074079565"