Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals

This page is where proposals may be made for the creation of new

If you wish to propose a new portal, please follow the following procedure:

1. List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~). To add a new portal proposal follow this edit link.
   • Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers.
   • Do not propose a portal if you do not intend to create it and assist in its maintenance.
2. Find a good number^[1] of articles, as many as you can, that could be showcased on the portal. Each of these articles should be:
   • of high quality, either a
     good article
     or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively;
   • describing a major topic or person notable within the portal topic area;
   • have no tags displayed denoting clean-up, copyright violation, controversy or similar;
   • not marked as a stub.
3. After one week, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new portal using the templates provided, following the format on
   the portal directory
   in an appropriate section.

^ . Good number means about 30 articles, though this figure may vary from case to case and is intended as a rough guide rather than a hard principle.

See Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals/Archive for old discussions.

Huebert Daughtry

List proposed portals below, new proposals at the top:

July, 2006

Portal:Goa music

A portal about music from Goa, which is diverse and of different trends. Goa is a small part of India, ruled by Portugal for 451 years, and which was a meeting ground between East and West. It has also contributed vastly to the shaping of Indian music, and some prominent Indian musicians hail from this region. --fredericknoronha 11:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Sydney

The article will cover EVERYTHING on Sydney. People have complained in the past that there will not be info information (which is just rubish), because I have tons of information. I have alreayd written many sections and saved them on Word. Jackp 12:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Nintendo

portal nintendo would cover all topics concening nintendo, including history, games, systems, and future products. user:devilboy1015 8:42 18 July 2006 (EST)

Portal:Space

While Portal:Astronomy covers galaxies, black holes, and 3753 Cruithne, Space would also cover shuttle missions, space disasters, moon landing hoaxes, and robots on Mars. This portal would fit with Wikipedia:WikiProject Space. Note: The proposed portal is currently a redirect to a portal on spaceflight. --Miguel Cervantes 02:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Portal:Spaceflight covers this topic already.-gadfium 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Astronomy covers spaceflight already, with articles on Apollo 8 and Hubble having been featured, and pictures of various space missions having also appeared. Worldtraveller 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be a way of breaking down the disciplines of Space, including Astronomy, Spaceflight, the study of Stars Systems, Colonization, etc etc. Astronomy is the study of spacial phenomenon, and their interactions with each other on the physical plane. There is more to Space than that. --Exodio 23:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Solar system

This table of links was created to lie at the bottom of the

A solar system portal would seem to duplicate Portal:Astronomy. Worldtraveller 21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - just as Portal:United States does not duplicate Portal:Texas, or Portal:Europe does not duplicate Portal:Spain. There's plenty to be said in a Portal focusing on our local neighborhood of planets, their satellites, and other Solar System objects. bd2412 T 21:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd say is that Portal:Astronomy already has the solar system well covered, in a way Texas wouldn't be covered by a US portal. Astronomy largely falls into solar system, galactic and extragalactic astronomy, and of the 15 articles featured on portal:astronomy so far, 6 have been solar system related. I just looked at a random sequence of 10 of our weekly featured pics, and 5 were solar system related. Half our current news items are solar system related. So, I'd say the astronomy portal really already more than adequately covers the solar system, and I'm not sure I see what a separate solar system portal would provide that portal:astronomy doesn't. Worldtraveller 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The astronomy portal is good enough. I'll withdraw my proposal. I've placed that unwieldy box within the article "

list of solar system objects" Serendipodous 12:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree. It seems to me, the topic of each individual star will one day warrant a Portal for each star. I think the question should not be, "Is a Solar System Portal valuable?", but rather, "How should the Solar System Portal be categorized?". How forward-looking is this project, really? This whole Space project is about long term - not in our lifetimes term. Astronomy is a general area of study, The Solar System is a specific discipline within the larger scope. Portals are supposed to guide, and direct, those who are not necessarily familiar with the topics at hand. That means each stage should narrow down the field in steps. So the logicial progression with Astronomy is: Astronomy - Galaxy - Quadrant - Region - Star System - Planet. Obviously worrying about a Portal for the galaxy is a bit premature - but shouldn't a repository of human knowledge that could stretch into the far future be organized from the beginning to build on itself? So at this point, there isn't much need for a Portal: Milky War or even Portal: Quadrant. But a Portal:Solar System would be the level into which you would put Portal:Alpha Centauri when the discipline of study expands enough to warrant a guide. We need to start organizing the subject as a whole, and this is a natural extension of that. I think a Solar System Portal is a necessity, and creating it and building on it now will spur additional growth into categories that can be easily accessed. --Exodio 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Close Relationships

I'm withdrawing the portal proposal. I have decided to pursue a Wikiproject instead.Kelly 15:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Entertainment Technology

This is a portal relating to all types of things. Stagecraft, Lighitng, Sound, Video, DJ/VJ, Special Effects, Technical Theatre, Videotography (Live Video Production), Projection, Stage Communication, Set/Scenery, Film Making, Post-Production, Studio Production, Studio Recoring, Home Theater, Cinema, Internet/Radio/Television Broadcast, Show Control, Satelite Linkage, Fibre Optics, Interactive Video (Video Games), etc. Please see

Oppose Since the WikiProject has been in existance for 5 days and there is 1 member, I'm not convinced there is enough interst in readership or efforts to maintain a portal. --Mecu 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Comedy

Why not[?,] they have one for horror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustin perkins (talk • contribs)

• Oppose improper proposal. Not sure there would be support or readership. Mecu 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please observe the posting requirement, "new proposals at the top". Cheers! bd2412 T 17:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• People interested in comedy are one: not going to come to Wikipedia; and two already have their favorate comedians and shows. --
  (wforlines) 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (GA, USA)[reply
  ]
  • I don't see the logic to either of those statements with respect to a Portal. Why are people interested in comedy not going to come to Wikipedia? And so what if they already have favorites? bd2412 T 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The comment was speaking too generally, so let me clear things up: Hope that the comment above did not seem to stereo type people interested in comedy. What I am trying to say is that comedy is used in a variety of contexts, and I think that a wikiportal is just not right for this subject. From looking at simular wikiPortals, it seems that this type of subject would recieve poor mantinance and "viewership". I think a wikiproject is better. (If one doesn't already exist) --
  'appy editing! 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note - there is already a (poorly maintained and incomplete)

Portal:Humor. bd2412 T 03:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Portal:College FootballPortal:College football

There is a large wealth of information from which to pull, and with the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football working to improve on all the data, having a Portal may help increase the exposure to increase the people working on it. This fits the definition of a Portal since it's a very broad topic with much history, information and news on the subject. See the category listed below for the numerous articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecu (talk • contribs)

• Vince Young (GA)
• Tom Cousineau (GA) - Added Mecu 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• College Football
• Category:College_football
• Wikipedia:WikiProject College football

Will the people working on Portal:American football also work on this one? I ask because that one looks good, and I'll support this if I'm confident it will match up. bd2412 T 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is coming from the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football, but I don't think any of us would have any problem with accepting the guidance and help from Portal:American football. Mecu 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It is a very broad topic. Bornagain4 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The topic is broad enough, with people to maintain the portal. It's a plus that Portal:American football is fairly well-maintained. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; it's a broad topic with a growing WikiProject.--ChicosBailBonds 00:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Football is fine, College football is not broad enough. Look at existing wikiportals. Art, Technology, Science. Those are broad. VERY broad. this should be a subportal, not a portal. I love college football, just not the idea of thousands of unmaintained wikiportals that few people use, and thus use up precious server space. --
  - (wforlines) 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (GA, USA)[reply
  ]

• Comment College football has one of the largest fan bases of any sport in the United States, and it has many more teams than any professional sport does. It is a broad topic with alot of support. Bornagain4 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, I see your point, and I agree, and I am sorry if I made College football sond demeaning in my post, however, the Subject of college football is still not near asa broad as the Portals I mentioned above. Please see my other comments on this page for more information. Thanks- wforlines

Actually, why can't this material be covered in Portal:American football? Mixing in the college years would give that portal more depth to plumb from. bd2412 T 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - college football and the NFL have different (though overlapping) rules and fan bases. I think a portal dedicated to each would do better serives to the respective fan bases. Johntex\^talk 19:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I hate to have this reutation of being so negative, but it just seems to make so much more since to me it the portal "football" was devided into subportals (College, and NFL). So each topic would still have its own page, but classified under a larger topic. I think it is in the best intrest of the Wikipedia community to follow through with this idea. Thank you for you consideration, and How 'bout them Dawgs? --
  'appy editing! 21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is utterly bizarre. There is no such thing as a "subportal". The term is used only to refer to a separate portal whose scope fits within that of a broader portal. Kirill Lokshin 21:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Discuss this with the admins of American Football --
  'appy editing! 21:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment My bad, I see your point. I am searching Wiki guidelines now to see if there is an equivilent to the element I thought I was talking about. As far as I know, a wikiproject is the best option. I don't see why a well structured wikiproject could not accomplish what you are talking about. (I am assuming, giving users a list of sites related to the subject [college football] and providing other resources using other Wikimedia outlets and external websites) Again, excuse my fumble of terms. — Preceding
  talk • contribs
  )

• Well, the relevant project there seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. I would guess that the intent of a portal here is primarily to showcase good articles, rather than to serve as a collaboration tool (since the project seems to be handling that quite capably already). Kirill Lokshin 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It having been 7 days, and with only one oppose, I have created a version of the potal under a corrected spelling (based upon the pattern of existing featured portals). Johntex\^talk 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:New England Patriots

It will cover all history, records, important people, and other. I hope to create portal for every NFL team. User:Woaddude 17:06 28 November 2007 (UTC)