Portals

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve portals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortalsWikipedia:WikiProject PortalsTemplate:WikiProject PortalsPortals articles Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. See also: List of Portals

The recent failed RfC to close down portals entirely has highlighted the need for more automated updating of portals to keep them reasonably in-date. If this is to work, it must not be necessary to remove the automatic updating and thereby revert to high maintenance manual updating to allow featured portal status. Some changes to the criteria will probably be necessary.

One of the changes that is most likely to be almost universally used in automatically updating portals is the transclusion of selected article and biography leads instead of writing a summary specially for the portal, as the transcluded excerpt remains as up to date as in the actual article without additional work and does not require local referencing - any referencing can be done on the original, which is a click away and otherwise identical.

One problem that comes to mind is the restriction on the length of text to about 200 words (1b) Article and biography summaries should not significantly exceed 200 words in length. The lead of a featured article should be accepted as appropriate for inclusion as an excerpt, regardless of the actual length. If it was considered good for the featured article, it should be good for the portal. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many are still watching this talk page. This might be something to bring up on VP once we've stabilized our assessment criteria and come up with a solid proposal for FPo that might survive an RfC. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 19:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me more!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dthomsen8: What more did you want to know? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 22:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you (plural) stabilized the assessment criteria and come up with a solid proposal for FPo that might survive an RfC yet? Six months have passed!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the new portal assessment criteria were settled on quite a while ago (long discussion), and the result can be found here. As for the featured portal criteria, that bit ended up taking a back burner while we work on overhauling the remaining portals, and ironing out changes to the Portal guidelines (the activity of which you can see on the talk page). That will probably have to end with another RfC before everything's settled. Activity on these have slowed a bit, but we're still pushing ahead. Feel free to join the discussion. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 14:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]