User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Cullportals

Discussion 1

@SmokeyJoe, per your suggestion of workshopping an RFC draft, here's a draft to set the ball rolling.

What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Good. Thanks. Please excuse my bursts of grump.

On your part, I think it is not good enough that you are right, you have to bring people with you.

I think there is an urgent need to agree on and define the questions. I think important questions include begin with

What is a Portal?

What is the purpose of a Portal?

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @SmokeyJoe.

I see your point, but I learnt long ago that in these things you can't bring everyone with you. Some just aren't gonna travel in that direction, no matter what happens. Others are talkable to, but not everybody.

So, The Question.

I started this draft because I thought you were interested in a proposal to do a simple cull proposal.

Now you seem to be proposing a very different, philosophical sort of proposal. that may have its place too, but it is a better fit with the sort of discussions taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC: Portals guideline.

Which sort of RFC do you want to do? Cull or philosophy? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl. ...

I want the cull opponents to engage in the philosophy, and failing that the cull will continue.

I have been watching portal criticism from MfD for over ten years, mostly stubbornly insisting of keeping out of an entirely non-productive area. TPH used to nominate a lot, and I watched and tried to gain a view. My conclusion is that portals are supposedly for reader navigation, but they fail that objective, and that they fail to do comprehensive navigation, and further, they fail to do NPOV navigation. I note that they usually cross the line into WikiProject showcasing. I think virtually all portals, by number, fail to serve any purpose. I was hoping to see portal supporters engage in this conversation, as opposed to being brow beaten and intimidated, has been starting to happen. Philosophically, that's where I am, and I have a forlorn wish that this could be discussed by the Portal MfD "keep" !voters. Failing that, the only way forward is the cull. To continue the cull. The cull has progressing rapidly via MfD. I wish to document the cull, so that the community can be advised of what is happening and have a page on which to comment. My prediction of the future, based on the current trajectory, is that all portals will be culled, one way or another, until there are just 10-100 left. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion 2

PS Robert McClenon -- any thoughts? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl - I am inclined to think that three parallel RFCs are in order. The first is the one that I kicked off, because I was tired of listening to talk about how we need an RFC but how we need to make sure that it is the very perfect RFC before we kick it off. The second that I would like to see is simply about the purposes of portals, and asks readers to vote for between 0 and N of N possible reasons to have portals. The third is an RFC specifying criteria for the culling of portals. That is what I think. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I still would also like to know what User:SmokeyJoe wants to do, other than complain about portals and complain about the portal guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Robert McClenon.

Well done kicking off the guidelines RFC. I think it will be fun to watch how the portalistas decide whether or not they like their own guideline. Popcorn time!

And please don't misread Joe. He and I growl at each other a wee bit, but he's good soul who think a lot and follows slightly different paths to get to similar destinations. We sometimes rub each other up v wrong way, but I have yet to see a major issue where jumped in bad direction.

Anyway, I like your 3 RFCs plan.

If Joe is still on for it, do you think that something like this cull plan could fit in that map? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If you look at MfD 2018-2019, the cull is the status quo, I can't see how it can not be considered to be on the table. I am also astonished that the cull is not considered worthy of mention at WP:POG.

I strongly dislike the many conversations in many places. I can't keep up with them. Village pump conversations and user_talk conversations don't work for me, they don't work with watchlisting, and I lose track of them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)