Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals/Archive/April
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 07:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Related to National Register of Historic Places and the growing List of National Register of Historic Places entries, and providing a braoder global POV (eg. "conservation", &tc.). To feature news and new articles created for over 80,000 "places" in the United States and numerous historic houses worldwide. Related to Portal:Architecture. —dogears (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest you either expand the scope to cover historic preservation in all countries, or name this as "United States historic preservation" or similar.-gadfium 20:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say it would really need to be about historic preservation generally - if it were to be only about US historic preservation your number of potential readers and editors would be needlessly and substantially reduced. Worldtraveller 22:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 07:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a good idea because there are many separate articles about the game such as Halo (video game series),Halo 2,List of multiplayer gametypes in Halo 2, and Criticism of Halo 2! 24.205.171.234 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I do not think this meets the criteria of needing to attract a large number of readers and potential editors. Worldtraveller 22:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose creation.--cj | talk 04:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Kittybrewster 14:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- oppose - much too narrow in scope. Merge the articles instead. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose This appears to merit articles more than a portal. Kukini
21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was oppose creation.--cj | talk 07:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Posted by Jackp 05:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Coverage is not extensive enough, and the necessity for such a portal is relieved by Portal:Australia.--cj | talk 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm willing to get info for the portal!!! 202.6.138.34 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest people interested in a Sydney portal get involved in the running of the Australia portal first, both to get experience in portal maintenance and to show they have a long-term commitment. It might be worth considering a New South Wales portal instead, as there will be a greater range of articles and pictures to select from.-gadfium 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with both the anon IP user and gadfium that a Sydney portal is unnecessary at this time. --Coolcaesar 04:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, as the above comments point out, the Australia portal needs to be grown first. Kukini 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was support creation.--cj | talk 07:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As of the time of writing, most major European countries have a portal of their own, and think Belgium should also be granted this right. Since Brussels is the seat of the EU and of NATO, Belgium plays a relatively major part in world politics because of this. I would be willing to work on this portal, even though I'm not exactly sure of how the Wiki Code works at this point, but I am most definately willing to do this to create this much-needed portal. Acelor 09:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support creation.--cj | talk 07:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support creation. Belgium Rocks.--Eva db 14:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.