Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals/Archive/July

July 2006 proposals

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 06:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Twin Peaks

There seems to be an effort amongst some users to contribute a lot of articles about the characters, episodes, etc, but it seems a bit sloppy and needs to be more co-ordinated. Considering Twin Peaks's place in television history, it's cult status, it's influence and not to mention it's richly textured mythology, I naturally propose a portal. Existing articles include:

Gerry Shannon 00:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opppose, extremely narrow topic, not a broad subject area. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too narrow, you could coordinate on the talk page Mecu 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not enough content to support a portal. Instead, I suggest a WikiProject as a way of coordinating contributions. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a portal, not a fan site. This is BIG. Like "Technology", "Science", "Art". No one will go to a WikiPortal for information on a mmildly successful television show. Your key word is cult, not international sensation. Even shows of the likes of Seinfeld, M*A*S*H, or The Late Show should not have a portal. Also, the guidelines suggest thirty articles, not five. So, maybe just a good base article with links to other related pages, or maybe a WikiProject. See how some others feel... Happy editing!--(wforlines) 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (GA, USA)[reply]

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 06:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:ICTforDevelopment

A fast-growing sector within IT (information technology) is that of ICTforDevelopment (also called ICT4D, I4D or under other similar names). Considerable interest has been shown in this field by non-profit organisations, the UN agencies, national governments, voluntary groups and others. It would be useful to bring all these strands under a common roof. In addition, this would help tap the potential of IT/ICT towards a socially useful goal, which is in parallel to those of initiatives like the Wikipedia. There is also a strong possibility of bringing e-books already published under Creative Commons license under this umbrella. Please share your thoughts, and, hopefully, support too. --fredericknoronha 19:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose core topic does not even have a strong article (see Information and Communication Technologies for Development); nothing that can not be covered in Portal:Information technology. bd2412 T 21:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose, way too narrow and obscure. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per bd2412. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rejoinder It seems "narrow and obscure" because it's a kind of a specialist topic, involving mainly concerned techies, the development community (including major funding organisations like IDRC of Canada and many others), the United Nations' organisations (such as the UNDP), and interested citizens. With due respect, I believe your judgement on this issue might be offtarget, and will work to convince you, initially by beefing up the page you mentioned that doesn't have a strong article above. As co-founder of BytesForAll.org, I do feel that you're missing out a lot. It sometimes seems that things don't exist just because we don't see them :-) --fredericknoronha 09:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional inputs: I have just updated the page mentioned above. Kindly visit http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Information_and_Communication_Technologies_for_Development

It shows more of the diversity of this field, though it is still far from complete. --fredericknoronha 11:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It may be a diverse field, but I am unconvinced that a portal would have anything more than an extremely small readership. It's not a broad topic area, which is what portals are supposed to be used for. Worldtraveller 11:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into existing portal "Information Technology" To narrow. e.g. there are no Portals on other protocols like this. --(wforlines) 18:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (GA, USA)[reply]

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 06:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Games Workshop

I personally think there is enough Games Workshop related articles, media, ETC. to create a portal. I have no idea how to make one... lol, so this is just a suggestion rather than a pledge. Hol e in the wall 20:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not a broad subject area. Worldtraveller 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose user is not committed Mecu 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In ref. to the above comments (and probibly below, too) No hard feelings, 'appy Editing! --(wforlines) 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (GA, USA)[reply]

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.