Wikipedia talk:Featured portal criteria/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

What exactly

What exactly are the "standards set out in the Manual of style" in relation to portals? There isn't exactly a section for them that I could find. Perhaps this should be written? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is true. It's all very early in the mix. I'd imagine that more general conventions on spelling, measurements and such should apply to portals.--cj | talk 04:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What the French do

Looking at Wikipédia française, I found their criteria for featured (or quality) portals. The following is a rough interpretation (not translation) of that criteria (see here):

The following criteria should be considered when justifying a vote on a featured portal proposal. (To clarify: these criteria were not the subject of consensus and no featured portal adheres to it completely at this time):
Strict separation between portal and WikiProject.

Coherence and softness of its colours.

No red links.

Quality of its content.

Ergonomics (it is well-constructed, facilitating use and easily editable.)

This might be a guide to our own criteria.--cj | talk 05:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

depends on what they mean by separations of portal and project. I see nothing wrong with one having a link to the other. Rlevse 12:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, on French Wikipédia, there is a clear link between the portal and the project ! And the strict separation between the portal and the WikiProject allows for clarity and avoiding of duplication.

If no one disagrees, I will add this criteria to the current list. MaCRoEco (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you can't just dig up a 2-year-old idea and expect someone to respond immediately?! I oppose to the change, mainly because we already have similar criteria already. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You will notice I made no change for now. Anyway, what I suggest now is to adapt a bit the "similar criteria" and say a word about the project associated with a portal. MaCRoEco (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well-maintained - an additional proposal

I'd like to propose adding a sentence to the end of the "well-maintained" section along the following lines:

Any featured portal that requires maintenance and that is not updated for three or more months will be summarily demoted.

Comments? jguk 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, as long as it can be said that certain fields NEED to be updated on a regular basis and haven't been. A news section with the last entry somewhere in September would look bad, but I'm not sure if the "Did you know..." section is in such a desperate need of refreshment on a regular basis. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, but leaning toward acceptance of this additional criterion. Portals are inherently different from articles in that Portals are not articles. The trouble that I see is that someone will have to periodically monitor that the portal is kept updated and then update the Featured status when a portal "goes stale", for lack of a better term. However, with a three month grace period, portals don't have to be checked every day, but once a month or so, which makes the monitoring process easier. I guess what is the most bothersome is the word "summarily"; it seems counter to WP:CON, but as long as it's stated up front in the criteria, it's less of a problem. Also, it keeps the process simple to get it started; we can always revisit it later and add FPRC if enough editors think it necessary. So, I'll put in my acceptance. Slambo (Speak) 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll also go along with it, but in the interest of consensus, we should probably have a vote on removal, some sort of Featured portal removal candidate, or some such thing. Jon Moore 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be better to simply define what "updated regularly" is. For "selected" articles and images, a regular update would be at least monthly. News and DYK sections should go no longer than 2-3 months without updates. If the featured portal neglects to "regularly update" as defined here, then it may be removed - either by review or instant demotion.--cj | talk 16:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The new criteria makes sense to me. If the news section is two months out of date, then it's hardly our best work. Ambi 00:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In the light of the above, I've made the amendment, jguk 11:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Some possible extra requirements

The whole portal idea is a nice way to represent topics and I have seen some idea's that might make good "standard" features and almost requirements for featured portal.

These are giving links to important articles and lists.I think the london portal has implemented this wonderfully.I don't don't know what the thoughts are on this but imo only offering categories to the reader is a bit scarse and not a good "gideline" for a reader.

The other idea I think is to give a link to the parent portal and any subportals,but to avoid clutter the relation between these links should be direct and not a distant relative (example car > ferrari,but not car > train).

--Technosphere83 15:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, I was wondering when someone would suggest adding Portal:Cars to the Related portals section on Portal:Trains. Following the logic that you present, we should probably remove the link to Portal:Aviation and specify Portal:Transport as the parent portal to Portal:Trains (there aren't any child portals to Portal:Trains yet...)? Slambo (Speak) 18:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes,IMO it makes most sense to have a) the parent portal and b) child-portals. aviation is too distant from trains to be included.--213.224.243.217 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there some easy way of showing parentage/descendancy graphically? I'm thinking along the lines of nested lists here, but I would want it to use parentage lines like you see in the tree view of a file manager. Also, on such a display, how many levels up and down should be shown? So far, for Portal:Trains, we know its parent portal is Portal:Transport and its grandparent is Portal:Technology. If we follow the convention of showing two steps on either side of the current, like we have in the navbox on most year pages (like 2006), we should then include both of these. However, for subportals of the currently displayed portal, I think we should probably only list the next level so that we're not displaying too much information. So, it could look something like this (just picking some arbitrary names for nonexistant subportals right now):

Yeah, the | and - characters don't look very good, but you get the idea. A similar view could be used for the portal's associated WikiProjects section. Slambo (Speak) 11:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea.This is certainly a area were some standardisation can be done. I'm also would like some input on more or less making "topics" and "lists" a requirement for being featured.After all it is implementable for all portals and it also adds a lot to it--Technosphere83 19:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think links between parent and child portals are fine, but having a parent or child portal should NOT be required. Ditto for a WikiProject, showing it is fine, but having one should not be required.Rlevse 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't a child or parent portal (yet),it's obvious that you can't display what's not there.If there is a child/parent it would be good practise to have the link. Portals are navigation aids after all.

At the moment the featured requirements are a bit light no?At this pace all the portals will be "featured".I also stand by the thought that only offering categories as a means of navigation and understanding the topic isn't really bringing the "portal" idea to it's fullest potentional.

in short :

Give an intro to the subject.
Display parent/child relation if applical.
Give a topical overview of the subject.
Display the most important lists releated to the subject.
Display important categories.
one "good" article and one "good" picture.
If a project exists link to it.

I think a news section should remain optional,because it requires to much maintenance (and there already is wikinews,which reminds me is there a way to "plug-in" wikinews stories with a filter?)

The did you know sections should also remain optional and also the "things you can do".

--Technosphere83 16:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor quibble:

Displaying the parent should be optional if the only parent is a top-level portal (since it should already be linked from {{browsebar}}).
Having good articles/pictures should not be required if the portal uses featured articles/pictures by default.

Other than that, looks good. —Kirill Lok s hin 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On the lists of the most important aspects in a topic, I'm assuming that you don't mean that the lists should be transcluded into the portal (just looking at Portal:Trains relevant content List of United States railroads and List of railroad executives are both quite large, for example), but should be linked to. Right? Slambo (Speak) 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you kirill,although I must admit I forgot that the main portals are on top :). But that's only because the are text only and are a bit cluttered with the text chunk ontop.

Slambo,I don't mean that the content of the links must be in the portal,I'm only suggestinig the most important lists should be mentioned with a link.For my part you can drop "most important" I was just trying to quantify it a bit--Technosphere83 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ergonomical"?

Shouldn't that be "ergonomic"? I think "ergonomical" is just "ergonomic" with a redundant suffix tacked on, similar to regardless/irregardless, pedantic/pedantical, and several other not-quite-words that I've seen on Wikipedia lately. 4.253.45.115 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more similar to ironic/ironical.--cj | talk 06:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured content on portals

Should it be considered self-referential to explicitly list featured content on portals?--cj | talk 06:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No more so than explicitly listing WikiProjects, or other portals, or linking to content on sister projects. Even if it were, I can't imagine why we would want to forbid it, considering that the purpose of portals is quite fundamentally to showcase high-quality content. Kirill Lokshin 13:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the purpose. But should this not be achieved in non-self-referential ways? The listing of WikiProjects is exluded from the self-reference criterion as section encouraging contribution. Related portals and Subportals are equivalent to See also and "main article" links in articles, Associated Wikimedia is the same as {{sisterlinks}}, {{wikinewspar}} and {{commonscat}}. Another feature appearing on portals recently that I see as a function of projectspace is New articles.--cj | talk 13:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems, to me, to be a rather silly argument by semantics. The listing of WikiProjects is excluded not because it is a "section encouraging contribution" (one could make a similar argument for many unnnecessary things) but because we have determined that it is useful for portals to list related WikiProjects. Similarly, if we believe that listing featured content is useful—and I believe it is, particularly for those portals whose normal content rotation involves other articles—then we should permit it regardless of whether we can acutally find some bureaucratic loophole under which it wouldn't be a self-reference. Kirill Lokshin 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Kirill Lokshin. The criteria for portals says that it should represent "some of our best work". Wikipedia's "best work" is its featured content - what better way of representing it than on a portal? Furthermore, the "self-referential" concept itself is regarding articles - portals are designed to be self-referential. Their purpose is to be self-referential. If portals cannot be self-referential, then we should not be allowed to have "showcase articles" or "Topics" or anything of the sort. Showcasing "featured" content is purely an extension of this. DJR (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Using web resources on the portals

There are portals who have web resources on the portal page. I strongly disagree to have web resources on the portals, because, the web resources links motivate the users/readers to leave the Wikipedia project. External links should always be used to cite the texts on the page. All the texts on the portals come from the various articles and projects. So I suppose there is no need of Web resources. They seem like advertising. I would like to get added one more point in the criteria for featured portal, i.e. 7. It should not contain extensive external links which are not useful as refernces on the portal. We have one featured portal, Portal:Houston, which contains extensive eternal links in the "Web Resources" section at the bottom. The issue has been come into picture regarding disputed promotion of Portal:Vancouver which contains extensive external links. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 20:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Web resources found on Portal:Houston are not advertising. They are city government sites. I feel that these external links enhance the portal and are indeed useful as references on the portal. Web resources/external links are found on portals, as well as many featured articles. The guidelines apparently do not state that external links are prohibited for featured articles. Why should a featured portal have additional restrictions than those for a featured article? External links on featured articles also allow users to leave the project, so what's the difference? Also, what is considered "extensive" ? I only have 5. Thanks, Postoak 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The main point is, the Wikipedia portals are the ports for Wikipedia articles and projects, not for other websites. The featured articles could have external links because they have texts included in it. Somehow external links could be useful to make any updates from available web resources information. But all the texts on the portal come from Wikipedia contents. There is nothing good for Wikipedia in providing external links, rather than it could harm the project. The main task of the portal is to enhance collaboration on related articles, rather than to leave the main project. There is hard possibility to come back to the portal once a user starts visiting other external links. I hope, that clears out the point. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, except for the point you are requesting to be added. Please clarify: 7. It should not contain extensive external links which are not useful as refernces on the portal. My interpretation is that external links are still acceptable, but just don't add too many. I repeat, what is considered extensive? Furthermore, you request this to be added to Wikipedia:What is a featured portal?, what about Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines? Thanks, Postoak 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 1

Criterion 1 is useless and ambiguous. Any objections to deleting it? It's one of those sentences that sounds like it's saying something but it's not. It's basically saying, "it should be real good". Quadzilla99 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 1 says: "It exemplifies our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet." I have no objection to the first clause, but the second one ... what are these unique qualities, and is a FT ineligible if it doesn't represent them? Tony 08:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I've removed it.--cj | talk 08:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

800x600

I was told a long time ago that to be featured a portal must fit, with no "broken" boxes, in 800x600 screen resolution. It is not written in the criteria, so was just wondering if it does indeed need to fit 800x600 or not. Joe I 04:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that standardizing all the portals sizes would be a good idea. To have a picture viewable at 800x600 means that it looks terrible (or doesn't work) at 1290x960 or at 1152x864, which are resolutions used much more commonly. Dfrg.msc 08:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe having a pic look "small" at higher resolutions is a bad as having the right column display below the left column at 800X600 when the pic is "too big." I never would support such a candidate. If I did comment on the nomination, I would oppose it. RichardF 12:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but I just don't think that many people display at 800X600 anymore. Many many more have resolutions of 1152x864 and higher. If you want to change the picture on my portal, so that your happy with it, go right ahead. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 07:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't go changing pictures willy nilly billy bob, but thanks for offering! ;-) If Wikipedia had/has a MOS ruling on this somewhere (I have no idea), I wouldn't object to it saying something like, "800X600 displays need not be supported." RichardF 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal requirements

Hey, Ive started a personal requirements page at User:Searchme/Sand, since the ones here are very ambiguous. I would like to add some to the criteria if others feel the same way. Please stop by and let me know what you think about any one or all together. Joe I 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice set of requirements, Joe. Sometimes I use a similar Portal design/review checklist to help organize my thoughts. RichardF 14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Importer Bot

Thanks to Misza13, the Wikinews Importer Bot now is available to automatically import certain dynamically-generated Wikinews pages into Wikipedia portals. See the pages that link to User:Wikinews Importer Bot for a growing list of examples. Check it out! RichardF (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking the criteria

I propose that for any portals that are related to organisms (e.g. Dinosaurs portal, Dogs portal, etc.), they should all have a link to Wikispecies in the Wikimedia projects section. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - provided terminology is slightly clearer. Maybe "for all portals which have as their central focus subject a specific group of non-human lifeforms" or some other sufficiently verbose, obscenely obvious phrasing. Otherwise, unfortunately, someone might potentially try to indicate that any portal which deals with humans, which are organisms, would have to be included as well. I don't like it myself, actually, but... . John Carter (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition to crtieria

There have been a few recent comments about how the criteria do not specifically require that content in given portal sections be changed or rotated. I would suggest, if possible, that in some way it be clearly indicated in the page that having simply one article selected for a given section is not sufficient to meet FP criteria. John Carter (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. Do you have any proposed wording? Cirt (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It is an issue that is long overdued. I'm considering to implement changes this holiday. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Word count in summaries / blurbs

What is the acceptable word count for summaries? I have an empirically derived number but is this number consistent with expectations.

N = most recent Featured Portal promotions	Median word count of summary	Range of word count
13 portals	202 words	104 to 244 words

Is this what is expected? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Per ongoing discussion at the recent FPOCs for the Anglicanism portal, I suggest adding the following text to the criteria.

"For ease of readability, single-column text boxes should usually occupy around a third to two-thirds of the total screen height (around 100–225 words plus a picture), with a maximum of around 40% of screen height for double-column text boxes."

Espresso Addict (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The intro box size seems to be about in the ballpark. Intro boxes with fancy banners and tabs tend to be a bit taller. The double-column size does not. Selected articles, bios and special topics are more likely to be in the 75% - 125% screen height range. Any of the other boxes, e.g., category trees, Wikinews lists and geographic infoboxes can be longer at times, depending on content. Full-width boxes on topics, lists and other contents sections also can be larger than the screen size. I can see the point of striving for viewability of an entire selected article/bio/special interest item on one screen and listed samples, e.g., DYKs, but comprehensive content lists, e.g., topics, should be allowed to fill the space required. RichardF (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has related mainly to the Introduction and Selected articles/biographies. I agree that the length of list items, such as category trees or topics, isn't as important for the readability of the portal, particularly as they tend to fall towards the bottom of the page. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I intentionally introduced two other points since the viewing frame issue was raised. The first is that more than "Selected articles" and "Selected biographies" use this type of layout. Other article-type selections include groupings like locations, organizations, breeds and other topical categories. The second point is indeed that such a viewability discussion should apply to all types of boxes, particularly in terms of when it would be okay to require scrolling to see an entire box. RichardF (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How about:

"For ease of readability, single-column text boxes containing prose (such as the Selected article) should usually occupy around a third to two-thirds of the total screen height (around 100–225 words plus a picture), with a maximum of around 40% of screen height for double-column text boxes. Boxes containing lists (such as Topics, Category tree) can be longer if the content requires."

Espresso Addict (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. John Carter (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I just pointed out selected articles and related boxes typically are longer. Forcing them to be as short as proposed is an unnecessary restriction on covering typical article lead sections without losing key points. I counterpropose the target limit should be "no more than 100% of the viewing frame at 1024X768 screen resolution." RichardF (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal optimum choices would be "about 2/3 of the screen without picture, or the extant lead section of the article", as the former is about what the featured article on the Main Page today is, and I think they've probably got a fairly good idea as to what works, and the latter is presumably the best summary of the content of the article. I have asked (possibly in the wrong place, I dunno) the editors of the main page how they determine how much material to include in the selected article at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Main Page#How is the length of the Featured article section determined?, and think whatever their guidelines are, if they have any, are probably good ones. But what both of you say seems to be in the same basic range of the current Featured article. Questions that come to mind regarding some portals, like how long the lead sections are for portals that don't have a lot of FAs or similar to put in the portals, are what leads me to consider as little as 1/3 screen. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the entire lead section of a long article can be far too long -- for a featured or good article, it's often 350 to 400 words.

I agree that the main-page blurb is a good length. Actually it was one of the things I counted when I came up with my above word count -- they tend to come in at around 180–220 words. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You've got a good point regarding the length of the a lot of GA/FA leads. The only real question I have is trying to figure out how to prune them so they still cover the subject enough to provide enough information to entice the reader and meet the shorter requirements at the same time. In some cases that's fairly clear, in others less so. And, considering the Main page basically is our "ultimate" featured portal, it's probably the best template we've got. Longer sections might make sense in portals where there are less sections or possibly those which deal with comparatively complicated subjects. I can't think of any examples right off, but I can't rule out the possibility out of hand either. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, some flexibility is definitely called for, there are always special situations and we don't want all the portals to look alike! Actually, I don't know whether the length will correlate positively or negatively with complexity of subject -- when I did some counts of portal blurbs, my minimum word count came from philosophy. Writing short summaries should be relatively easy, as there's no requirement to summarise the entire article, merely to entice readers in. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely others will want to voice their opinions on this. Anyone? --Secisek (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Espresso Addict. 200 words is pretty much the upper limit for portal blurbs. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I will add this to the critria and renominate the portal. Why was this so hard? -- Secisek (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, please see [1]. -- Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Interesting"

The use of the word "interesting" seems quite vague and subjective. I suggest either its removal or a change to something like "significant". Such a wording change would also allow us to compress that criterion into fewer words and sentences, thereby making it more succinct and straightforward. — Deck iller 03:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

De facto quality requirements

I am wondering what the de facto quality requirements for showcase articles on a featured portal are. Do portals which are otherwise great generally fail if they showcase B-Class articles? If they showcase less than 10 articles (assuming no substitutes e.g. showcase biographies)? Any guidance from WP:FPOC insiders appreciated. On behalf of Portal:Anarchism, Skomorokh 13:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of portals showcase B-class, as long as they have used most, if not all, FA and GA. The common norm is to showcase at least 15 in each area (biography, article, picture, quotes). DYK is the exception to this rule. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Skomorokh 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

B-class is okay, generally should not go lower than that in quality when researching for selections. -- Cirt (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Stale Portals featured? Why?

Why is the Portal:Cuba a Featured Portal? It has not been maintained for a long time. The "In The News" section has had no direct new postings since March 2010, and the import from Wikinews have sporadic use, and nothing since 15 October 2010. Similarly with the "Selected Biography" and the "Quote of the Day" sections which are stale and repeating.

I am at a loss as to why this is considered a "Featured Portal" when another portal in the group: Portal:Argentina is not, and has been maintained daily and painstakingly since February 2008 (check the "News", "Selected Picture", "Selected Article of the Month", "Archives", and "Did You Know" sections, which are frequent and up to date) -- (COI disclaimer: I am the chief maintainer of the Argentina Portal). -- Alexf^(talk) 16:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Featured portal review. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You may also consider to nominate Portal:Argentina as a featured portal. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Cuba has been added to FPR. I have not nominated Argentina in the past two years out of COI. I don't think (maybe out of a wrong-sense of propriety) that I should be the nominator. In this case it got the better of me to see a related portal merrily going around unused and unmaintained for so long, yet featured. I am sure there are many more I don't now about. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no COI if you maintain the portal and nominate it. I did this for Portal:Environment OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Non free content

Point 3 says "(see Wikipedia:Non-free content)." Shouldn't it be more specific? The important part, which should always be checked and fixed if needed, is that no non-free images should be used in portals. They are used only in article namespace, and no others; portal namespace is no exception. Cambalachero (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Since non-free content cannot be shown in portal namespace, why does point 3 need to be more specific? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As it is, it would seem as if that was a complex policy with many rules to follow; but in this case, there's only one rule that counts. Cambalachero (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

I've browsed some portal nominations and have found that reviewers use stricter standards than is apparent from the criteria page. I think it should be updated with these criteria explicitly stated. Abyssal (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Linked credits

Criterion 3. calls for "linked credits" for selected pictures. This part of the criterion was added without discussion and context.

What I think it says is that the pictures should have proper credits on their local File page or on Commons and that image syntax should not be used to override the link feature. This requirement is evident on Wikipedia, covered in other guidelines, and need not be spelled out here. How it frequently translates to practice in portals is, however, problematic: an actual line of credits is added as a caption to the images. Even exemplar portals like Portal:London do this. Credits in captions is not required by any free license, in article space it's actually discouraged, it contributes nothing useful to the portal, and introduces an undesired implication of ownership.

I recommend removing "linked credits" from the criteria because it promotes this undesired effect on portal pages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. On one hand, I agree that it's extremely uncommon to have credits. On the other hand, Commons displays its picture of the year with full credit. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)