Wikipedia talk:Featured portal criteria

message: 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. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tweaking the criteria 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. Skomorokh 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  De facto quality requirements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed addition to crtieria 

message: 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. — Deckiller 03:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Interesting" 

message: 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)
replies: text: See WP:Featured portal review. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may also consider to nominate Portal:Argentina as a featured portal. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  There's no COI if you maintain the portal and nominate it. I did this for Portal:Environment OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stale Portals featured? Why? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Since non-free content cannot be shown in portal namespace, why does point 3 need to be more specific? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non free content 

message: 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)
thread_title: Criteria

message: Criterion 3. calls for "linked credits" for selected pictures. This part of the criterion was  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)
replies: text: 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. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked credits 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Tell me more!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  What more did you want to know? — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 22:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Update of FP criteria to allow automated updating