Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Vancouver

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Vancouver

I have done some work on this portal. It is largely based on the London portal and it does look very attractive. I think it's ready to become a featured portal. -- Selmo (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. The portal is clean, easy and comprehensive. There is a fair amount of content and directs is readers accurately. The portal is also updated regularily and has a very managable layout. Mkdwtalk 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • The news section is completely devoid of content.
    • The topic list isn't really adequate, at this point.
    • The selected image needs a picture credit.
  • More generally, the portal really has only a single update in its history. Unless it's changed to use some form of auto-rotation, I can't support it with such a short track record. Kirill Lokshin 02:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I am unclear what you mean by a single update in its history. The portal page itself is a collection of many subpages transposed onto it. For example the featured article and featured picture are seperate pages that transposed on as a section. As such the sections are edited independently and thus have a different edit history than the main portal page. Ultimately the main portal page's only modifications should only be to the layout and not content wise. The featured article, featured picture, did you know, and news have all been rotated many times. Mkdwtalk 04:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added the image credit for both of the pictures that was displayed, and expanded the topic section. The news section was also updated with two current events. The article & picture of the month is now in auto rotation. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I have expanded the topic section considerably. Also a quotes section has been added and will automatically rotate newly added quotes every 10 minutes. Mkdwtalk 05:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Right now, that section has ten copies of the same quote. Rfrisbietalk 06:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I am current searching for more Vancouver-related quotes. I have also created a 'Suggest' a quote section. Since the process is automatic, it will not take long for that to quickly change and the rotation is indefinite. Mkdwtalk 20:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. As above, plus: Support. Good faith efforts to build up sufficient content for rotated sections. Rfrisbietalk 04:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Insufficient amounts of rotated content. The emeging consensus (1, 2) is that each rotated section should have at least ten items.Rfrisbietalk 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Agree - Although I think 10 is a bit unfair for monthly rotation. Weekly rotation is not realistic for minor portals. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 20:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The actual number is under discussion, so that's just the closest rule-of-thumb we have for now. It's really up to whomever participates in this nomination discussion and the closer. Rfrisbietalk 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Could you be more specific on what you mean by rotated content. If you're talking about sections, I have yet to find a single featured portal that rotates over 10 sections of content on a regular basis. For example the Portal:London rotates several sections of Did You Know, Selected Article, Selected Picture, and Quotes, but only masses to 6. Mkdwtalk 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
            • This portal appears to rotate four sections: articles, pictures, DYK, and quotes. The minimum number of, let's say, "items" refers to each section. So, the "Showcase Article for <current month>" would need at least ten (or whatever consensus is) articles in the archive (past/present/future) for rotation. The same principle would apply to all of the remaining rotated content sections. Rfrisbietalk 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
              • I understand. For content that rotates monthly, 10 as a minimum requirement seems unreasonable and as far as I can tell, the only thing holding this Portal back from its featured article status. The News and Quote section content changes continuously. The Showcase content (Article, Picture, and Biography) along with the Did You Know section have a small track record, but that cannot speak for the future for many of the contributors to the portal have taken on the responsibility of rotating the content per month. We have also made an additional attempt to include users in the selection process by providing a Candidates or Vote section. Only a couple featured portals have included that option for their Showcase or Selected sections. By implementing this it will make the task of finding new content to post much easier and thus a group effort rather than a single person. Mkdwtalk 03:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Also, the upcoming content for next month has already been prepared and will automatically appear on the portal on the new year. We could take this even further and have content ready for the next 4 or 5 months and would again be automatically rotated when Wikipedia's calendar turns over a month. Mkdwtalk 02:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Portal title is shown twice at the top of the page;
      • I have taken care of that.
    • No image captions;
      • Well, usually portals don't have captions, taking a look at a couple other FPOs.
      • Solved. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 05:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • No. Not all images have captions. Rfrisbietalk 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
          • They all have captions except the clickable ones, to which are not able to have caption at the same time. The choice was made to have them clickable over having captions. Mkdwtalk 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Your contention is not true, and your clickable captions do have captions. In any event, AQu01rius seems to have taken care of the remaining images. Rfrisbietalk 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Images at Related pages are not "clickable" to those pages;
      • I have made them clickable.
    • Link to Portal:British Columbia, which is under construction. Rfrisbietalk 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Done. -- Selmo (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actual archived article and picture items are not accessible from the archive pages. The archive infobox link to the designated talk page is red. Rfrisbietalk 13:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The actual archived items are not accessible in the archive pages? Check again... Pictures, Articles.
        • Okay, found them. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 18:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • For the red link, it's now fixed with a systematic message. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this portal will need a couple specific Vancouver-only section. I will work on it when I have time. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 18:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The portal is mostly comprised of 'Vancouver-only' sections. It was not out intention to make this portal directly about the 'City of Vancouver'. The scope of the portal would be too small and 'Vancouver' does refer to 'Greater Vancouver'. This would mainly be an argument of usage but all Vancouverites, from Richmond to North Vancouver usually refer to themselves as being from Vancouver. Also on all maps, Vancouver is used to refer to the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Much like saying the difference between New York City and Manhattan. The Introduction, News, Did You Know..., Showcase Article, Showcase Picture, Showcase Biography, and Quotes are all directly related to Vancouver. Mkdwtalk 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Objections:

  • Use proper bold link for highlighted one in News section. Instead of B.C., please use British Columbia at every place. Rather than using read more for the refernces, name the reference.
    • I'm not sure how to describe this. The news stories do not have articles created about them on Wikipedia. As such, the 'proper bold link for highlighted one' (not sure which specifically is the highlighted one), could not contain an internal link, or if it did, would not lead anywhere. Unlike a regular article where you would reference the source using a template and a references section, Wikinews along with other current events portals such as Portal:Current events and Portal:Current events/Canada link the story directly in a 'Read More' fashion with the direct link to the news story (in most cases an external link). Sometimes News Feeds do not even give the external link as they are not required to, but we have included it as a service. I have inserted the internal link for all the BC references. I'm going to keep them as BC as abreviations and acronyms are an acceptable way of referencing provinces and the internal links do have a mouse over. Mkdwtalk 10:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I would say instead of naming the link as (Read More...), name it with the reference, e.g. The Vancouver Sun or CBCnews. Shyam (T/C)
        • Listing the source like that could be misleading. Readers may feel they link to the Vancouversun rather than the story. The point of the News section is to direct users to outside news articles pretaining to Vancouver. Unlike Wikinews where its meant to write entire news articles. The Read More is clear, concise to the point, and is in style with the rest of the Portal (Introduction, Showcase Article, Showcase Biography, Showcase Picture, DYK, etc. etc.). I have referenced the stories though. Mkdwtalk 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
          • No, they are all internal links, so using Read more for them is suitable. But we do not want to say the readers to say read more on the external websites. They are used as reference only. If you realy want readers to read more about that news, then please create an appropriate section/article out of the news. Shyam (T/C) 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't think the fact that whether they're internal links or external links make their common and look and feel and general purpose different. Read More is exactly about that, reading more about the subject. If 'I' want people to read more, I'll have them read the news article. Creating the news story in an encyclopedia especially as a developing story is more for the Wikinews project or Current Events Portal. Again, this is highly a personal issue of stylistic choice and you may find leaving them on the Portal talk:Vancouver is a more suitable place for related requests. Mkdwtalk 07:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of Featured Articles, use Featured contents if you want to use comments for Featured pictures in the concerned section.
    • done. Mkdwtalk 10:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not in favour of use of web resources, which are external links, on the portal. Please do not use them here. They can be found on the main article, i.e. Vancouver. If not, please list them there.
    • External links are not forbidden for featured portals. See Portal:Houston as an example featured portal that has a very similar section. If you're arguing about redundant information, technically all the showcase articles, biographies, and pictures can be 'found' somewhere else. The Portal is a resourceful collect of all useful material with out having users go on a wild goose chase. Mkdwtalk 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is not the listed criteria for featured portals, but these external links should not use on the portal. This is the port for only Wikipedia articles and related collaborations, not for the external websites. I do not favour two links on the main page for the same thing. I do not seek any wild goose chase, if it is not listed in Tasks YOU can do section. Shyam (T/C)
        • The best example of what a featured portal should and can contain is from looking at other featured portals. With no disrespect from you, since there is no policy regarding this, as like in law, referring to previous cases of accepted featured portals implementing the very section is a concrete reference over the opinion of a reviewer. I personally think its a great resource and easy access that provides the most credible websites regarding Vancouver outside of Wikipedia. Why wouldn't you want to direct users to those sites, as the point of a portal is the collection of useful information for users in a convinent location. Mkdwtalk 10:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but I do not agree with you at this point. External links should be strictly prohibited from the portal page. They could lead the users to leave the portal and collaborations at the moment. Shyam (T/C)
            • Having the links on the portal does not violate WP:EL or any other policy/guideline. -- Selmo (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Having them leave Wikipedia is not a bad thing. Its why references and external links are required for featured articles. Mkdwtalk 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
              • They are used as references only or to abstract information out of those external links. Shyam (T/C) 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please remove redundant links for voting for the next month's showcase article/picture/biography from Tasks YOU can do section. Consider Removing the redundant links for suggestions about DYK/Quote/News/Talk page.
    • The Portal:London was the featured portal we used as an example in creating this portal. As you will observe they mention the vote areas in the Tasks YOU can do. I feel again, another simple way of putting everything in one tidy spot for users to look for. Removing links for the sake of removing redundant information does not seem like practical idea, for then we would have to remove all the duplicate internal links such as Vancouver that appears in many places of the portal. Again, other featured portals (to which the Portal:London is one of the best featured portals on wikipedia) implements the same information sets and I think their example is best in this case. Mkdwtalk 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, there is no objection using same links on the portal page, if you want. Shyam (T/C)
  • Please create/link properly the sister projects. Most of them are currently non-existant. If it is not possible to find out or create appropriate links easily then please remove them from the section.
    • All the links on the Portal do exist. You may want to check again. I have been involved in the set up of a few of them. Mkdwtalk 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not sure which links are you talking about. I found only commons and wiktionalry link existed. Other links, like wikinews, wikiquote, wikibooks, wikisource do not. Shyam (T/C)
        • Perhaps you are refering to the Wikimedia links and not the sister projects. The sister projects to the Portal:Vancouver are other portals and wikiprojects such as the WikiProject Quebec, Portal:Canada, WikiProject British Columbia etc. The wikimedia links on the bottom are part of the base template for all portals: {{portals}}. Those links on the bottom are actually external links to Wikimedia, Wikinews, Wikibooks etc. which are actually different sites than en.wikipedia. While those pages may not exist, I dont feel it falls under the scope of this project to create external pages from Wikipedia. Mkdwtalk 09:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, I am referring to Associate wikimedias. I know them as sister projects. I do not favor to have the links which are non-existant. If you are not interested to create/link them, then please delist them. Shyam (T/C)
            • If you review other featured portals such as the Portal:Houston, Portal:Scouting, and Portal:Indonesia as just some examples of portals that do not have complete Associate Wikimedia links that are listed. I don't see the disadvantage of listing them, its apparently acceptable for featured portals, and who knows, perhaps by listing them people will realize those pages exist and are not complete -- and will complete them. The portal is the only place on Wikipedia those links will be listed for Vancouver and I think its a good way for people to find out about them and work on them. Remeber that Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Mkdwtalk 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I have created pages for all of the associate projects except WikiBooks which will require a considerable amount of work. Mkdwtalk 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Well done. Shyam (T/C) 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please archive selected biographies for the next month.
    • The showcase biography is still in the process of nomination and I hestitate to archive a non-complete article. A basic working version has been started, but until we have the complete version we want to post, the archiving can wait. Usually you dont archive future pages as per the definition of archive. We have archived the future Showcase Article and Picture for January 2007 as additional work for the future, but is not expected for most featured portals. In fact we are most likely the first to be this far ahead. Furthermore the January 2007 Showcase Biography has not had all the final touches done and will be archived as soon as the to-be-posted version is complete. Mkdwtalk 09:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As the portal is about a small region, it is lack of good articles. It could be good to have back-up for at least one month for selected articles/pictures/biographies to avoid any maintenance problem.
    • The portal content for next month will automatically be rotated into the portal and has already been written. It only needs the calendar to turn over. Mkdwtalk 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I could not find out for selected biographies. There is only one biography there. If there is no other biographies existed, then please remove that section as well. Shyam (T/C)
        • I am a little puzzled by this. An archive of Showcase biographies exists and the link is listed at the bottom of the section. Pamela Anderson is the first Showcase Biography ever. Why would you remove the section if there wasn't a previous one? You technically could never have a 'first' one if in order to have that section you'd need 'previous'. The Showcase Biography was just started in December and will continue to rotate in new Biographies every month. You can vote on January 2007 in the vote section to where you'll see a nomination that will most likely become next month's. Please check over the portal more carefully as some of these objections could have been avoided. Mkdwtalk 09:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not think Quotes section really fits there. There is no archive related to this. The present quote is also not very much related to Vancouver, but British Columbia. Please work on it or remove.
    • The quotes section is fit to proportion so it should fit using any resolution. There is no need for an archive section for the quotes rotate every 10 minutes automatically. All the quotes are directly related to Vancouver. I spent a considerable amount of time ensuring.
      • The Sam Sullivan (our current mayor) quote: "To know that this Olympic flag will be flying over Vancouver, over city hall, is truly, truly wonderful." directly mentions Vancouver and the 2010 Winter Olympics.
      • The Jennifer Wyatt quote (famous Vancouverite who toured the LPGA): "Unfortunately, I don't do much preparation for these events, as I have a full teaching schedule at Pacific Coast Golf Centre in Richmond" again directly mentions Richmond, a part of Vancouver
      • The George Vancouver quote (explorer): "The sea has now changed from it's natural, to river coloured water, the probable consequence of some streams falling into the bay, or into the ocean to the north of it, through the low land" is a quote describing the area of Vancouver. If you would like the encyclopedic reference and further dialog that quote was exerted from, please post a message on my talk page.
    • I feel those examples are enough to support my argument. Mkdwtalk 02:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, they are sufficient. But please put the link for all quotes on the main page. I suppose there is no harm in it. Shyam (T/C)
        • I put a link to the Wikiquote site which has all the quotes used in the automated rotation. Mkdwtalk 07:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Use wikipedia link instead. Wikiquote link is already listed in Associate wikimedia. Shyam (T/C) 07:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Please see the Portal:London to see how they've archived their quotes. Mkdwtalk 08:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Please do not use examples of other ones to restrict in making the portal better. There are less quotes available on the wikiquote. Portal:London is strictly using all the quotes from wikiquote. For this portal, there are many quotes available on the wikipedia page from where they are featured on the portal page. Shyam (T/C) 09:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Actually, its the recommendation to use other featured portals as examples. I study law, and previous trials set the standard on how future trials proceed and their outcome. The same could be said about Wikipedia's process for featured portals are current examples of Wikipedia's finest work and what is accepted and what is not. Furthermore, the number of quotes on Wikiquote are directly proportionate to the number of quotes rotated on our portal. I don't see how its a limitation since the portal uses the quotes from Wikiquote. Also I haven't found any quotes pertaining to Vancouver on the en.wikipedia other than the ones rotated on our portal. Mkdwtalk 18:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please bold the highlighted links in DYK sections. Use links other than Vancouver in the section. e.g. highlight total foreign exports in first, revenue/economy of Vancouver in second. There is no need of seperate link for port. Highlight in DYK itself. Shyam (T/C) 12:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The DYK section does not only link Vancouver. See the bottom of the DYK section where it says: "Read more about the Port of Vancouver." Again, bolding is a personal choice and I feel the message is clear enough and does not need to be even more intrusive. Mkdwtalk 02:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there is no need to make seperate way for the Port of Vancouver. It could be linked in the DYK information itself. Bolding things could be personal, but it gives the way to reader to read more about it. Shyam (T/C) 07:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • done. Mkdwtalk 10:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Please remove the read more comment. Shyam (T/C) 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I have included the internal links to the Port of Vancouver. However if you read more about the Vancouver Portal's DYK you will see that each month's DKY match a certain category: Film, Skytrain, Port of Vancouver, etc. It was our thought that since not all the DYK's might not mention the article's direct name such as next month's January 2007 DKY. Thus the Read More might come in handy. It's not always applicable but we wanted to stay consistent with the content so people can get use to a CFL or common look and feel. Mkdwtalk 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I do not favor your way for DYK. Use maximum of different articles rather than using single one. Please move previous DYK, i.e. Portal:Vancouver/DKY/Skytrain, to the correct page. Shyam (T/C) 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
              • "My way of DYK"? Well, "my way" is the same way used on the Portal:London. I personally see that as an attack as many people worked on the DYK as a group collaboration. Could you be more specific in what you mean by the 'correct' page? Current I am writing a code to make the DYK pages rotate much like the quotes section. Mkdwtalk 07:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
                • See Portal:London again. There are different articles associated with every DYKs. You can discuss about a particular topic for a particular time. But do not discuss about a single article. The correct DYK page for this should be Portal:Vancouver/DYK/Skytrain. Shyam (T/C) 07:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • That was very obviously a typo and not "my way" or different 'way' than the Portal:London. Its been changed now, but please consider your wording in the future. Mkdwtalk 08:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - per above. 24.85.250.155 08:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Object because: Support - the major concerns have been addressed. Carson 04:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The portal is ambiguous concerning whether it's about the City of Vancouver or Greater Vancouver. Linked categories, most notably the ones at the top of the page, refer only to the city. The topics section also has a skewed focus on the city instead of the region.
    • I have removed the part about Vancouver-proper in the Introduction so it clearly talks about the GVRD. The topics and category sections have been expanded. I think if you look more closely you'll see that the aritcles directly related to Vancouver are usually outnumbered 4:1 and in the cases where they don't they were not intentionally done. Also we were limited in the fact that more articles relating to Vancouver proper were available than any other area. Mkdwtalk 07:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The categories at the top of the page are still focused on the city. The infrastructure category there is empty. I sub-catted it with "Category:Buildings and structures in Vancouver" earlier. The categories section further down still only focuses on the city. The first paragraph of the Introduction now doesn't flow properly...I think it would still confuse the reader as to whether we were talking about the GVRD or the city. Carson 09:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • P:GVRD and the Portal:Greater Vancouver Regional District are now redirects to Portal:Vancouver Mkdwtalk 08:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The title of the portal should be changed to reflect your changes so that it's obvious to people not familiar with Vancouver. Carson 09:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
          • On all official maps, Vancouver is spelt exactly that and not The Greater Vancouver Regional District. Other cities such as New York City, are comprised of many municipals such as Brooklyn, Manhattan, etc. but we all know it as New York City. The coat of arms I'll change and look for a more appropriate setting, but I strongly think that since The Greater Vancouver Regional District is a name only used in Vancouver and B.C., that the portal title reasonable. But yes the external links and coat of arms should be changed. Mkdwtalk 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Transportation under topics section may be too big.
    • But it's overkill to link to all three B-Lines and all of the different SkyTrain lines. There's no context, and people can get to those articles and get some context by going to their parent articles Coast_Mountain_Bus_Company and SkyTrain (Vancouver). Carson 09:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The transportation section roughly matches the same size as the other topics now that I've expanded it. Transportation is also a fairly large topic in Vancouver. We hold several world records regarding our transportation section. Some off hand records are the longest rapid transit line in the world, largest port for foreign exports in North America, one of the only cities in the world not to have freeways through its downtown area, busiest seaport per capita in North America, etc. etc. Mkdwtalk 07:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the Web Resources section really necessary? The only other portal that has one is Portal:Houston. It seems like a spam magnet too. Carson 04:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • All the links provided are from the government or are sponsored by the government. It's not 'necessary' but I think a portal should be as helpful as possible. Mkdwtalk 07:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Right now this section only contains links to the city's sites, and none to any other municipalities. The coat of arms there is also just Vancouver's. There's also a link to UBC, but then why aren't there any links to SFU or colleges? Carson 09:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The coat of arms has been changed and SFU is listed. Also most of the travel links have been removed in place of official city and municipal websites and in fact its the only listed of those websites on the internet that I could find. Mkdwtalk 13:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a big deal, but the bunch of "Read More..." external links for the news section is unsightly. Carson 09:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Summarising the final objections

I am summarising the final objections for the portal to be featured.

  • Remove (Read More...) comment from the News section. It is really unnecessary. Attach the link with the news source name.
    • Done. Mkdwtalk 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove Web Resources section from the portal. Avoid external links from the portal page to read more about.
    • Portal:Houston
      • I do not agree to use web resources with this portal also. But, it is separate issue. So I do not want to discuss it here. Shyam (T/C) 04:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Please do not strike out the objections. Shyam (T/C) 14:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • You said yourself that you do not want to discuss it here, thus it is no longer apart of this review and should not be included in your list of objections. Mkdwtalk 02:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I was talking about Portal:Houston. Shyam (T/C) 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I assumed since you used 'it' after talking about the web resources section, that 'it' grammatically referred to the web resource section. My apologies. However, my bringing up the Portal:Houston as an example of a featured portal that uses a web resource section is valid. My points about it now being the only listing of all the city and district official sites of the GVRD makes it a unique resource only found on Wikipedia. I would like it to be as helpful as possible.Mkdwtalk 11:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove statement Read more about the Port of Vancouver and Canada Place. at the bottom of the DYK section. Please make proper internal links in all the DYKs.
    • Like I said above it would be a disadvantage to readers to remove those links as the reader may want to read more about where those DYK's came from. Not always is the article's name used in the DYK fact. I don't truly see how this is an objection. Mkdwtalk 00:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Foramt does not fit with the statements. Use "?" in the end instead of "..." and start all the statements with "...that". The links, mentioned for read more if they are related to DYK, can always be linked with DYKS. For example,
      • Hollywood North: ...that Vancouver is the third largest film centre in North America and the second largest television center in the World?
      • List of filming locations in and around Vancouver: ...that in the film industry in North America commonly refers to Vancouver as Hollywood North?
        • Done. Usually that's the format, but since I copied the suggestion, all the proper formatting wasn't applied. Inserting Hollywood North in front of all the DYK's that apply would mean I'd have to put that internal link for several of the DYK's which would look overly redundant. This is more a style issue than a policy one. Also the "List of filming locations" disguised as Vancouver would be an inproper use of referencing as in that DYK its refering to the city and not the locations. Another reason why the universal read more on the bottom solves problems such as this one. Mkdwtalk 12:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
          • No, I am not saying to use Hollywood North in every DYK. You can use that link in that particular manner I have examined. I do not think we should use read more links separately. Shyam (T/C) 14:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Well that's a personal style choice and I think you have to look at the whole purpose of a featured portal review. Right now I feel your objections are more about wanting to see your stylstic preferences met over what the portal requires to represent Wikipedia's best as far as content and meeting policies. This portal compared to the other portals is well put together and if not better than some other featured portals. Mkdwtalk 02:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Vancouver International Film Festival: I am not sure how it is related to any of DYKs? Shyam (T/C) 04:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • VIFF reference removed. Mkdwtalk 13:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Either list all 10 quotes to wikiquote page and add further quotes to that page also, if you want to use read more page as wikiquote or make an internal link to the portal main page which has all the quotes featuring on the portal page. Shyam (T/C) 06:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "all 10"? Only four quotes are used. One quote has been inserted to the other slots in the meantime and again, please refer to the Portal:London as a featured portal using the Wikiquote project to archive its quotes. This is my second request that you examine the section more closely as you were mistaken about the quotes being relevent to Vancouver, acceptable methods of archiving by other featured portals, and now the number of quotes used. Mkdwtalk 00:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay then, but I wonder why the page has redundant quotes listed on the page? Shyam (T/C) 04:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The redundant quotes are inserted into the slots 3-9 because if I did not the Quotes section on the portal would sometimes be empty. Writing an entirely new code everytime a new quote is added is highly ineffective and a sign of poor planning. I designed the quote rotation to hold 10 quotes at a time. As new quotes are added, they'll replace the redundant quotes, but in the meantime, may as well have something. Having a blank space or an esoteric addition process would be a larger objection. Mkdwtalk 12:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I do not think that Portal:Vancouver/Quotetemp will not require further maintenance, if you add new quotes to the page. So I think the extra redundant DYKsquotes could be removed from the page. Shyam (T/C) 14:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
            • If you remove the redundant quotes on Portal:Vancouver/Quotes then on the Portal:Vancouver you will see blank error messages come up when it tries to display a quote that is not there -- as I said above. Mkdwtalk 02:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
              • This should be a non-issue now since all the slots have been filled. Mkdwtalk 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A simple link to the quote archive from that box is needed. Rfrisbietalk 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not about whether how simple the task is, and considering I've constructed the largest portion of the portal, its not that I'm not willing to do the work. I'm looking at it in a practical manner. The Portal:London uses the same method for their Quotes section as we do, minus our unique suggest a quote section. Also, by linking Wikiquote as a place where all the quotes are listed do several things. One, it informs people about that project and the existance of other Wikimedia projects going on that specialize. It also means that the task of adding and removing quotes will require edits to two pages rather than three. I won't be around forever to maintain this portal, so I would like it easy for anyone, even a beginner. Last of all, Wikipedia is always under a continous struggle to delete useless pages that eat up resources. Having essencially, two archives for the Wikimedia foundation about quotes pertaining to Vancouver is not needed. Mkdwtalk 11:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have listed my final objections. If you do not want to work on them, it is your wish. I do not want to discuss more to get the discussion more heated up. Shyam (T/C) 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • See below. Mkdwtalk 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your suggestions. I am sorry that we could not met all your requests, and I feel that the ones we did not meet, we had good reasons not to. Mkdwtalk 11:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Objection. No link to portal quotes archive. Rfrisbietalk 12:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So be it. There is an archive section. Rfrisbie, it may help the featured portal director if you vote once, or change your vote above. Might be less confusing in the future. Mkdwtalk 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Obviously and notwithstanding your passive-aggressive reply, my objection or how I presented it caused no confusion. I have the utmost confidence this featured portal candidacy review process ultimately will find the applicable consensus on this nomination. Rfrisbietalk 16:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        • It was not meant to be offensive, and I'm not doubting that the portal director won't be able to determine whether there is concensus. But as you can see below now, people are starting to vote many times. Suppose everyone voted 10 times on a single review. Mkdwtalk 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, I oppose the portal to be featured in the present condition. Shyam (T/C) 16:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support, Good Excellent work..an excellent portal. Follows all requirements set forth in the featured portal guidelines. Postoak 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Portal looks great.Bobanny 06:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This review has clearly become a mockery to some who insist on making a good condition portal fail its review. Langara College 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Meets all criteria. The objections should only be about further improvement. Canadianshoper 02:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Results-to-date

  • 10 in Support
  • 1 in Oppose ( Shyam (T/C) voted twice)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Portal:Vancouver&oldid=1136092852"