Portal talk:Oregon/Featured content

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Featured for the full list

Lists

None of the lists is part of Wikiproject Oregon; all three of the lists are lists that cover the entire U.S. Should these be removed? -Pete (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether the lists are part of a Wikiproject is immaterial. This is the "Oregon Portal", not the "Wikiproject:Oregon Portal". Now, whether the lists should be included is a separate question. Each list mentions Oregon, each list is featured. Thus, they meet the informal criteria of 'featured content that has Oregon-related material' - so I don't see the harm with including them here. But if there's consensus to remove them from the featured area, maybe we could move them to the lists area. — Zaui (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I'd like to think this portal and WikiProject Oregon are closely related. Or they should be. Not to be all WP:OWN about it, but I think our group has a good idea of what is portal-worthy. Listen: We Care. :) And I think we do a pretty good job. And I would tend to agree that the broader U.S. lists aren't the best choice for the portal. Now, if one of the criteria for getting this portal featured is having featured lists, perhaps the project should work on improving a couple Oregon-specific ones. Maybe we should take another stab at completing List of Oregon state parks for example. Katr67 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I read a bit too much WP:OWN into it, but Pete's comment came across as: these lists aren't part of Wikiproject Oregon, therefore they don't belong in the portal. I just wanted to clarify that it doesn't matter if they're part of a project or not - if the content "help(s) readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas" (from Wikipedia:Portal), then they're not out of place in the portal.

The lack of featured lists shouldn't prevent a portal from being featured. — Zaui (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I came across as asserting some kind of "ownership" -- though reading my initial comment, I can see how it would read that way. I meant it more as an indication of how closely something is tied to Oregon (but not a "necessary condition" by any means.) Basically, I agree with both of you that whether it helps the reader navigate Oregon-related content should be the criterion, and if it's confusing to the reader, I think that's a problem. I think the nationwide lists seem out of place and confusing, but maybe that's just me.

Zaui, I don't know if I ever mentioned it, but I think your work setting up the portal was really helpful. (Along with Theophilus, I think, right?) The portal is something we really needed for a long time, and I use it a lot. Actually, I was just looking at the feature-class Portal:Utah, and I don't think it would be such a long shot for us. In a lot of ways, I think ours is already better -- that one focuses very heavily on geographic features, and ours is (I think) a bit more balanced in its approach. FWIW. -Pete (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a User:Theophilus, but Aboutmovies has done a bunch of Portal work also. I got Portal:Utah featured, basically as a one-man show, but you can only include stuff if it exists on Wikipedia. There's just more focus on geographic stuff in Utah then anything else. Agree about getting this portal featured, we've been discussing it since October. — Zaui (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Historical footnote: That would be Theophilus75, who didn't help with the portal but did a bunch of other stuff, like getting the ball rolling on the assessment project and working on the WP:ORE navbar. Katr67 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)