This portal was identified as a featured portal before the process ended in 2017.
Portal milestones Date Process Result February 2, 2006 Featured portal candidate Promoted

This portal does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Countries This page is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Portals Complete‑class (Rated Mid-importance) This page is a portal. Portals are within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve portals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortalsWikipedia:WikiProject PortalsTemplate:WikiProject PortalsPortal Complete This page has been rated as Complete-class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This portal has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. See also: List of Portals This portal has minor issues in need of editor attention. This portal's subpages have been checked by an editor, and are needed. Please take care when editing, especially if using automated editing software. Learn how to update the maintenance information here. (July 2018)

• Portal:Australia/Index

• Archive 1

I've started a set of subpages at Portal:Australia/Anniversaries, which has a subpage for every day of the year, so that notable events and anniversaries in Australian history can be considered. Hopefully, if approved by the community for inclusion on the portal page, it would not be hard to maintain, as a glance at the code of Portal:Germany, shows that there is an automated device so that the reference to the relevant day's subpage will automatically update itself at 0:00 every day. I've stuck a few random notable events in there just off the top of my head, etc. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the set of pages needs to be nearly complete before the portal starts displaying them. Otherwise we'll get unsightly red links on the portal page. It would be a lot of work to complete these pages, and I'm not sure the benefits would be worth while.-gadfium 02:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course, but in time I think we could rummage together at least three or four anniversaries per day. It's just like the main page, and I think there could be more Australia content than German content on the English Wikipedia. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the proposal is good. I was thinking of it already, but not sure how to implement in the context of the years in Australia pages, which are of course an easy source of events. I would like to see the links back to those years too, eg for July 11 1916 being Gough's bithday, don't link to 1916 but instead 1916 in Australia, though piped to 1916, ie [[1916 in Australia|1916]]--A Y Arktos\^talk 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I think they (the German portal) just trawled through the data manually, unless someone creates June 8 in Australia, which would have the exact same effect anyway.
  • Could the update be UTC - 10 hours - ie midnight AEST? :-)--A Y Arktos\^talk 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think so, there is a template that works out the day, with an offset of days, I don't think it would be difficult for the people who write these templates to create one with a deliberate time offset and then convert to days and months. I don't know what the WP policy is w.r.t changing the clock for regional portals not on GMT however.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the proposal, though it would need to be completed before inclusion on the portal as either a new feature or replacement for DYK.--cj | talk 03:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im all for this proposal and would be glad to help with finding notable historical events. michael ^talk 04:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• three or four events per day is 1,000 events. I have made a bit of a start but there is a lot more to do! You can check what has been added by using the recent changes link at Portal:Australia/Anniversaries - ie [1] --A Y Arktos\^talk 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we want pictures? The German Portal does have them.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Since we are drawing from a smaller pool of articles than Wikipedia, it might be a good idea to include notable births and/or deaths, and important cultural works - like the publication date for books etc. I've also got to say, I don't really see a great problem with having red links on a portal - red links often prompt people to write articles.--Peta 23:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I also have no problem with red links. If using years in Australia for the date (which is my preference), there will be red links and these definitley deserve an article, 1916 in Australia, 1868 in Australia and [[1916 in Australia are all redlinked at the moment, they each have interesting events happening in them--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• • • Is "19xx in Australia" too going too fine-grained for the article topics? I mean, there were those world factbooks for each year in my local library when I was growing up and I agree their content would be great on Wikipedia, but with its extremely broad frame of reference I worry that fine-grain summary articles like these will be hard for researchers to find. Imagine you are looking for information about the goldrush in Australia and associated economical change... You have an idea it happened in the goldrush happened in the mid 1800s, but not sure exactly what year the most important dates happened. You are going to want an article more like "1850s in Australia".... What do you think? This is going to be particularly relevant for the pre-1788 years in Australia and pre-Renaissance years for most countries — Donama 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Have a look at one of the non redlinked years in Australia, for example 1962 in Australia. It links to the Timeline of Australian history which has major events per decade. It also links back to 1962 which from there links to decades - not too many clicks to get to a broader timeframe. I agree with you about pre 1788, but are we putting in dates pre 1788 (other than 1770 which I am in two minds about), there weren't that many records or consistent calendars around for dates relevant to Australia. However, if it was something like the Batavia or similar event you had in mind, no I wouldn't link back to 1629 in Australia--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for events to add, try this ABC site--Peta 05:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :) .Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peta, per featured portal criteria, red links are limited to only contibution-encouraging aspects of portals (ie, to-do lists). This portal does not include a to-do list, but instead points to ACOTF. --cj | talk 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be my preference to not include pictures amongst the anniversaries because they are too variable; not all subpages will be of sufficient size to balance the image. In other words, the image should be a secondary aspect - the text should outweigh it. If images are included, they should be limited to dates with 4 or more anniversaries. Moreover, they should not be thumbnailed. Also, please ensure in adding dates that a uniform format is followed; the first letter of the anniversary after the hyphen should be capitalised in all instances, and all anniversaries should have full stops.--cj | talk 08:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, it is much easier to include pictures as we are building the items now rather than go back and add them later. I would like to add now and discuss later, rather than the other way around, if pictures are an agreed option. I think we should be able to find pictures for one in four events. The model I had in mind is Portal:Germany/Anniversaries/May where there is a picture for each day. I note they are not thumbnailed or captioned - the lack of captioning a consequence of not thumbnailing rather than editor's intention though looking at the code, but probably a Good Thing.--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. There are a few reasons to not thumbnail images on portals; firstly, they conflict with set backgrounds; secondly, they are not always aesthetically appealing (the box in a box issue); and finally, for this portal, they would be inconsistent. Capitions should always be included for images though, as they are still shown on mouse over.--cj | talk 07:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mouseover does not seem to work for me in mozila at present - but if it does for some, no probs--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every day in Portal:Australia/Anniversaries/June is now blue linked. Plenty of opportunities still for additions or replacements. Can we start from 1 June?--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as all red links within those days are taken care of.--cj | talk 07:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the red links as "contribution-encouraging aspects". The German portal seems to have achieved its blue links through the domination of births and deaths - few events per se doing a quick scan. I am not interested in merely a list of births and deaths - a light scattering only should be sufficient. I also see little point to linking to the common year for an Australian portal. Given the lack of interest from other editors to even add events, I can't see this going anywhere with the constraint put on it by Cyberjunkie's interpretation of "Red links must be restricted to only contribution-encouraging aspects, and limited at that." at Wikipedia:What is a featured portal?--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite happy with the response to this proposal – it has been the most concerted group effort this portal has seen. The catalogue will continue to grow over time, so I don't see any particular need to rush – the portal certainly isn't going anywhere. Peta's suggestion below to run it on AWNB may trigger further participation. The "contibution-encouraging aspects" comment refers to self-referential sections on portals, namely things to do, WikiProjects etc. Red links are confined to these sections. You can trust my interpretation of what is a featured portal?, because I wrote it. The reasoning behind the red link criterion, imported from Wikipédia française, which was more advanced vis-à-vis portals at that stage, is that because portals are meant to display quality snippets of the encyclopædia, red links serve only as a distraction.--cj | talk 05:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another proposal, why don't we have a dummy run on the notice board? I think the collaboration of the fortnight could be moved - (cj would it be possible to make the candidates box half as high and make a skinnier box for the collabortion of the fortnight? Or we could rename the box community and just have the collabotation and candidates in there.) and the box could go beneath in the news. Red links would be ok, and it would draw attention to the "project" since more people (probably) visit that page than look at the portal. Then when we have some more polished material it can appear on both the portal and the noticeboard.--Peta 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this proposal, though I'm not exactly clear on what it is you want me to do?--cj | talk 05:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to free up a box, so I though we could have two boxes where the candidates box is now, one for the cotf and one for candidates - or we can just combine those things in one box.--Peta 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea. I think Peta means merge the contents of Collaboration of the Fortnight and Other Candidates boxes at the AWNB to free up a box for the new Australian Anniversary content. -- Longhair 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this proposal--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change and think it looks ok. What do you think? Alignment in the middle right box could do with an expert tweak though. -- Longhair 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another (minor) problem being, the edit link actually edits the box contents, and not anniversary dates. -- Longhair 11:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• looks good except for the edit link problem, not sure how to fix other than to remove the editing link--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a page or two also needs to be renamed, plus the edit link problem. Other than that, I quite like it. I stole your userpage idea too AYArktos :) Thanks. -- Longhair 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with the images being used. Compare the results on WP:AWNB with my user page and User:AYArktos for an example of the problem. -- Longhair 00:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't spot it.--cj | talk 06:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be fixed. What was happening was the image tags where being presented as such, and not an image. -- Longhair 06:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens on dates where there are lots of events (Jan 1, Nov 11 and Dec 10 spring to mind, but there will be more)? Does someone need to manually modify a template, or will the whole list appear?--Peta 21:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they are excessive, and distort the portal proper, then that may have to be done. But they are only temporary and none have yet struck me as too large. Still, maybe we should place a cap on the number of events per anniversary?--cj | talk 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we will have to review to reduce to no more than five per day, but it is easier to review later and take out than provide guidelines up front. The criteria for removal might not be significance of the event but interest of the unusual - directing to an article that would not have come otherwise to the attention of the casual browser. It really comes down to refining the purpose of the Anniversaries list. Some events/articles have more than one date associated with them and are easier to move than others - eg a significant Australian was born, died and might have done something on particular days; they need only be mentioned once in the year's 365 days. I suggest review when a month is about to go live - we still have lots of blanks in July but it seems a bit early to be working on the clean up when so much is still being added generally throughout the year. Need to start the clean up in the last week of June.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been adding captions to images. In at least one case the caption had been removed. The mouseover does work if pop-ups is not enabled and is important information thus for general readers that they would not see otherwise.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the faux-browsebar at the top link to categories instead of portals?--ragesoss 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was talk somewhere of a list of Featured Australian articles but I can't seem to find it. If we're running short of Australian content, there's always the Good article pool to chose from. -- Longhair 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I created it at Portal:Australia/List a while ago. It needs to be updated.--cj | talk 06:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this. I couldn't bear to see redlinks, so I quickly copied them from around Weeks 40/41, 2006. If I've stuffed this up, my apologies, but I figured these were better than nothing for a featured portal. Daniel Bryant 07:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Daniel. Eek, indeed! I've put fresh entries in.--cj | talk 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The portal says that Australia has been inhabited by Aboriginals for 50,000 years, whereas the Australia article says that it has been inhabited by Aboriginals for only 42,000 years. Please explain, --Spebi 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, the text in the introduction of this portal was taken from the Australia article, which has subsequently changed. I've updated the figure.--cj | talk 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, logos. What's the current status regarding the legitimacy of their use in portals? I see at least two in Portal:Australia/Anniversaries/August (A-League and Demons), and I always thought that they were off-limits, so I'm asking here for more input. Thoughts? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under present policy, they are prohibited in portalspace. A proposal to allow them is currently being discussed, but looks unlikely to get up. I've removed the photos you pointed out. Thanks,--cj | talk 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The portal was showing redlinks for "week 0" on selected items! I have copied materials from week 1 to temporarily remove the redlinks. Arman ^(Talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the problem now. There was an error with the function that automatically produces the week number of the year, and (I think) the ISO week number was Week 0 of 2008, but the year number still generated 2007, and as Week 0, 2007 didn't exist, hence the red links. I've fixed the problem so it manually displays the Featured selection of the first week of 2008, even though it's technically (according to the software) not 2008 yet. Spebi 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would any Australians be willing to help me get the text of two particular Gazettes? I am looking for the ones referenced in http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Civil%20Air%20Ensign.htm, namely:

• 6 June 1935 № 30
• 4 March 1948 № 39

The topic is the Civil Air Ensign's specifications so I can create an exact image. I can't get Australia Gazettes from where I live. Thanks, ButterStick (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably get a better answer if you try asking at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, because not many people watch this page. Spebi 09:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. ButterStick (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterBar (talk • contribs) [reply]

Portal:Tasmania's Related Portals box could be used here. feydey (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Located between Batemans Bay and Moruya and by the village of Tomakin. This sandy beach is about one kilometre long with shrubbed sand dunes and grassed flats to the interior. It is crescent shaped and features Barlings Island and Long Nose Point to the north and Melville Point to the south. The beach faces south and, therefore, picks up southerly swell. The beach is affected, usually after mid morning, by strong north-easterly winds especially in summer. Sea temperatures usually vary between 15 and 20 degrees Celsius, with the coldest months being October and November. Wet suits are advisable in the non-summer seasons. Salmon, sting rays and dolphins are common. Whales can be seen in the migratory months. Several years ago a mother whale and its calf sheltered in the bay for a day or so.

Barlings, also known as Chunders, is patronised mainly by local Tomakin surfers who are more atune to the vagaries of the beach. Outsiders are quick to dismiss Chunders because of its famous close-out break, its unforgiving bach-wash, its sometimes dodgey paddle through the rocks, the presence of bluebottles after a strong southerly and suspect flotsam after a stong north-easterly. The north of the beach is sheltered from swell while the south can experience periods of strong surf-- usually followed by a flat spell. The sand banks are normally best after strong waves have shifted sand further out to sea. Right hand breaks are usually fast while the left handers are generally slower with a faster section close to the shore. Waves break into respective rips which can be hazardous to visitors.

To the north of the beach, between Barlings Island and Long Nose Point, are rocky coves and a sewage outlet. To the sooth, between Melville Point and the mouth Of the Tomaga River are Tomakin Cove (Little Beach) and Tomakin Beach (River Beach). The former is protected from waves. The latter has a long right hander on the river mouth with NE swell. Avoid a fast out going tide. In the middle, The Basin, provides a large fattish left/right hander. Be prepared to wait...

Always remember the surf is always far better and the girls are prettier at Broulee!!!! ECO

– — … ‘ “ ’ ” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §
210.9.137.176 (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone move protected the main australia portal page but not any of the subpages, e.g. Portal:Australia/Indices. This could potentially turn into a big problem.
Oli (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what has gone wrong, but the top of the portal page looks really awful. The map overlaps the text, the text is ragged and right-justified, and there is a big blob of useless whitespace. cojoco (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out some html in Portal:Australia/Intro which has fixed it. This is just addressing the symptoms. Perhaps something changed in MediaWiki which broke the layout. Someone more familiar with this portal can try reversing my change in a few hours and see if it now works, and perhaps report it at WP:VP/T if it still doesn't.-gadfium 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Eisteddfod Challenge results contains wrong Informations, but i did not know which edits are bad or good. Please check it. The edits of 18th January are bad, I am sure. --Diwas (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I do not need this list. Feel free to delete it. Greetings Diwas (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Integration with Portal regarding integration between this Portal and WikiProject Australia. LordVetinari 11:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Selected Article section overlaps the Indices section. Acalycine^talk 09:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The effect may be browser-dependent, but I hope I've fixed it with this edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still there. Looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/P9z5HpR.png

I can't see what's causing that. What browser and version are you using? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I'm using Firefox 24.0 and it's fixed. I was using Safari 6.0.5 when it was bugged like that... I'm also using Mountain Lion on a Macintosh. Acalycine^talk 00:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a clear:both to the header and it fixed it on my iPhone. How does it look on other browsers? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out my previous fix didn't work in IE, so I've tried using a {{clear}} template in between the header div and the other divs. Let me know if you spot any issues with it. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intro blurb for the portal cites Australia's population as 21 million, while the actual figure is more like 24: would someone with sufficient permissions to get to the template on which the intro is located like to fix it? Rpot2 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpot2: should be fixed, thanks for noticing the error. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-)

Rpot2 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should also probably mention that, to stop it getting too out-dated, that stat will also need to be monitored, and updated whenever the population ticks over to the next nearest next million. Is using a bot for that worth-while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpot2 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  File:07. Camel Profile, near Silverton, NSW, 07.07.2007.jpg
• 
  File:07. Japanese Garden Pano, Cowra, NSW, 22.09.2006.jpg
• 
  File:140611 - Jeremy Doyle - 3a - 2012 Team processing.jpg
• 
  File:2003 Mazda 6 (GG) Classic hatchback 01.jpg
• 
  File:2007 swifts creek lawnmower races04 edit.jpg
• 
  File:AUS-10-Commonwealth Bank of Australia-Half Sovereign (1923).jpg
• 
  File:AUS-11b-Commonwealth Bank of Australia-One Pound (1923).jpg
• 
  File:AUS-13a-Commonwealth Bank of Australia-5 Pounds (1924).jpg
• 
  File:AUS-14-Commonwealth Bank of Australia-10 Pounds (1925).jpg
• 
  File:AUS-3b-Commonwealth of Australia-10 Shillings (1918).jpg
• 
  File:AUS-4d-Commonwealth of Australia-One Pound (1918).jpg
• 
  File:AUS-5c-Commonwealth of Australia-5 Pounds (1918).jpg
• 
  File:AUS-6b-Commonwealth of Australia-10 Pounds (1918).jpg
• 
  File:AUS-7b-Commonwealth of Australia-20 Pounds (1918).jpg
• 
  File:AUS-8c-Commonwealth of Australia-50 Pounds (1918).jpg
• 
  File:AUS-9c-Commonwealth of Australia-100 Pounds (1918).jpg
• 
  File:Abantiades latipennis.jpg
• 
  File:Acanthiza pusilla - Austin's Ferry.jpg
• 
  File:Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris - Mogo Campground.jpg
• 
  File:Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris female.jpg
• 
  File:Aegotheles chrisoptus - Catlereigh Nature Reserve.jpg
• 
  File:Albino Macropus rufogriseus rufogriseus.jpg
• 
  File:Albury railway station, Australia.jpg
• 
  File:Alcedo azurea - Julatten.jpg
• 
  File:Alectura lathami - Centenary Lakes.jpg
• 
  File:Alice Manfield - Guide Alice, Mt Buffalo, c1900-30, SLV.jpg
• 
  File:Alstroemeria aurantiaca.jpg
• 
  File:Amanita muscaria After Rain.jpg
• 
  File:Amanita muscaria Marriott Falls 1.jpg
• 
  File:Anopterus glandulosus.jpg
• 
  File:Anthochaera chrysoptera 4.jpg
• 
  File:Anthochaera chrysoptera.jpg
• 
  File:Ants eating cicada, jjron 22.11.2009.jpg
• 
  File:Apricots.jpg
• 
  File:Arenaria interpres 2 - Boat Harbour (cropped).jpg
• 
  File:Arthur Streeton - Golden summer, Eaglemont - Google Art Project.jpg
• 
  File:Australia green tree frog (Litoria caerulea) crop.jpg
• 
  File:Australia satellite plane.jpg
• 
  File:Australian blenny.jpg
• 
  File:Aythya australis female - Hurstville Golf Course.jpg
• 
  File:Aythya australis male - Hurstville Golf Course.jpg
• 
  File:CSIRO ScienceImage 4350 CSIROs Parkes Radio Telescope with moon in the background.jpg
• 
  File:Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg
• 
  File:Charadrius bicinctus 2 - Boat Harbour.jpg
• 
  File:Cisticola exilis - Cornwallis Rd.jpg
• 
  File:Clavulinopsis sulcata - Lane Cove River.jpg
• 
  File:Columba leucomela - Brunkerville.jpg
• 
  File:Coral Outcrop Flynn Reef.jpg
• 
  File:Corvus coronoides - Doughboy Head.jpg
• 
  File:Coturnix ypsilophora - Sydney Olympic Park.jpg
• 
  File:Dendrocygna eytoni - Macquarie University.jpg
• 
  File:Diomedea sanfordi - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg
• 
  File:Egretta sacra.jpg
• 
  File:Eopsaltria australis - Mogo Campground.jpg
• 
  File:Falcunculus frontatus - Dharug National Park.jpg
• 
  File:Fremantle Prison inmates and main front Iwel jpeg convert.jpg
• 
  File:Geastrum triplex - Bola Creek.jpg
• 
  File:Geopelia humeralis - Brunkerville.jpg
• 
  File:Gliophorus chromolimoneus - Ferndale Park.jpg
• 
  File:Haematopus fuliginosus - Doughboy Head.jpg
• 
  File:Halobaena caerulea in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg
• 
  File:Koala climbing tree.jpg
• 
  File:Leucosarcia melanoleuca - Brunkerville.jpg
• 
  File:Limosa lapponica 2 - Taren Point.jpg
• 
  File:Loch Ard Gorge Panorama July 2005.jpg
• 
  File:Macropus rufogriseus rufogriseus Bruny.jpg
• 
  File:Male yellow flower wasp02.jpg
• 
  File:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg
• 
  File:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg
• 
  File:Monarcha melanopsis 1 - Brunkerville.jpg
• 
  File:Mt Anne from High Shelf Camp.jpg
• 
  File:Mt hotham alpine range scenery.jpg
• 
  File:Myzomela sanguinolenta 1 - Windsor Downs Nature Reserve.jpg
• 
  File:Origma solitaria 2 - Wattamolla.jpg
• 
  File:Pitta versicolor - Kembla Heights.jpg
• 
  File:Psephotus haematonotus female - Cornwallis Rd.jpg
• 
  File:Psephotus haematonotus male - Cornwallis Rd.jpg
• 
  File:Pterodroma mollis light morph - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg
• 
  File:Red wattlebird.jpg
• 
  File:Swanston and Flinders St intersection 1927.jpg
• 
  File:Tambo valley races 2006 edit.jpg
• 
  File:Thalassarche impavida 2 - SE Tasmania.jpg
• 
  File:Turnix varius - Castlereigh nature reserve.jpg
• 
  File:Vincent van Gogh - s0273V1962 - Van Gogh Museum.jpg
• 
  File:Vombatus ursinus -Maria Island National Park.jpg
• 
  File:Yarra Night Panorama, Melbourne - Feb 2005.jpg

• 
  File:Red sunset.jpg
• 
  File:Yarra Panorama.jpg

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018.

Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, and design the portals of the future.

As of April 29th, membership is at 56 editors, and growing.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for each component of portals.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject.    — The Transhumanist   03:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Darwin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Newcastle. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Norfolk Island. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The portal has been expanded with the addition of a new Good article section. The article selections listed below were added. Additional expansion, updating and cleanup was also performed. If anyone is interested, please feel free to discuss these changes here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1 * Brumby 2 * Green-head ant 3 * Cyclone Glenda 4 * 2010 Gascoyne River flood 5 * Glebe (rugby league team) 6 * Angie Ballard 7 * Australian Crawl 8 * 2010 Claxton Shield 9 * Black Tears 10 * Fighter Squadron RAAF 11 * Jack Fingleton 12 * Anthony Field 13 * Green Lantern Coaster 14 * Stuart Clarence Graham 15 * Great Northern Highway 16 * Frog cake 17 * Albany Highway 18 * Jennifer Blow 19 * Ivor McIntyre 20 * Kelsey Wakefield

• Additional articles for the portal can be considered from those available in the table listed below.

Have collapsed the table as it was overwhelming the section on this page. Feel free to revert if preferred. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems worth extending this talkpage discussion as there's now a minor edit war under way. An editor boldly added a Good Article section to the portal, along with some minor technical changes. Another editor has reverted those changes on the grounds they were undiscussed beforehand. In the spirit of WP:BRDD, let's now have a discussion to decide the content for this page. In passing, please note that this is about content, unlike the ANI discussion which is about alleged editor conduct. Pinging @Northamerica1000, BrownHairedGirl, and Kusma: as the three people so far involved, but of course anyone is welcome to offer a view. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The blanket revert should be reverted as the edit summary is a complete fabrication in this case. That said we could easily pick some top level articles from many GAs and FAs....not seeing much of a problem with Norths picks though.--Moxy 🍁 05:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. As very much a passing suggestion: given how heated portal discussion sometimes are we should probably leave issues of other portals, and mass editing/reverting, for the ANI debate and just focus here this particular portal. Feel free to disagree, I just think we're more likely to get consensus from a simple content discussion about Portal:Australia. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your right in one sense ...my point was the work was already done. That said I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Featured and good content years ago that we can cross reference with Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Popular pages and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 and see what we got to work with.--Moxy 🍁 05:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, I ask you withdraw your allegation that edit summary was a complete fabrication. Apart from being gratuitously abusive, it denies the facts. I have set out my concerns in more detail in a lengthy section below. If you choose to reply there, I urge you to do so collegially. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the blanket reversion being undone. The edits performed improved the portal, because 1) Using transclusions from articles provides readers with current, up-to-date information, 2) The Good article section was a logical starting point for more to be added as time goes on, and 3) The articles chosen for the GA section as a starting point serve to provide readers with diverse content about Australian people, geography and environment, sports, transportation, cuisine, military history, and other aspects. Many more GA articles are available.

I also added a Selected cuisine section, which served to functionally expand the portal's scope a bit more. That was also removed. I would like both sections restored, but at the very least, the GA section should be restored. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Euryalus: Out of curiosity, do you have any opinion about this matter (e.g. whether or not the removed content should be restored or left out?) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I've (very occasionally) used this portal as a navigational tool and generically like the idea that any content-related page gets updated once in a while. On the other hand advance discussion of major changes per BRD never hurts, and if this discussion uncovers good technical or content reasons not to make these amendments then let's not. Sorry that's not more helpful - my interest in starting this section is just to create a relaxed forum to resolve this single editing question. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your pleasant reply, which is appreciated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This portal is supposed to serve as a gateway to en.wp's coverage of Australia. Like nay other portrals, it was restructured and lots of new content was added without prior discussion or even notification to the editors who routinely build and maintain en.wp's coverage of Australia. The edit summaries used inadequately describe their effect, and the notes left after the effect do not explain many of the decisions made. So I am delighted to see a review discussion taking place, and I offer this explanation of why I decided that NA1K's changes were best reverted pending such a discussion.

Per WP:Portal, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". The list of articles is the core of any portal. It should be chosen on a transparent basis, and it should easily viewable and reviewable at any time by any reader or editor, as clickable links, without needing to edit the page or to search on the talk page. None of those apply to the portals restructured by NA1K.

I see three issues which need to be resolved with respect to this portal. Similar issues apply to the many other portals which NA1K has reworked:

1. The failure to display a list of the articles in the portal. The list of articles is the core of any portal. Hiding it from scrutiny opens up a wide range from problems
2. Criteria for selection of articles. These should be agreed by consensus and clearly stated, so that editors can review the list against the agreed criteria.
3. The selection of cuisine as the only topic area for its own section

List display

NA1K chose without prior discussion or notice to add new sections to this portal ("Good article" and "Selected cuisine) in a no-supbage format which does not display a list of the articles anywhere on the face of the portal or on a linked sub-page. In other portals, existing sections were converted to that format; that conversion did not happen here.

This was a design choice; other models of single-page portal do display a list, e.g. Portal:Wind power. (Personally, I deeply dislike the excessively bulky way that one displays its list, but that is a formatting issue which could be easily fixed). It would also be only a modest programming task to modify other types of format so as to display a list.

Displaying the list of articles is important in two ways:

• So that readers can directly see the full set of articles. The model which NA1K used means that there is no way to see the full set, and readers are forced to purge the page to see one more excerpt from an undisclosed list of undisclosed size. This is a massive usability fail; it is equivalent to having a magazine or newspaper with no list of contents, and without even the ability to flick through the pages. The only way to see articles is to make repeated lucky dips, with no guarantee of ever seeing the full set.
  No explanation has ever been given of why NA1K considers it is desirable to take the extraordinary step of hide the list of articles from readers
• To allow editors to easily monitor the set. It should be easily viewed, with clickable links, by any editor, to examine its suitability. A copy of the list on the talk page is not sufficient, because that is there is no indication on the face of the portal that it is available there, and there is no guarantee that it will be synchronised with the actual embedded list.
  Reasons for performing these checks include:
  1. reviewing the quality of articles (e.g. up-to-date? Free of clean-up tags? Of sufficient quality? Been vandalised? NPOV?)
  2. to check for various forms of unconstructive list-making, e.g.
     • adding off-topic articles to the list, (e.g. topics with no connection to Australia)
     • promotion, e.g. promoting a minor musician or politician or business by adding them to the portal's list of articles
     • monitoring for POV-pushing, which could be done in several different ways, e.g.
       stacking the list of articles in one direction, e.g. giving undue emphasis to a particular political POV, a particular geographical area, a particular style of music
       omitting topics which someone would prefer to get less attention
       favouring one historical era over another (e.g. recentism)
       
     • pranking, e.g. adding excessive articles about hoaxes, or giving undue weight to the bizarre
     • plain vandalism (e.g. adding Hitler, Stalin ad Pol Pot to a list of biographies)

Criteria for selection of articles

Editors need to decide how articles should be selected. At one extreme, any editor could be free to add whatever they like, possibly subject to a quality threshold. At the other extreme, there could be a strict formulaic system such as a quota by topic area (politics, sport, geography, culture) with a requirement for balance by geography, history and POV.

So far as I can see, the selection by NA1K of articles for the cuisine section amount to the first extreme: I see no stated criteria anywhere for the choice. If criteria were applied, they have not been disclosed; it is equally possible that the choice was simply a ILIKEIT set of NA1K's personal preferences.

Editors here may decide that ILIKEIT selections are fine, or that anyone may apply their own criteria. However, either approach seems to me to be a) wrong in principle for an encyclopedia, b) a recipe for instability, if editors argue over personal preferences; c) even if stable, excessively privileging whoever adds an article.

I note that NA1K added a section for GA-class articles. However, I see that NA1K added only 20 such articles, whereas I just used AWB to count Category:GA-Class Australia articles+subcats, and found an impressive 750 GA-class articles (well done Australian editors!). There is no indication from NA1K of how or why they selected those 20 from the set of 750, and my attempts elsewhere to ask NA1K how they make such choices has elicited only meaningless word-soup responses. For example, at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana, when I challenged NA1K on what criteria had been used, their reply was simply vague and obfuscatory: I assessed these articles relative to their suitability for this portal.

Cuisine

The addition of a cuisine section was an undiscussed unilateral addition by NA1K. Regardless of its content or quality, it stands out as the only topic area to be given its only section on the portal.

I can see no reason for this choice other that NA1K has a personal interest in cuisine. However, in any objective selection of sub-topics for Australia, I find it hard to see any basis for giving such prominence to cuisine. Food is only a level-2 vital article, and cuisine is a sub-topic of that. Australian cuisine comes low down in the category hierarchy for Australia: Category:Australia → Category:Australian society → Category:Food and drink in Australia → Category:Australian cuisine.

The choice of this topic area seems to me to give undue weight to one editor's personal interests, over more the broad topic areas such as history, geography, society, economy, environment, politics … and even to more significant sub-topics such as arts and culture, education, sport, military history, law, or crime.

Additionally, some of the article choices are bizarre. NA1K chose the heading "cuisine" rather than the broader "food and drink". The article Cuisine says a "A cuisine is a style of cooking characterized by distinctive ingredients, techniques and dishes, and usually associated with a specific culture or geographic region". So having chosen to make a section labelled as being about a style of cooking, why does it include Kangaroo meat, Australian wine, Beer in Australia, Kensington Pride and Vegemite? None of those are styles of cooking, and while vegemite is an icon Australian food, it is not a "style of cooking"; it's an ingredient.

If portals were simply magazines in which editors were encouraged to use to showcase their own interests, then this magazine-style choice would make sense. But I see nothing in WP:PORTAL to justify this widespread use of portals to promote one editors' personal interests at over objectively broader and more significant topics.

It is up to Australian editors to decide whether they want the portal on their country to be developed in this way. But I hope that as they make their decision, they will consider where this could lead. If it's OK for an editor to add a randomly-chosen third-level topic, then logically the door is open for any editor to add a section on their own pet sub-sub-topic: elections, cricket, snakes, cities, cars, immigration, whatever. Is that what editors really want? Or would they prefer the portal to develop according to the broad hierarchy of topics? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in bullet point form. Would recommend reverting back to the last stable NorthAmerica1000 version and cleaning up from there.

• I've restructured several portals myself, some of which have been deleted at this point. I'm not sure I've been particularly good with edit summaries or explaining which articles I've added in the edit summaries, and in any case, they're not mandatory (I know they're highly recommended.)
• I don't see any policy or guideline which states "the list of articles is the core of any portal," or that "they should be chosen on a transparent basis," or that "they should be easily viewable/reviewable at any time by any reader or editor, as clickable links, without needing to edit the page or to search on the talk page." I've looked, it's possible I've missed it, if I have please kindly point me in its direction. I also want to note I generally agree with this, but I don't see where it's a requirement.
• The added articles are easily viewable and more easily editable in the "black box." I do agree a way of checking which articles exist in the list without needing to check the page source should exist, but I think this can be added in programmatically, through the use of edited templates. It's certainly easier to update, and I would prefer it going forward if we can fix the problems with it.
• As far as I can tell, no defined criteria exists for the selection of articles for use in portals. We should create one. I think it just needs to be as simple as:

• On the portal topic matter
• Either a good article, a featured article, or an article of sufficient quality representing an area of the project without any featured or good articles
• Editors should seek to add a broad and diverse selection of articles on the topic subject

• Looking at the old portal, I don't see anything wrong with any of the selected good articles. There's a good diversity there.
• Agree there's no reason to have a cuisine box. I do want to note the "style of cooking" argument is pedantic. I don't know why you wouldn't include Vegemite in the Aussie cuisine box if an Aussie cuisine box should exist. It's certainly more popular here than a quandong. (I don't have a problem with any of the articles on cuisine, they're all part of the Aussie style of cooking, or the foods produced here.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SportingFlyer:I didn't claim or (I hope) imply that any policy or guideline explicitly required that a list be transparent, or that that articles are the core of portal. I was using WP:COMMONSENSE in both cases. I am glad that you seem to agree on the substance, so we please can we focus on the comonsense?
• The "black box" is visible only by editing the portal page, and result is no clickable links which it makes it v hard to scrutinise a set of articles. That's a barrier for editors, and it's a big barrier for readers. Yes, it could be fixed programmatically … butt it should have been either fixed before mass rollout, or some consensus reached to proceed without.
• On article selection I would advocate that the guidance should at least specify an need for a balance of views and topics and eras, and to explicitly note that WP:POV applies to the selection of articles just as it does to the content of articles. I also suggest that the addition of any article to a portals should be accompanied by an explanation of how it was chosen, and how the editor believes it fits into the balance of articles. "Hey, we can't have too many articles about X" should cause concern, but an explanation along the lines "the set of biogs contained only two writers, and no poets. I added MsX because it's a GA-class article on a major poet (see source for her significance)" would be an indication of probably good approach.
• Glad we broadly agree on the "cuisine" box. I agree that my comment on style of cooking was pedantic, but this is an encyclopedia, so some pedantry is justified. The title chosen by NA1K describes a narrower scope that than the list which they created under it. If the section is kept and NA1K's list is used, the section should be relabelled "food and drink"; but if it's called "cuisine", then wine and beer should be removed because they are not cuisine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the WP:COMMONSENSE I think there's two different things going on and they're both temporal - first, whether NA's improvements were proper, and where do we go from here.

• Past - As you've mentioned, the guidelines and policies for portals are really ill-defined. As I noted in a couple different places on the ANI thread, first, the mass deletion of portals almost caused me to leave the project, and second, I believe the fact we don't have a good rule book means these discussions get more personal more quickly, since it becomes more of a street fight. In the sense of the mass deletions, I'm actually referring to a problem which I see here - when we were deleting portals, we didn't have good guidelines on which portals should be kept. In that time, I started to see the value of a well-done portal as a window into the navigation of a topic, along with being able to show off featured articles in a topic, and it was frustrating to see well-done portals nominated and deleted along with the ones that needed to be purged.
• In light of the portal guidelines, I don't see anything wrong with NA1000's improvements to the Aussie portal (or other portals). There's a lot of "should" being thrown around both here and on the ANI thread, and - placing myself in NA1000's position, and having improved some portals myself in the last couple months - there's no clear "what to do, what not to do" when improving a portal. I know you're claiming WP:COMMONSENSE, but I don't see anything in the improvements that I would consider a lack of WP:COMMONSENSE, and while I consider them practical, I don't necessarily consider the proposed rules to be understood as WP:COMMONSENSE. Two cases in point: if I were editing a portal last month, I wouldn't necessarily know to put the articles I'm adding into an edit summary, or to put them on the talk page, and secondly, I consider the "black box" a general improvement in spite of its current limitation, and may have added it to portals myself if I had learned about it before this discussion. My own WP:COMMONSENSE would lead me to believe any GA or FA article would be automatically eligible for inclusion into a portal without the need for explanation or discussion, which is generally what I've been doing. Portals should be a place where we're able to show off good content. If a non-GA/FA article is added, more of a discussion may be needed. (For instance, in football, there's a bias towards English GA/FA articles, so we shouldn't have only GA/FA articles.)
• Future I think the way forward here pretty simple in spite of everything: 1) revert back to the last version created by NA1000; 2) remove the cuisine box; 3) either fix the "black box" template to display all of the listed articles without needing to edit the page, or to open up an RfC on whether "black box" templates should be used in portal space (I think the obvious answer is to just fix the template, as in theory the amount of work would be modest.) 4) open an RfC looking to create specific policy on how articles should be selected to portal space, with the goal of adding the proposal to WP:PORTAL as a rule. I've written up what I would propose at User:SportingFlyer/Portal proposal. Comments are more than welcome. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SportingFlyer, when I see an assertion that the "obvious answer" is to implement their preference without an RFC, even there are reasoned objections and with only one response, then I see a bypass around the principle of WP:CONSENSUS.

Let's just do RFCs, and settle these issues properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SportingFlyer: I agree with your "Future" stance and several other of your points above, and support moving forward as stated in your "Future" section. As I already stated above, articles for the Good article section were chosen to provide a starting point to present diverse topics regarding Australia using articles that are GA-class. The section included carefully chosen diverse content about Australian people, geography and environment, sports, transportation, cuisine, military history, and other aspects. Again, this is a starting point, and this sample was selected from the many GA-class articles about Australia-related topics that are available.

Choosing a diverse array of articles to present is directly aligned with WP:POG, the now non-guideline, failed proposal page, where it states, "A portal helps to browse on a particular subject, hence the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content." (Underline emphasis mine). If there are any concerns about the specific articles chosen, which are clearly listed in the "Good articles" subsection above on this talk page, and now also below, then that can be discussed on this talk page.

Regarding listing articles direcly on the portal to avoid any "black box" concerns, a simple way to move forward is to devise a list such as the one below, which could be placed at the end of the portal. In this manner, a list would be present, and also placed unobtrusively on the page. Or, the list could be placed below the Good article section, although it may look visually unappealing having a list of bright blue links in this area.

Just to reiterate, this is a starting point, and more articles can easily be added or removed from the list. Again, if need be, such selections can be discussed here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I'd prefer if the template could do this itself, but I agree a box would be a good way to go, along with a link to a category of other good content. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Certes, who created the {{Transclude random excerpt}} template. Hi Certes: is there a way for this template to also generate a list of articles that can be displayed directly on the portal page, so readers can see what articles are being used and to address the "black box" concerns above in this discussion? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound too difficult. The change would probably go in Module:Excerpt. Rather than showing the list by default I would suggest we [hide] it or put a subtle link to it like the V T E in some template headers. One slight issue is that we would show all potential pages even when some might get filtered out as redlinks or stubs; it would take too long to analyse every page rather than the one randomly selected.

By the way, can we restore section edit links on this long page? It's a bit unwieldy to edit as a whole. Certes (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Agreed with regards to the section links - not sure what's going on there. I don't think the list needs to be seen, maybe just a hidden div with a "see all articles." If some get filtered out as redlinks or stubs, I still want to see that in the list so I can make the requisite edits. If you need help at all let me know, would be great to learn how to use templates. SportingFlyer T·C 11:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited Module:Excerpt/sandbox. If you (pretend to) edit that and preview with User:Certes/sandbox, you'll see the effect. There's no documentation yet but you just add |list= to get a list or |list=My custom header to show other text. It might look better if the "Other articles" header and "[show]" link were closer and perhaps on the same line as "Read more..." but I think that needs a CSS expert. I can recommend learning how to use templates but in this case the template is trivial; it just calls the Lua module which does all the work. Certes (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certes writes Rather than showing the list by default I would suggest we [hide] it or put a subtle link to it like the V T E in some template headers. One slight issue is that we would show all potential pages even when some might get filtered out as redlinks or stubs; it would take too long to analyse every page rather than the one randomly selected.

What on earth is the point of hiding the list or linking to it? That's just driving readers to rely on the pointless module-generated excepts, which are redundant to the built-in previews shown on mouseover to all logged-out readers (i.e. the overwhelming majority). If anything should be hidden by default, it's the excerpts, which have been redundant for at least a year.

As to redlinks and stubs, the modules which process the lists are already identifying those, so they should treat them as errors and put the portals in an error tracking category. Identifying redlinks is a relatively cheap task; stub checking is more expensive, but could be done by a bot with cacheing of results.

And all of this applies to all portals using these templates, so per WP:MULTI it should be the subject of a well-advertised centralised discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – A layout such as that below would likely work out. The article list could be configured in a collasible format, so that it defaults in an uncollapsed state, with a button provided to provide an option to hide the list, as some users may want to do this. Now, if we can get the {{Transclude random excerpt}} template to automatically perform all of this, that would be great. If not, the article list can easily be added manually. It took me about a minute to perform. I don't think portal improvements such as this should entirely hinge upon whether or not a template is able to be changed, and that otherwise portals should remain unimproved. There are other ways to get the exact same result. Pinging Certes for their input about the layout below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Good article, an article that meets a core set of high editorial standards.

---

2012 Australian Paralympic team portrait of Blow

Jennifer "Jenny" Blow (born 10 January 1991) is an Australian goalball player and is classified as a B3 competitor. Having only started playing the sport in 2009, she has several goalball scholarships. She plays for the New South Wales women's goalball team in the Australian national championships, where she has won three silver medals. As a member of the national team, she has competed in the 2010 World Championships, 2011 IBSA Goalball World Cup and the 2011 African-Oceania regional Paralympic qualifying competition. She represented Australia at the 2012 Summer Paralympics, 2016 Summer Paralympics and 2020 Summer Paralympics in goalball. (Full article...)

• If we did need to display lists, that might be the best way of doing so. However, is there a consensus to display such lists to editors (a) prominently and by default or (b) at all? So far I only see one editor speaking in favour of them. Certes (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I Agree with Certes, this insistence that lists of articles be visibly displayed "prominently" on the face of portals does not seem to have broad consensus that I can see. I recognise that it has some common sense reasoning and validity, but it would need to be supported by broad consensus via a widely advertised public RFC. At the moment, it's just another artificially generated set of criteria proclaimed by BHG, as if they represent policy. Repeat something often, loudly and boldly enough and soon it will start to take on the appearance of fact for many casual readers of a discussion post or MFD. (In much the same way that continually repeating that WP:POG required large numbers of readers and maintainers in numerous portal MFD's did). --Cactus.man ✍ 14:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cactus, a poorly attended discussion on one portal does not establish a consensus.

No consensus was sought before the unilateral removal by one editor of the status quo that most portals did have link to such a list. We need an RFC to establish a consensus.

BTW, POG did set large numbers of readers and maintainers, as the goal of selecting a portal's scope. Sadly, Cactus and some editors preferred to remain in denial about that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, oh dear BHG. More misrepresentations:

• No there's never been a consensus to remove a link to such a list, just as there has never been a consensus that Portals must have such a list prominently displayed and highly visible on the face of the Portal. Something you would like to be the case. Anyway , most portals have such a list via a link such as "more selected articles" or similar on the relevant box section. Is it that which you object to being removed in this case?
• Yes, WP:POG did set large numbers of readers and maintainers as the goal (your word). In other words, it's a statement of desireable conditions not a statement of imperatives, as you relentlessly framed it to be in Numerous MFD discussions. It was never a requirement in the now failed guideline, upon which countless Portals have been deleted.
• I'm in denial of nothing. Please stop misrepresenting my position, it's becoming exceptionally annoying and tedious. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus, the only misrepresentaions are yours. I cannot know whether they re intentional or not, so I AGF that they are unintended:

• Links to a list of portals were the long-term status quo ante on the vast majority of portals. They therefore had WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. No consensus was sought for their widespread unnanounced removal, which as I have explained has adverse consequences. That is why I seek an RFC
• I am glad that we agree that WP:POG did set large numbers of readers and maintainers as the goal. This makes a welcome change from conduct of the prolific the prolific portal editor who repeatedly omitted that part of POG when referring to it.
  However, it is less welcome that you continue to remain in denial about the obvious fact that when the goal is not met, there has been a failure to apply the criteria.

Please stop misrepresenting guidelines and policy. It is becoming exceptionally annoying and tedious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the post above about module generated excerpts, they are neither pointless nor redundant as BHG, rather bizarrely, suggests. I strongly disagree with BHG's assertion. Properly used, they are far superior to the built-in wiki generated mouseover excerpts. The latter are convenient it is true, but they present a very limited extract of the mouse-over link and also lose the embedded wiki links contained therein. Module generated excerpts can be of custom size and display all the embedded links which present further user options for additional mouseover previews without further navigation. That is vastly superior in my opinion and I invite the reader to have a look at User:Cactus.man/Sandbox/Transcluson_Demo for a comparison. No contest IMHO. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus, what we currently have is portals displaying a slightly better excerpt of just one article, whereas displaying the full set of articles links would give readers a preview of each article in the set. Choosing just the one seems a poor trade-off, and since the mouseover previews became available there as never been an RFC to establish whether the slightly better detail of the module-generated excerpts outweighs all the complexity and overheads and the loss of a simple wikimarkup list of links.

The one-excerpt-at-a-time model has lingered on by inertia, rather than as the consensus outcome of an RFC to evaluate the options which have now become available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm open to the notion of having a list, but Wikipedia's readers do not particularly utilize the list that is already present at Portal:Australia/Featured article/2007, which is linked to on the main portal page with the Archive link in the Selected article section.

• For the first half of 2019, the Portal:Australia/Featured article/2007 page received a Daily average of 0 page views and 82 total page views.

• Conversely, for the first half of 2019, the main portal page received a Daily average of 75 page views and 13,572 total page views.

On average, readers simply use the portal itself, and are rarely using the Portal:Australia/Featured article/2007 page.

In my view, consensus for the layout of individual portal pages can be discerned from talk page discussions on individual portal pages such as this. A community-wide RfC is not required for this or other portals to be improved or expanded, in part because this level of instruction creep is overblown relative to the level of changes to this portal that are being discussed here. Furthermore, an RfC is not required every time a user has an idea about portal layout, such as adding a list of articles, and portals do not have to have an identical layout throughout Wikipedia.

That all said, I'm okay with adding the list, because it is congruent with the overall standard of portals having an accessible list of articles.

So, on one hand, I say, let's add the list, and then Wikipedia's readers will have access to an improved layout, transcluded articles that provide up-to-date, verbatim content from articles, and an enhanced portal to peruse sooner, rather than later, and not after yet another RfC where agreement for anything is rare, and the likelihood of it being reduced to yet another debate about the merits of portals in general is high. For example, rather than discussing layout ideas, people will likely discuss issues along the lines of "Why bother, delete all portals", or "Portals are a waste of time", or "Personally, I never use portals, but I guess they're all right", etc., becoming yet another polarized discussion that goes entirely off-topic and ultimately leads to nothing functional occurring.

However, per the views of others here questioning the need for a list, and the minor page views the Portal:Australia/Featured article/2007 page page receives, I am also okay with not adding the list, as it may be an outdated feature, particularly since readers are not utilizing it much for this portal. Peace, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NA1K, it is easy to frame the RFC with a preface stressing that it is not an RFC about whether portals should exist, but about how to structure those portals which do exist. I would like to work with you draft such an RFC, so that we agree that it has been neutrally framed. Please will you work with me to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I am done rebuilding Portal:Canada and was going to do the same here.. as in same style format as all the sub pages are here already for me to do so. Will start this week on article selection first.--Moxy 🍁 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Per the consensus that has formed above, I have edited the portal today to reflect that consensus (diff, diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus, NA1K? Discussion stalled ages ago. I suggested collaborating to start an RFC, but you didn't respond.

So I will revert, restoring the status quo ante. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging all other users above: @SportingFlyer, Moxy, Certes, Euryalus, and Cactus.man: I felt that an adequate consensus had formed above for the changes I performed to be restored, so I edited the portal accordingly today (see the diffs above). I also already stated that yet another RfC is unnecessary relative to the changes to this portal that had occurred. More instruction creep and bureaucracy is unnecessary, and simply makes portal improvements more unnecessarily difficult, adding in more unneeded hoops to jump through, and all the while while portals continue to be nominated for deletion at MfD and deleted for not being maintained. A truly absurd vicious circle. Also, an adequate amount of input has occurred above, in my opinion; portal talk pages typically to not receive as much input compared to article talk pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly there is a difference of opinion which seems unlikely to be resolved on this page. I suggest that we seek consensus from a wider audience of editors who do not regularly contribute to portal discussions. Certes (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Certes: It seems plain from the discussion above for the Good articles to be restored, for the Selected cuisine section to be removed, and for the minor layout changes that I performed to remain in place. In my view, there's no consensus above for a list of articles to be present on the page. My edits simply restored the Good article selections and restored said minor layout changes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It also seems plain that another editor has not got that message and continues to revert the changes. Confirmation of the consensus from universally respected uninvolved editors should either remove the objections or enable us to take the matter further. Certes (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restore the page so we can select the articles...if Brown wont help best to move on to other portals with no likelihood of being fixed. That said will start looking over what we got We should make a vital article list and see what Fa's and GA's there are .-Moxy 🍁

Is BHG the only user in this discussion which feels these changes are unacceptable? SportingFlyer T·C 00:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Certes's suggestion that we seek consensus from a wider audience of editors who do not regularly contribute to portal discussions. This is why I proposed RFCs.

I am appalled that even at this stage, Na1K:

1. made their own evaluation of consensus in this discussion on their own edits, and acted on that
2. explicitly rejects holding an RFC to establish community consensus on some simple broad principles.

There is currently no documented community consensus on which portals should exist, or how they should be constructed. Instead, NA1K is simply implementing unilateral changes, and when challenged relies the usual dwindling crew of portal fans to back the unilateralism.

NA1K's game is laid bare in their comment all the while portals continue to be nominated for deletion at MfD and deleted for not being maintained. Rather than build a consensus on which topics have portals, how they should be constructed, and how articles should be selected, NA1K continues to try to WP:GAME the system by unilaterally rebuilding portals on a vast range of topics in which they have no demonstrable expertise and have sought no WikiProject involvement, so that they can claim that this unilateral action is "maintenance". Essentially what NA1K is trying to do is to take the portals which have been abandoned by the topical WikiProjects, and turn them into pages stealthily structured and populated by NA1K alone.

I note again the contrast between portal MFDs (which are publicly notified and formally closed by an uninvolved admin) and these stealthy takeovers which are advertised nowhere other than on the portal talkpage, and not subject to any consensus either on the specific changes made or on the broader principles.

Basically, NA1K is trying to appoint themself as the portalmeister of a large swathe of portal space, and to do so without any community-backed guidelines. If portals have future, that should not be as the playground for one editor to build the whole namespace however they like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So your going to cock block any attempt at portal upgrade till what. You should be banned! !--Moxy 🍁 02:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until an RFC, Moxy. If you really, truly genuinely think than any editor should be banned for seeking an RFC on proposed widespread changes to a controversial type of page whose only guideline has just been delisted, then go propose the ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An rfc on what .....we are trying to talk about what format to use and your talking about no progress can be made till an rfc is done....but we have not even gotten to a point were a rfc can have any meaning cause all you do is tell us we can't do anything. Your clearly not here to help with the portal. Why are you harassing this user??? --Moxy 🍁 03:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, two weeks, I offered to work with NA1K to draft an RFC. That offer still stands, and I hope that NA1K will reconsider their rejection of it.

Your ABF is at least consistent with your usual conduct, as is your bogus allegation of harassment, and your evident failure to read+comprehend the detailed explanation I set out above at #Comments_and_analysis_by_BHG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for your obscure views on what a portal should be or shouldn't be. Hold an RFC somewhere stop blocking progress here because you hate an editor that is here that clearly is doing good faith edits trying to help. You got to see how when your involved nothing happens.--Moxy 🍁 03:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I again ask - is BHG the only user who finds NA1000's changes unacceptable at this point? SportingFlyer T·C 02:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SportingFlyer: Yes, this appears to be the case at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: No, not yet another month-long RfC where multiple walls of text full of ad hominem arguments overwhelm the closer and obscure the consensus. A short, sharp, simple third opinion, without filibustering by involved parties, which will take days and not weeks. That way, either we finally realise that you are right and everyone else was wrong, or we move from a consensus which everyone but you accepts to a clear and unambiguous mandate to make changes which no reasonable person can revert. Certes (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may wish to read a previous discussion (long page; loads slowly) at ANI. Although that forum normally avoids content debates, it discusses changes to portals including this one. Certes (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets change formats /////Articles from Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Featured and good content ......we have a whole bunch...what do people think are the top 25 or so? Lets save bios for there own section--Moxy 🍁 21:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Transclude random excerpt |1=Banff National Park |2=Australian Defence Force |3=Black Friday (1945) |4=Hamersley, Western Australia |5=Military history of Australia during World War II |6=Red-bellied black snake |7= Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia |8=Shrine of Remembrance |9=Attack on Sydney Harbour |10= Victoria Cross for Australia |11=Australian raven |12=Australian Air Corps |13=Australian green tree frog |14=Short-beaked echidna |15=

etc...

.....slowly getting there Portal:Australia/sandbox. Should be done in a few more days.--Moxy 🍁 14:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that like NA1K's unilateral restructurings, this proposal has been made without any notification to WP:WikiProject Australia. This talk page is dominated by editors without connection to Australia, rather than by those with demonstrable expertise in the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd you go out of your way to block progress. Could you let editors trying to build something work.....we don't need you to hold our hands ..nor do we need you to assume we don't know what we are doing on the topic. You got balls I will give you that.--Moxy 🍁 02:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: I see two possible interpretations of your response:

1. You genuinely believe that a request to notify the pool of editors with expertise in the topic area is an attempt to block progress.
2. You have no comprehension of the meaning of the two short sentences which you are replying to, and are just sounding off.

I don't know which applies. But either way, your outrage is absurd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this helps build this portal how?? Is wonderful you feel righteous but it doesn't help us here.lol now does it.--Moxy 🍁 03:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, your choice to continue expressing outrage rather than acting on my substantive suggestion is an excellent illustration of why issues such as this should not be left to the small crew of portal fans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a portal fan by any means. In fact I see very little point in them but I can identify an edit-war when I see one and I see one here. It's a slow edit-war, but an edit-war nonetheless with one editor repeatedly reverting changes made by other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a few minor things I'd like to note about the proposed changes. The main image in the introduction section is too large and doesn't fit as cleanly as the existing image, creating an unneccesary scroll bar. The addition of the coat of arms and the location of Australia adds very little, and creates gigantic white spaces within the box. Both of these things make the portal visually less organised, and places emphasis away from the main information of the page. I can't comment about the other changes, as I'm not an expert in the portal system. Catiline52 (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment...I agree too much white space.--Moxy 🍁 03:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the above input, I have reduced the intro image banner height to 165px and removed the scroll bar (diff). Personally, I prefer the scroll bar, because readers then have the option to see the full image, but they can always open it in a new browser page. I also removed the coat of arms and location images, to reduce white space in the introduction section of the portal (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the subject experts for their comments. I now see a consensus to retain the changes, with just one editor dissenting, and I have therefore boldly reinstated them. Certes (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be proposing a new format in a sandbox in a week or so. North has decided to step aside in hopes we can get this done in a normal fashion.--Moxy 🍁 16:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been involved in this particular portal discussion, because it seems that discussions about specific portals are being scattered all over, maybe among our hundreds of portals. I am still a little puzzled that User:BrownHairedGirl seems to be trying to hold up changes to portals, whether by User:Northamerica1000 or anyone else, arguing that they are being done sneakily and without consensus. It appears to me that the portals were developed without consensus in the first place. I am disappointed by the conduct of both BHG and NA1k. NA1k is indeed, as BHG points out, running around frantically and making poorly thought-out changes to portals without discussion. BHG seems to be running around in a similar fashion and reverting these changes. I thought, perhaps naively, that there might be a truce. I don't see why BHG is reverting the changes. Most of the existing portals are in such bad shape that any change is probably a small improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BHG seems to want one or more RFCs on portals. My question is: Will these be one portal per RFC, which could be dozens of RFCs taking the place of dozens of MFDs, or would there be a few RFCs on portals in general? I am not optimistic about any RFCs about portals in general, because even the most basic RFC, such as whether to ratify the long-standing, never-ratified Portal Guidelines, gets weird input from the portal platoon, who evidently don't want to have guidelines about portals, because they simply want portals for a mystical reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, I most certainly do not want any more the sort of vague, broad RFCs of which we have had several this year, in many of which false binaries have been constructed as straw men by editors who advance a simplistic proposition to which they are manifestly opposed. (e.g. we had two separate RFCs in which editors who rage against the deletion of portals proposed the false binary of deleting all portals, in the transparent hope that the proposal's inevitable rejection would help them to claim falsely that there was a consensus not to delete any portals).

Nor I do want RFCs on some overall set of guidelines.

What I seek is a broad community consensus on three specific points which are absolutely central to each and every portal which the community decides to keep:

1. How should the list of selected articles be presented? I see at least 5 options: a) as bare list ("mega-navbox") style; b) as a bare list with random preview (e.g. Portal:Wind power); c) as a random preview with a link to a list to list on another page (as with many of the content-forked portals); d) as a random preview with no list (i.e the "black box" model which NA1K sneakily imposed on many dozens of portals); e) as an annotated list with a short description to accompany each entry. There may be more possibilities.
2. What general goals should be set for the selection? e.g. what quality threshold? what importance threshold? what NPOV criteria (e.g. recentism, systemic bias)? How to handle the systemic bias which skews the eligible set of articles?
3. Within those broad criteria, how should selections be made? Should there be a propose-and-notify system? Is it acceptable for one editor to make unilateral changes, and if so what notification and explanation is required?

Those questions apply to every portal, regardless of topic. Per WP:MULTI they should be decided in a central discussion, and per WP:LOCALCON they should seek broad community consensus through a properly advertised RFC. Sadly, the portal platoon is stubbornly resisting these basic principles of en.wp consensus-building, and instead is trying to keep these choices off the radar and hidden away as local discussions on individual pages. This is because the portal platoon in trying to have its cake and eat it: on one hand it claims that portals should be kept because they are (allegedly) hugely significant overviews of a whole topic; but on the other hand the platoon is insisting that there should not be broad input in how choices on how these allegedly hugely significant overviews should be built. There is a further problem, illustrated in my reply below to NA1K, but by no means confined to NA1K, that much of the portal platoon is unable or unwilling to discuss how to apply broad issue of principle. The are happy to assert high-sounding broad principles, but consistently fail to explain (let alone define) mechanisms of how those principles are applied in practice. It is quite evident both from the conduct of the portal platoon (repeatedly making lists without wider engagement) and from their statements in discussions such as this, that most of them fundamentally want to have portal space as a free-for-all zone in which they can make their own personal choices about content selection without the discussion or debate which is a routine part of article construction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I have not been "running around frantically" whatsoever, and the article choices I added were well thought out. As I have stated above, a list of articles was provided on this talk page after the additions occurred, and before the reversion occurred. Furthermore, as I stated above, the edits performed improved the portal, because 1) Using transclusions from articles provides readers with current, up-to-date information, that is verbatim to that in articles, 2) The Good article section was a logical starting point for more to be added as time goes on, and 3) The articles chosen for the GA section as a starting point serve to provide readers with diverse content about Australian people, geography and environment, sports, transportation, cuisine, military history, and other aspects. As Moxy has initiated above, anyone interested can discuss other articles to add as well. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• NA1K, it is sad but unsurprising to see that you continue to evade any sort of reasoned discussion, and continue to rely on verbose generalities which amount to a very poor attempt at proof by assertion, e.g.

1. the article choices I added were well thought out ... but there is no explanation at all of how they were thought out. It is extraordinary that NA1K is unwilling or unable to acknowledge even the most obvious follies, such as adding Beer in Australia to a section which they chose to label "cuisine" (MW defines "cuisine" as "manner of preparing food : style of cooking: also : the food prepared").
2. Good article section was a logical starting point omits any attempt to explain what logic was applied.
3. The third numbered paragraph is just a lot of words which offers no explanation at all of how and why those articles are chosen. It amounts to little more than "here's some random articles; add more if you want".

This is all just a continuation of the pattern that I have seen over the last 9 months of portal discussion, that most of the development of portals is being done without any evident application of critical thinking, i.e. with no demonstration of ability to explain and critique their own thought processes, let alone to engage with external criticism. In particular, NA1K is either incapable of explaining the basis on which choices are made, or adamantly unwilling to do so.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine. A page which presumes to offer an overview of a broad topic should not be based solely on one editor's personal preferences. It should follow our core policies, and use a selection based on the balance of reliable sources (see WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT etc) and identify some structured process so that WP:NPOV is upheld.

When an editor chooses to make selection of topics for a page which is supposed to serve as a showcase, they should explain what objectives were set, what criteria were applied, and what pool of articles was used, and why some topics were chosen over others. NA1K repeatedly fails to demonstrate that they did any of those things, and when questioned replies in the manner of someone at an early stage of education. The readers of an encyclopedia deserve much better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see any way forward here that doesn't involve arbitration. SportingFlyer T·C 05:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SF, the best way forward is to hold RFCs to build a community consensus on the substantive issues, i.e. how to structure and populate portals. This dispute has happened because no guidelines exist on those central questions. I repeat my offer to NA1K to work with me to design RFCs to answer these questions .... but if NA!K continues to reject that offer of collaboration, then I will proceed to RFC without NA1K. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I did not get any input above about selection so I just did all the work ...pls see somewhat new portal Portal:Australia and it's new sub pages listing selections and more content... Portal:Australia/Content Portal:Australia/Wikiproject and Portal:Australia/Anniversaries.--Moxy 🍁 21:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]