Good articles

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.

More information Table is here., Australia articles by quality and importance ...

Table is here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Australia articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 8 26 145 296 475 FL 1 3 11 75 90 FM 180 180 A 1 24 42 67 GA 8 20 158 680 866 B 59 179 964 5,269 16 6,487 C 41 204 1,517 17,701 335 19,798 Start 6 176 2,392 71,942 1 3,124 77,641 Stub 4 518 82,130 2 4,747 87,401 List 3 31 258 8,797 58 69 9,216 Category 1 48 34,117 34,166 Disambig 17 549 566 File 1 2 3,383 3,386 Portal 195 195 Project 3 976 979 Redirect 6 75 3,141 5,550 8,772 Template 2 20 7,218 7,240 Draft 1 20 266 287 Assessed 126 651 6,066 190,183 52,495 8,291 257,812 Unassessed 2 35 34 149 220 Total 126 651 6,068 190,218 52,529 8,440 258,032 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,013,058 Ω = 5.26

Close

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)

Further discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• @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)

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)

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

Comments and analysis by BHG

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)

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)

• @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)

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)

• @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)

Additional commentary

• @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)

Rebuild

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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• @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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

@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)

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)