Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Psittacinae

Bird Family Portals 2: Electric Boogaloo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete all except the withdrawn Portal:Anchiornithidae. There is a strong consensus to delete all these portals rather than to keep some. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More portals of the same type:

We do not need a portal for every family of bird. Per WP:POG, “portals should be about broad subject areas”. Related MfDs: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Woodpeckers, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tanagers, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just like the others. These are for the birds - articles are better. The only info on Portal:Psittacinae tells us there is 11 species in the subfamily => fails the WP:POG the creators wrote. No 20 articles, no portal. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Psittacinae should be Merged with Portal:Parrots, Parrots and Parakeets should only have one portal.Catfurball (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Portal:Callaeidae and Portal:Sulidae they are way to small.Catfurball (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It is to be noted that even portal people are starting to support deleting some of the portals, which just shows that the establishment of these portals was done indiscriminately. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good lord, Callaeidae? Really? Anyway, yes please delete per previous rationale. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When two bird editors want bird portals deleted.... I added Portal:Frigatebirds Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My god! Peucaea! a freaking genus? How many obscure taxa have portals? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"My god" is right. 4 nonstub articles on the topic. FOUR! This is why P2 needs to be expanded. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge and redirect, as appropriate on a case-by-case basis. In general, an entire biological family is sufficiently broad for a portal. In cases where a family has too small a number of genera or even species, then upmerge it to the superpfamily or order above it. Given the huge and intense interest in birdwatching in particular, just randomly nuking bird-related portals is especially contra-indicated. Consider renaming some of these; e.g. "Portal:Parrots". If these had clearer names per WP:COMMONNAME several of these would not have been nominated, and several commenters above would probably be rethinking what they wrote. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Update: Portal:Parrots already exists, so Portal:Psittacinae should merge and redirect to it. However, that portal itself has been nominated for deletion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[reply]

I already linked Woodpeckers at the top, but thanks for linking the other one. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of a general process of cleaning up this mess. Until and unless someone comes up with some good reason for having portals at all, or people agree on a sensible and straightforward method of getting rid of them, we should just carry on with this interminable timesink. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Portals should be about broad topics. Individual families of birds don't need portals. They already have well written articles with the same pictures and navigational links. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Why do we even need to waste time on discussing the creations of someone who thought it would be a good idea to have Portal:Vultures, Portal:New World vultures and Portal:Old World vultures (or Portal:Buteo and Portal:Buteoninae for that matter)? Fram (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, other than the modern bird families or suborders that have been proposed for deletion, this portal (Portal:Anchiornithidae) represents very early birds dating back to the Jurassic, more than 150 million years ago. To include it in "Portal: (Modern) Birds" is not justified. I agree with a lot of the MFD nominations by @Legacypac: for many of the automated creations by Transhumanist, but this one is useful to have due to the scope (early bird evolution), geographical notability (mainly China) and age range (150 million years is a lot of time and far from modern birds). Tisquesusa (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not my nomination, but thanks. To clearify you want to keep the dino birds only. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the nom for this particular portal. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birds is a large enough topic area for there to be viable portals below it, but some of these are too specific and should be merged, e.g.
- Merge Portal:Psittacinae into Portal:Parrots - no need for the split
- Merge Portal:New World vultures, Portal:Old World vultures and Portal:Vultures
- Merge Portal:Sulidae and Portal:Frigatebirds to a Portal:Seabirds
- Merge Portal:Threskiornithidae to a Portal:Wading birds
- Merge Portal:Tree kingfishers to a Portal:Kingfishers
- Merge Portal:Buteoninae and Portal:Buteo to a Portal:Birds of prey. Others should be similarly merged but I don't know what grouping would be most appropriate for them. I'll alert the relevant Wikiproject(s) to this discussion if they haven't been already. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you... suggesting that we have portals based on folk taxonomies and ecological niches and actual taxonomies? First off, why? Secondly that's going to get very confusing:

New World vultures and old world vultures are not relatives, one's a family, one's a sort of clade within the Accipitridae
If we merge Sulidae and Frigatebirds into seabirds, do all seabirds go there?
Putting the ibises and spoonbills into wading birds works in North America, but outside there the term wader applies to different species
Why do kingfishers rank their own portal when other families don't?
Why have a vulture portal and a birds of prey portal when one is a subcat of the other?

Speaking as a member of the affected wikiproject (but not for them) we don't need any portals except bird (and honestly not even that one), and we certainly don't need a bunch of portals based on no logical or consistent schema for existence thrown together to save some code. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – "We do not need a portal for every family of bird" is not just the opinion of the nom, but also some members of the relevant WikiProject. We have Portal:Birds. Leviv ich 05:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.