Portal:Transgender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Another Portal not supported direct by any Wikiproject. Created in 2009, remained abandoned until 2019 when received few editions, on the occasion of the first MFD, but they have maintained the portal's obsolete structure, based on content forks. Random selection of content with no apparent concerns with WP:V, WP:POVFORK, or WP:BLP. Narrow topic already covered in Portal:LGBTQ. Page views in last 30 days 1,888, against 117,937 of main article.

Guilherme Burn (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't understand what is going on here. Is the proposal to delete Portal:Transgender/Intro/3 or to delete the whole portal? If it is to delete the whole portal then why is Portal:Transgender/Intro/3 being made an issue of? It seems to be a page completely orphaned from the rest of the portal. Maybe this illustrates that the portal has cruft in its namespace but I don't see how that reflects on the fundamental validity of portal itself. It seems to be irrelevant to, distract from and maybe even to undermine any argument for deletion of the whole portal. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see now. It is one of four, literally random images shown on Portal:Transgender/Intro and What links here doesn't know about that. That's a bad idea. I think there is a problem with Portal:Transgender/Intro. I'm tempted to revert to the previous version although doing so would leave the transcluded sub-pages orphaned. I'm just going to comment out the random image selection for now so that the inflammatory image is not shown to 1/4 of readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal claims that there is an inflammatory image even though there isn't. Such a removal may be linked with violating WP:NQP and most reasons for justifying a removal of an image are 100% opinion and 0% fact.

OMGShay 92 (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... what??? I'm trying to give this portal a chance not to be deleted here!

The image is obviously inflammatory and I can very easily imagine a situation where a screenshot of the Portal, including that image, was used by transphobes to justify their (very obviously false and insincere) claims that trans kids are a danger to society as well as to attack Wikipedia itself. Would we even be having this MfD if it were not for that image? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we are only having this MfD because of this potentially offensive image, then we should snowclose and remove it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. There are some real problems here and, while I hope that they are not fatal to the portal, multiple people are !voting delete based on things other than the image so I think we have to let this run. Anyway, the image is gone from the portal and, whatever else comes out of this, that's something. DanielRigal (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Africa has 1.491 against 158.866. So that's actually a reason to keep. Skemous (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair. Lewisguile (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see anything inflammatory, especially images. Also, if a flag was to contain weapons (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Angola, etc.), would you classify that as inflammatory and needed for removal? You can't just simply do that, especially because of WP:NOTCENSORED.

OMGShay 92 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very big difference. Those flags are... actual flags. They are identified as such and have contexts which make them meaningful for use by an encyclopaedia. This image is a user generated image with no meaningful context. It is not associated with any specific organisation. It has no date beyond when it was uploaded. It's fine for the Wikimedia Commons, as it is clearly uncopyrightable, but it isn't any use here. (OK, it would be fine on a User page but I mean that it is no use in an article or portal page.) I've not put it up for deletion and I very strongly resent the accusation of censorship.

Now, I do get why some people like that image. If I was a trans kid (I'm neither) and I was putting up with the heinous shit that they are being subjected to, then I'd think that that image was metal af! I'd probably have sheets and sheets of stickers of it and stick them up everywhere in town that the cops weren't looking. I'd definitely feel encouraged to see similar stickers pasted up by other people. I understand, and sympathise with, the motivation to do the same thing here but that doesn't mean that it belongs on the Portal page, at least not without context and explanation. As I mention above, its presence could easily be used by transphobes to demonise trans kids and to attack Wikipedia.

Yes, there is an element of respectability politics in what I am saying here and, yes, respectability politics is cringe, but let's focus on saving the Portal, not just argue about that one image. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devoid of any context or link to a notable subject, it seems not only unencyclopaedic but also WP:UNDUE. Removing it also removes most of the issues with the portal itself. Lewisguile (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Net negative for readers. Readers who get to the end of the Transgender article should not click on the link to Portal:Transgender but should read another article about transgender people if they want to keep learning about this topic. There's no benefit for readers in being directed toward this inferior content fork as opposed to any mainspace page about transgender people. Having the wrong architecture and lacking support from a WikiProject, which is inevitably accompanied by a lack of maintenance, is a sure signal that the portal should be deleted.—Alalch E. 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take to save this? Would reverting to the older version help? Could another WikiProject "adopt" it? Can we make it a net positive for readers? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noting that an editor added this portal as the second of the two portals allegedly mantained by the WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies in 2020 (see diff) (edit: corrected below, see reply—14:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). There has never been any discussion about organizing maintenance or improvement efforts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. There is a 2008 post about how the portal "needs some content added" (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 17#Portal:Transgender), and that's it. The state of the portal, a look at its page history, and a look at its talk page show that it is unmaintained. There is also the Portal:LGBTQ. It is better. That might be the portal which one or more WikiProject LGBTQ+ members want to maintain, not the Transgender portal. I don't think that anyone wants to adopt it. Reverting to an older version would not help. We can't make it a net positive for readers, it should go. —Alalch E. 13:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I didn't add the portal to the project's scope in 2020, that was done in 2010. My 2020 edit was just a result of retiring the old project navigation template that previously linked to it. It has always been maintained (notionally if not in practice) by WP:LGBTQ+.--Trystan (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. —Alalch E. 14:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. I want us to find a way to save this but the problems being raised here are real and I'm not sure what the way forward is. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this does get deleted then that should be without prejudice to anybody having another go at making a valid portal under this name in the future. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Many arguments based on WP:OTHER. This MFD is based on recent discussions about problems related to the outdated “Purposes of portals”. The image in question and the number of pageviwes are just examples of these problems stemming from a lack of maintenance and WP:PWP. As another example, the portal is linked in only 391 articles in the main space, a very small number in a universe with millions of articles.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The portal is supported by WP:LGBTQ+, and has been since 2010. I wouldn't contest that it has somewhat fallen by the wayside over the years, but I think it would only be fair to alert the WikiProject of the need to improve the portal and see if there is any current interest in doing so. If nothing is done in a few months, I would support selectively merging into Portal:LGBTQ.--Trystan (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Supported in name only. The nominal support didn't convert into visible improvements over many years, causing the portal to still have the bad and unsustainable architecture. It isn't fair to say that it's supported when this support is non-material. And what's the benefit to the reader of Wikipedia? It doesn't even have featured content like FA-class transgender articles (Is there an automatically generated list of FA-class articles on transgender topics?), featured topics, featured images ... —Alalch E. 16:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that WP:LGBTQ+ would need to step up and make that support a reality. I just think the project should be given a chance to do so. A notice of this deletion discussion hasn't even been posted on the project talk page. The quality issues aren't a reason to delete, because they would be resolved if the maintenance situation is improved.--Trystan (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have posted a notice of this MFD at the project talk page. There is no standard procedure for posting notices of deletion discussions at project talk pages. However, that comment does raise an issue. The nominator, User:Guilherme Burn, has not notified the originators of the portals that have been nominated for deletion. Twinkle provides notification as a feature. Please provide notification to the originator of a portal that you nominate for deletion. If the nominator is inactive, it might be a good idea to notify someone. Many editors do not routinely read MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The quality issues generally aren't a reason to delete an article provided that the subject of the article is a notable topic—it is that reason outside of the page which provides a reason for its existence. But with portals, we do not have known, generally accepted reasons for their existence, so we have nothing to go by except their quality vis-à-vis impact on the reader. —Alalch E. 22:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete because there is no need and no reason for this portal that is obsolete in three ways:

1. The portal relies on subpages which are partial copies of the selected articles, and so are content forks which do not reflect changes in the articles. One effect is that deceased persons are listed as living persons. More modern architectures relying on transclusion exist and are in use, so there is no reason for this obsolescent architecture.
2. The portal is not being maintained, and so does not provide a current selection of articles. Being "sponsored" by a WikiProject is not the same as being maintained.
3. Portals have been obsolete since the start of Wikipedia and the implementation of portals as part of the Wikipedia architecture. Portals are no longer needed on the Internet because search engines can provide much of the original functionality of portals. Portals were never needed in a hypertext-based system such as Wikipedia where an overview of a subject is available by links, and Wikipedia also has categories.

If there is no one who is available to modernize or re-architect the portal, that is a further indication that the portal is unmaintained.

This portal is being used more than most portals, which would warrant keeping it if it had a modern architecture for the premodern purpose of being a portal. In calendar 2024, there were an average of 76 daily pageviews of the portal, as opposed to 4685 for the article. In calendar 2023, there were an average of 85 daily pageviews of the portal, as opposed to 5682 for the article. More than 50 daily pageviews is high demand for a portal. Although portals are obsolete, there would be a reason to keep a portal that had a modern architecture. This one does not.

The Heymann criterion should be to reimplement the portal within five days. Otherwise it should be deleted without prejudice against recreation with an architecture that does not rely on content forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I don't like the premise here; it looks like we're trying to delete a page over fixable content problems, or because we decided we were bored of WP:Portals. I agree that it's become outdated (we should ideally be using evergreen excerpts) and "saving" it probably requires a substantial technical rewrite from skilled editors, but it doesn't look that broken to me. I don't see the harm in just hacking out whatever BLP and V issues you're seeing and leaving it until someone finds the drive to fix it. Why the deadline? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should be fixed rather than deleted. Lewisguile (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This could be a useful portal if there are people are willing to maintain it and fix any issues. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - One editor says: This should be fixed rather than deleted. The portal has an archaic architecture relying on partial copies of articles that are content forks that become obsolete. The fix is to re-architect the portal. Is someone ready to re-architect the portal? Another editor writes: I don't see the harm in just hacking out whatever BLP and V issues you're seeing and leaving it until someone finds the drive to fix it The BLP and V issues are the result of the facts changing and the articles changing to reflect the changes in the world with the content forks becoming outdated. Is someone ready to examine the subpages and either delete those that are no longer current, or create new partial copies? Is someone ready to take on the responsibility of maintenance of this portal? Unmaintained portals with content forks are a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This portal can not be fixed. I have fixed portals before but I can't fix this one. I fixed the video games portal which influenced it not getting deleted. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Video games; compare the video games portal before the overhaul to the current Portal:Video games. I also overhauled the World War I portal, which was subsequently deleted in spite of my best efforts (it was truly a lot better after the work I did to it). See the first and the second Portal:World War I MfD. I know what it takes to fix a portal with these problems. However, this portal I can not fix because there is no Transgender recognized content. There is only recognized content for LGBTQ+, as part of the WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, but not specifically for the topic of Transgender. See Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Recognized content. This goes further to prove that the portal is not supported by a WikiProject (supported in name only, but was never supported in reality). The portal will never be improved. I challenge anyone to overhaul this portal—the preconditions just aren't there.—Alalch E.
• Comment to Closer - Please Relist this MFD, both because more discussion might result in a consensus, and to provide ten days rather than three days for someone to try to fix this portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for any editor who proposes that the portal be fixed rather than deleted: What is the purpose either of portals or of this portal? Perhaps an answer would help to focus discussion on how this portal should be fixed,and therefore whether it can be fixed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, If there was a new wikiproject encompassing this portal, it might be applicable. In the status quo, this is covered by Portal:LGBTQ, though I wouldn't describe this topic as narrow. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]