In my own personal opinion, any RfC generated by this page will be somewhat questionable. I will remain open-minded to it, but I will see it as somewhat questionable. the reason is that the small number of editors seeking to derail consensus, and to denigrate portals as a group, are still at it. the purpose of this RfC will therefore not be to generate any individual improvements to individual portals, or to positively improve portals as a whole. the main effect of this RfC, in my view, will be to generate a whole set of restrictions and parameters for portals as a group wholesale, which is something we almost never to seek to do for any other area. yes, we do have individual guidelines for articles, categories, etc, but in such cases, the guidelines themselves are discussed individually.
imho, there is no basis and no need for any editors to generate a set of guidelines and then seek to impose them on Wikipedia as a whole, i.e. as a whole set of requirements, rather than allowing each requirement to develop naturally and individually.
With that said, any editor here who wishes to submit an RfC is welcome to do so. I will be glad to view it with an open mind, and will be glad to express some agreement for any ideas that seem helpful. However, please don't assume that I will accord any such RfC with any special status or weight, merely because it resulted from the discussion here. this discussion has already been diverted into a vehement discussion on the value and validity of portals in general, and whether they need to exist in the first place. this topic is totally outside the explicit scope of this page, which is to improve portals, not to to advocate for their deletion or for any wholesale deletion of any group of portals.
Just for some historical background, as you most likely know, the origin of this debate was the actions of a tiny handful of editors who sought to dominate the debate and the editing process and deletion. the most prominent editor in that process has now been desysopped by ArbCom. that seems like a fairly decisive finding and possible resolution for this issue.Yes, ArbCom itself called for an RfC on this issue, to try to address this positively. However, ArbCom itself said that was just a suggestion, not a requirement.
If I perceive some positivity in the discussion process here, I will be happy to support it. however, i don't know why any part of this discussion is devolving into any form of argument or contentiousness. Portals exist, and serve a useful role. it seems that perhaps we may still have commenters here who question that. i totally respect their right to do so. however, if that is one key theme in this discussion that is recurring with some regularity, then I personally feel this process is somewhat flawed.
Based on that, again, I am open to an RfC, but i will not view it as representing any actual community consensus. I will however welcome an open discussion process on any positive ideas that anyone wishes to present that focus upon real improvement.
I appreciate the time of everyone here, and I thank you for your attention and for your help. thanks for all your insights above; i mean that sincerely, for everyone here, including those with whom i may disagree. I truly appreciate your effort and your insights. thanks!!
