Redirect to:
Please don't add New York portal links to every article that covers a topic in New York. There's little to no relation between most of the article topics and the portal, and on some articles like CSX Transportation the number could get ridiculous (not just states, but cities, rail transport, companies, business, etc.) --NE2 20:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's not; only highway articles at the moment. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- And how do those links help the reader? The comment about too many boxes still applies - US 9 would get NY, U.S. roads, NYC, Albany, and possibly others (Adirondacks? Hudson Valley? Westchester?) --NE2 20:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Portal. An article that covers multiple topics would only have the single most relevant topic; therefore, US 9 would get a link to the NY portal, which encompasses everything. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- That page doesn't seem to say anything about restricting linked portals to the "most relevant" (which one might argue is U.S. roads, not New York). It also recommends that portals be placed on the talk page, with the article page as a secondary choice. --NE2 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your objections. This bot was approved by the BAG, so they saw no issues with this specific task. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's just proof that BAG is out-of-touch with the community
My objections are that these boxes usually add nothing to the article except clutter. --NE2 21:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then that's a discussion for portals in general, not this task specifically. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- But has there been a discussion for portals in general that adding these boxes to all articles is a good thing? --NE2 22:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, but I do know that it's been standard practice for several years. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not by bot, as far as I can tell. It's also been my standard practice to revert thses; for instance someone went and put "companies portal" boxes on many articles. I removed them and they haven't been added back. --NE2 22:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, but I do know that it's been standard practice for several years. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- But has there been a discussion for portals in general that adding these boxes to all articles is a good thing? --NE2 22:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then that's a discussion for portals in general, not this task specifically. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's just proof that BAG is out-of-touch with the community
- I'm not sure I understand your objections. This bot was approved by the BAG, so they saw no issues with this specific task. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- That page doesn't seem to say anything about restricting linked portals to the "most relevant" (which one might argue is U.S. roads, not New York). It also recommends that portals be placed on the talk page, with the article page as a secondary choice. --NE2 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Portal. An article that covers multiple topics would only have the single most relevant topic; therefore, US 9 would get a link to the NY portal, which encompasses everything. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- And how do those links help the reader? The comment about too many boxes still applies - US 9 would get NY, U.S. roads, NYC, Albany, and possibly others (Adirondacks? Hudson Valley? Westchester?) --NE2 20:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
