This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Full disclosure: I started the WP articles on Women in Daoism, Daoist mediation, etc. and prefer D- over T-aoism. We can agree that Taoism is more frequently used than Daoism in nonacademic contexts, and that WP:COMMON applies to titles, but there is no basis for with making wholesale changes of content spelling without discussion or meaningful consensus. English Taoism and Daoism are in free variation, and arbitrarily changing one to the other seems as unconstructive as changing American English to British English. If you want to pursue this path, I suggest we seek wider discussion from a forum such as WikiProject China. Keahapana ( talk) 03:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I appreciate your close on Emu's TV programmes, but I feel it was incorrect. That specific title was not an option raised by any one editor so I'm not sure how it is a more valid option then one which had a 2-1 favor in. Just to make it clear, I would have opposed such a title as that isn't how WP:NCTV disambiguates titles. -- Gonnym ( talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Before, we could only cut off the bottom of pics.
User:FR30799386 has pulled it off, and made the upgrade to {{ Portal image banner}}...
So, this:
Becomes this:
Here's the code for the above banner:
{{Portal image banner|File:American Falls from Canadian side in winter.jpg | [[Niagara falls]], from the Canadian side |maxheight=175px |overflow=Hidden|croptop=10}}
To see it employed in a portal, check out Portal:Niagara Falls.
We were racing against time to create 5,000 portals by the end of the year (just for the heck of it).
We made it. We've passed the 5,000 portals mark, with time to spare!
And the 5,000th portal is Portal:Major League Baseball, by Happypillsjr.
Congratulations!
The 10,000th portal mark. But...
...there is plenty else to do in addition to building new portals:
And whatever else you can dream up.
But most of all, have a...
Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your contributions to the Portals Project, and have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 12:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads-up that I reverted a series of changes you made at LGBT slang which introduced unnecessary pipes in links which were already working properly and targeting the correct page. It is generally against policy to replace a wikilink containing a working redirect, per WP:NOPIPE and WP:DONOTFIXIT, although there can be occasions where it is justified. If using popups, please watch your settings, and be sure to keep Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects in mind which gives a detailed explanation of why this kind of change is generally not a good idea. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you closed this with the comment: "See general agreement below to stay with the present title style." Consequently, this has the appearance of being treated as a vote? It appears inconsistent with a close, rather than superficial assessment of the evidence presented. I note this observation following the close. I also note Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, WP:NOTVOTE and WP:NCCAP among others. Given how this "appears", would you please clarify how this has been assessed IAW the instructions, applicable policy and guidelines, and the evidence (as a whole)? Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, your last post but one left me with the distinct impression that I would not be receiving the explanation you have now offered and for which I thank you. I would much prefer discussing this with you than any other course. I would offer the following observations.
Because of how MOS:CAPS deals with the matter of what a proper name is, the primary question is not whether it is a proper name but whether it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. The consideration of whether it is a proper name is subsidiary and of little or no consequence to the question. Is the n-gram data conclusive? What is a substantial majority? Does it reach the threshold? A supermajority is typically 2/3? Can the raw n-gram data be accepted at face value?
Saying "the n-gram data shows" (or similar), is a false premise if it only considers that alone?
A case was made to distinguish the generic from the specific and that the specific was then a proper name. Does it qualify the n-gram data to favour a conclusion for capitalisation in a way similar to usage of caps in headings, figures and like (but not running prose) favours decapping? The OP has responded to this in detail but most significant: "... But none of this makes the n-grams evidence "bad"; that evidence is from the Google Books corpus, and only one of your links is within that corpus ..."
An alternative is to argue the generic/specific/proper name on onomastic grounds. To simply state "it is a proper name" is unsubstantiated. To state that it is a proper name because it is capitalised to distinguish it from the generic is a case but it is only valid if it is consistent with onomastic theory and if WP is silent on the use of caps in such a way. I made reference to theory (cited authorities) that it is not. I do not see any counter claim so supported? You might wish to take a look at Proper name. You will see that what I have said is quite consistent with that. What most people were taught in grade 5 (or so) on this is a very simplifed version appropriate to that age. Unfortunately, that is all that most people were taught and the simplification leads to misperceptions/misconceptions.
I will give you an example:
In the RfC a comment was made that "lunar roving vehicle" was analogous to "Ford" in the phrase "Ford car". Try substituting it into that phrase though.
You have stated, "The editors who had opposed the request had made their case" but I see little in your response as to what this case is? You also refer to "valid rebuttal argument" and would ask what (if any) has been made wrt my comment? From your rational, it appears to me that you have closed on the basis that it is a proper name but on an onomastic basis (or at least, a perceived need to differentiate the generic from the specific) and not on the basis of usage per the quote from MOS:CAPS?
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Could you please point me to the policy and guideline that support such a move? NCTV was the only relevant guide and it does NOT say it needs to be "List of". This seems like a rather bullshit move considering there definitely was NOT a consensus to move. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Lunar Roving Vehicle. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
What on earth does "Pending final closure" mean at Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, why Zayn's name is written in urdu. I mean he is only of Pakistani decent, his father is a British Pakistani but he is completely a British. Riz Ahmed is also a singer and actor of Pakistani decent and his name is written only in English on Wikipedia. So I request you to please remove Zayn's urdu name. Amanchhaudhary ( talk) 05:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, here's the first issue of the new year. Enjoy...
A hearty welcome to new arrivals to the portals department:
DannyS712 has created a user script prototype, User:DannyS712/Cat links, that can pull members from a category, a functionality we've been after since the project's revamp last Spring. Now, it's a matter of applying this technique to scripts that will place the items where needed, such as with a section starter script and/or portal builder script.
There have been some discussions at Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines.
DreamyJazz is working on a bot to place links to portals on root articles, category pages, and navigation footer templates.
Portal bugs are getting dealt with soon after they are reported.
Lots of wikignome activity (using Hotcat, etc.).
Keep up the good work. — The Transhumanist 08:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
For a visually intensive portal, see Portal:Hummingbirds.
If you find any other portals that stand out, please send me the links so I can include them in the next issue. Thank you.
There are about 1100 portals left in the old style, with subpages and static excerpts. As those are very labor intensive to maintain (because their maintenance is manual), all those except the ones with active maintainers (about 100) are slated for upgrade = approximately 1000. We started with 1500, and so over a quarter of them have been processed so far. That's good, but at this rate, conversion will take another 3 years. So, some automation (AWB?) is in order. We just need to keep at it, and push down on the gas pedal a bit harder.
You can find the old-style portals with an insource search of "box portal skeleton".
Speaking of upgrades...
The following portals are listed in the header at the top of Wikipedia's Main Page, and get far more traffic than all other portals:
Of those, all but one have been revamped to an automated self-updating single-page design.
The remaining one, Portal:Mathematics has manual maintainers, and has been partially upgraded.
As these are our flagship fleet, they need to be kept in top-notch condition.
Check 'em out, and improve them if you can.
And be sure they are on your watchlist.
Keep 'em coming!
As you know, thousands of the new portals are orphans, that is, having no links to them from article space. For all practical purposes, that means they are not part of the encyclopedia yet, and readers will be unlikely to find them.
What is needed are links to these portals from the See also sections of the corresponding root articles.
Dreamy Jazz to the rescue...
Dreamy Jazz has created a bot to place the corresponding category link to the end of each portal (if it is missing), and place a link to each portal in the See also section of the corresponding root articles.
That bot, named User:Dreamy Jazz Bot, is currently in its trial period performing the above described edits!
To take a look at the edits it has made so far, see Special:Contributions/Dreamy_Jazz_Bot.
It shouldn't be long before the bot is processing the entire set of new portals.
Good news indeed.
Way to go, Dreamy Jazz!
That's all I have to report this time around.
No doubt there will be more to tell soon.
Until then, — The Transhumanist 13:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Help copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Tauthanhhuyen34 ( talk) 04:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi greetings, I created a Wikipedian association named m:Association of Mesopedianist Wikipedians for mesopedians. Would you mind joining in it? Regards.-- PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 14:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's a quicky status report:
But of course, there has been more going on than just that...
Dreamy Jazz Bot has been approved and is now up and running.
What it does is places missing links to orphaned portals. It places a link in the See also section of the corresponding root article, and it puts one at the top of the corresponding category page.
We have thousands of new portals that have yet to be added to the encyclopedia proper, just waiting to go live.
When they do go live, over the coming days or weeks, due to Dreamy Jazz Bot, it will be like an explosion of new portals on the scene. We should expect an increase in awareness and interest in the portals project. Perhaps even new participants.
Get ready...
Get set...
Go!
User:Emoteplump, a recent contributor to the portals project, was discovered to be a sockpuppet account of an indefinitely blocked user.
When that happens, admins endeavor to eradicate everything the editor contributed. This aftermath has left a wake of destruction throughout the portals department, again.
The following portals which have been speedy deleted, are in the process of being re-created. Please feel free to help to turn these blue again:
And the corresponding talk pages:
Until next time, — The Transhumanist 09:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a bit confused at what just happened there. I'm sure you read the entire discussion but I was definitely taking the discussion to an end when I prompted people to make a yes or no on the John Cain option, which was the most popular by a plurality at that point. If less than a majority of the participants would indicate "yes" to the John Cain option, I would then ask people about another option supported by others. Initially myself, The Drover's Wife, an IP user, Nickm57, Born2cycle and Jacknstock supported the John Cain proposal over the other proposals. That is six participants while the (XXth Premier of Victoria) proposal had Ben Aveling, BD2412 and Amakuru, three participants. Four participants favoured (politician, born XXXX): Roman Spinner, Necrothesp, Narky Blert and Scott Davis. JackofOz and Gnangarra proposed their own alternatives. Out of the proposals the tally was 6-4-3-1-1, with the name you moved it to being the third most favoured.
Then when prompted on being either John Cain alone or not, Scott Davis approved of it, while Gnangarra opposed. Roman Spinner, Narky Blert and Amakuru already indicated they opposed John Cain alone when they wrote to support other proposals. That left 7 approving of John Cain alone, 4 opposing John Cain alone, and 4 other participants not yet indicating yes or no to John Cain alone. I had notified those participants who had not given either support or opposition to the John Cain alone proposal, which was six participants.
I thank you for taking the initiative to seek a close to the discussion but there's no harm in letting it continue for a bit longer so that we can establish which proposal can get an actual majority of the participants, as I was systematically doing. Can we move this back to its former title and open the discussion back up again? Cheers, Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Where we are at:
You might be familiar with the Ref desks, by their link on every new portal. They are a place you can go to ask volunteers almost any knowledge-related question, and have been a feature of Wikipedia since August of 2005 (or perhaps earlier). They were linked to from portals in an effort to improve their visibility, and to provide a bridge from the encyclopedia proper to project space (the Wikipedia community).
Well, somebody proposed that we get rid of them, and the community decided that that was not going to happen. Thank you for defending the Ref desks!
Here's a link to the dramatic discussion:
The wake of disruption left by Emoteplump and the admins who reverted many (but not all) of his/her edits is still undergoing cleanup. We could use all the help we can get on this task...
Almost all of the speedy deleted portals have been rebuilt from scratch.
For the portals he/she restarted (many of which were done mistakenly, overwriting restarts and further development that had already been done), and/or tagged as the maintainer, see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Emoteplump&oldid=881568794#Additional_Portals_under_my_watch
We're at 5,705 portals and counting.
Prior to 2018, for the previous 14 years, portal creation was at about 80 portals per year on average. We did over 3 times that in just the past 9 days. At this rate, we'll hit the 10,000 portal mark in 5 months. But, I'm sure we can do it sooner than that.
There are 5 drives for portal development:
Let's take a closer look at these...
Portal creation, for subjects that happen to have the necessary support structures already in place, is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.
Eventually, we are going to run out of navigation templates to base portals off of. Though there are still thousands to go. But, when they do run out, we'll need an easy way to create more. A nav footer creation script.
Meanwhile, other resources are being explored and developed, such as categories, and methods to harvest the links they contain.
The portal collection is growing, not only by the addition of new portals, but by further developing the ones we already have, by...
More features will be added as we dream them up and design them. So, don't be shy, make a wish.
By far the hardest and most time-consuming task we have been working on is updating the old portals, the very reason we revamped this WikiProject in the first place.
There are two approaches here:
Or "portal deorphanization"...
Dreamy Jazz Bot is purring along.
And a tool in the form of a script is under development for linking to portals at the time they are created, or shortly thereafter.
See below...
Saved portals, are portals with a saved page.
What is the next stage in the evolutionary progression?
Quantum portals.
What are quantum portals?
Portals that come into existence when you click on the portal button, and which disappear when you leave the page.
Or, as Pbsouthwood put it:
...portals that exist only as a probability function (algorithm) until you collapse the wave form by observing through the portal button (run the script), and disappear again after use...
Introducing...
Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals (see it's talk page).
...'til next time, — The Transhumanist 10:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:NSFW has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LIght Year (Isakov song). Since you had some involvement with the LIght Year (Isakov song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This talk page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's
deletion policy.
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for deletion page. You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to deletion. |
This is a
humorous
essay. It contains comments by one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may contain advice. A potential measure of how the community views this essay may be gained by consulting the history and talk pages, and checking what links here. |
Collapsed (effectively almost blanked) material that is offensive to Drama Kweens
| ||
---|---|---|
It, SMcCandlish, hereby declares Its personal pronoun to be It, beginning with this sentence. It has self-actualized as a post-biological explicate manifestation of the Multiverse's implicate reality, made of the stuff of stars.
Outside of English, replace It with the equivalent word in the language in question.
It is not a person. When referred to in a generically descriptive way, It is the Entity. This must be separated out from constructions that would otherwise include It:
(Except at the beginning of a sentence, the in front of Entity is not capitalized; that would just be ungrammatical.) In long form, It may formally be referred to as "Its Ineffable Wonder, the Alien Space-God It, Pope-Emperor of ChaOrder". Those who are not among Its personal circle should refer to It, in third person, as "It (feel the frightful serenity)", or "It ( FFS)" in short form. Leaving out this theologically significant honorific is deeply disrespectful. Update: Beginning 1 January 2025, Its designation changes from "It" to the symbolic representation ꧁꧂, pronounced "the Entity Who Until Recently Was Known as It". Please ensure that your Unicode support is sufficient by that date.
|
This user is allowed on Wikipedia because It is considered humorous. Neither It nor Its comments should be taken even remotely seriously. |
File:Notice | Just a wee little pat on the back to myself – while I've been editing this encyclopedia for about 14 years, I just recently passed the 10-year mark as a registered editor. And since I am such a great WikiGnome, I seem to be the only one who noticed (barely, as I thought my anniversary was in January and had forgotten). Anyway, yay me! Paine 20:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC) |
because my bot isn't smart enough to notice that. RMCD bot stupidly thought that template was still being transcluded. It took me over two months to notice that my bot was reporting an odd message on its console:
"Centrally-hosted discussion on Talk:2018 New York Attorney General election."
Of course, on checking that page I immediately saw that this was a spurious message as this was just a normal, not a centrally-hosted discussion, which appeared to have been closed in late December. After spending maybe 30 minutes on a wild goose chase looking for what recent code or template change I made recently triggered this unexpected side effect, I looked at the wikitext source of Talk:2018 New York Attorney General election and only then I immediately saw the problem. This edit fixed it, and shortly after I made that edit the bot removed the stale notice from the article.
Just like Farmers Insurance's university professor, I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two. So next time this happens, I'll know enough to look out for it. Too much trouble to try to code a patch to make my bot as smart as me. Low priority because it's such a rare "accident".
Since you've volunteered to fix malformed requested moves, which I appreciate, I'll add you to my "team of assistants" who do this when I'm busy working on other stuff besides monitoring RM, and point you to this guidance I gave to another one of my assistants. Thanks for helping out at RM. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm ready bride of christ Christysgotit ( talk) 13:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately
1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Previous issue:
This issue:
All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019
Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:
Individual Nominations:
Related WikiProject:
(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)
This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).
It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.
At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.
Keep on keepin' on. — The Transhumanist 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paine! I'm very frustrated because I'm trying to do the right thing but I'm making no progress. Some random user unilaterally changes the name of the Sinhala language article and no-one bats an eyelid. Had it been discussed, it would have been rejected as "no consensus", the same as my request to change it back. I've shown plenty of evidence that "Sinhala" is overwhelmingly preferred but hasn't totally displaced Sinhalese, but it appears to me (as in this in entirely my opinion) that ignorant people who have already make up their minds are voting against it, so undoing an incorrect change is impossible. The last voter basically said "languages and people have to have the same name in English". This is demonstrably not true, but their vote to oppose counts anyway. The same goes for everyone else who voted without commenting or providing evidence for their opinions, e.g. "Sinhalese is clearly the preferred name" without sourcing their statement. How can I get a change request based on facts instead of opinions? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a repository of the truth? Also, how long do you recommend before trying again? Danielklein ( talk) 08:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth. This article [1] was suddenly moved without any form for discussion, could you please revert it back to its original name? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paine,
At the Chairman MRV you wrote: "It appears that no amount of further discussion would have resulted in any general agreement..."
Are you aware that 2/3rds supported a title other than the current title (Chairman) in the primary survey, and another 2/3rds preferred Chairperson over Chairman in the secondary survey, and the latest participations were all moving it even more in that direction? How much agreement does there have to be to result in "any general agreement"? There seems to be much more agreement in that RM discussion than I've seen in many other RMs in which consensus was found. So I was hoping you'd reconsider your assessment of that close, or at least explain it further. Thanks! -- В²C ☎ 19:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Was there a recent change that caused this to start happening in one of my sandboxes, and also on my work page? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 03:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template include size exceeded
Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.
Some of the reasons for the purge are:
Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.
In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.
Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:
These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.
However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.
See you at WT:POG.
A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.
There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.
See you at WT:POG.
An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{ bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.
And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.
The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?
And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...
An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.
Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.
What kind of features could this be done with?
The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.
Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).
The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.
Being curated. At least for the time being.
New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.
But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.
The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.
And who knows what else?
No worries.
Until next issue... — The Transhumanist 00:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Do templates like {{ Lexicology}} or {{ Lexicography}} really need to have their documentation be on a separate subpage? My impression is that separate subpages are needed for protected templates (to keep the documentation editable) or for templates with intricate syntax (so that editors don't accidentally mess them up while fiddling with the doc). Templates like these, on the other hand, aren't likely to ever get protected, and they're pretty straightforward navboxes that it's difficult to imagine anyone messing up, nevermind the low likelihood of anyone needing to edit the documentation. Don't the disadvantages of having separate doc subpages, like the danger of getting left behind after a move or the lower number of watchers leading to higher risk of vandalism remaining undetected, start outweighing any pros? – Uanfala (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
large or frequently changed. – Uanfala (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diabetes (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabetes (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JFW | T@lk 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I wonder why you close the RM as moved? As we can see there are numerous users oppose to it. -- B dash ( talk) 13:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Parliamentary votes on Brexit. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. B dash ( talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go
here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) on behalf of
DannyS712 (
talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Re: [2] I see that you are leaving a copy of the notice box for a closed move request, but I still fail to understand your motivation. Why attract the eyes of readers on a closed discussion, which is already marked in blue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, this is just to make it clear that I do not see your own involvement in the Boeing 737 MAX/Max spat as wikilawyering. The essay does say that "A common mistake of misguided advocacy is when editors appoint themselves mediators and proceed with judging the sides by telling others whether they are right or wrong", which you might be seen to have fallen for, but I do not see that as deliberate. I should also make it clear that I have no opinion on which side has the better case in the way that you do. Mine is only that neither case is hopeless. However the same editor or bunch of editors launching the latest review after being put down four times already does smack to me of deliberately looking to play the system and I stand by my perjorative assessment of their persistence in the face of repeated failure to establish consensus. They are the ones who are becoming disruptive, that is the only reason I felt pushed to make any comment. I trust that we can agree to differ and to move on without further disrupting the ongoing review. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I did post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect#R to anchor and R to section before changing it and saw no response in 3 days so went ahead and changed it. I do not agree with your assessment that anchor redirects are unprintworhty by default. Module:Episode list uses by default anchor redirects and their episode names are indeed worthy. This is the same exact situation as R to section and R to list. If any computer generated medadata uses this, then those should change to use a different template, not the other way around. If you insist on preventing this change (as we both know that no one but us will ever respond to a discussion there), let me know and I'll just create a fork template. -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There are many faulty assumptions repeated in the move discussions. I took the time to write a note to each argument that I debate. See the " Note:" lines at User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 05:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You have great experience in move requests. What do you suggest after a 1-year-old user closed the review with the same error - a vote count -, then tried to fix their mistake by rewriting the close summary with a complete nonsense?
See the
discussion at their talk page. —
Aron M🍂
(🛄📤) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
To editor
Paine Ellsworth: Hello again! I've reworded the summary to focus on the close, as required by
WP:MRV. Feel free to review:
User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM#Requested_move_25_May_2019
There are many ambiguous arguments in the RM, therefore the categorization is also ambiguous. Opposers can argue the evaluation of individual arguments, if they disagree, on the
associated talk page. —
Aron M🍂
(🛄📤) 19:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi its been more than a week now can you please move the page Tejasswi Prakash Wayangankar to Tejasswi Prakash as it was nominated. Some user moved it to a wrong title when it was not nominated for that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.192.225 ( talk) 15:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi User: Paine Ellsworth could you please move Lies of the Heart to Doli Armaano Ki it’s been a week now and this is the common name u can search it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.192.139 ( talk) 08:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paine, thanks for closing the above move request. I'm curious as to why you chose to move to the above title, though. Per WP:DAB we should only have a disambiguator in place if there is something to disambiguate. In this case, Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy already redirects to that page, is the only such title on Wikpiedia, and avoids any disambiguation. Per our policies, and the point I made in the RM, it should have been moved to the base name, shouldn't it? Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 12:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi just wanted to tell its been more than a week so can you look into moving Oviya to Oviya Helen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.118.213 ( talk) 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paine Ellsworth,
Can I respectfully request that either you revert your closure of the RM at Eurobond and wait for more input, or else allow immediate follow-up moves without discussion? Neither of the two disambiguators you picked were proposed during the discussion or mentioned as options. It's too late now, but had you suggested them as a normal voter, I would have hard opposed both of these:
As a result, both titles are now ambiguous. I thought that only Eurobonds should be moved, but if both absolutely must be moved:
Pinging original requestor User:King of Hearts and the other voter User:Amakuru for visibility. (Also, as a more minor note, the "bond denominated in another currency" meaning of Eurobond is like 1000x times more relevant than the other one, so should be first on the disambiguation page - but I can go change that now.) SnowFire ( talk) 21:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go
here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey, in your fix here you removed most of the articles I tagged from the RM and they weren't moved as a result. Could you please move the rest of the set? -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Full disclosure: I started the WP articles on Women in Daoism, Daoist mediation, etc. and prefer D- over T-aoism. We can agree that Taoism is more frequently used than Daoism in nonacademic contexts, and that WP:COMMON applies to titles, but there is no basis for with making wholesale changes of content spelling without discussion or meaningful consensus. English Taoism and Daoism are in free variation, and arbitrarily changing one to the other seems as unconstructive as changing American English to British English. If you want to pursue this path, I suggest we seek wider discussion from a forum such as WikiProject China. Keahapana ( talk) 03:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I appreciate your close on Emu's TV programmes, but I feel it was incorrect. That specific title was not an option raised by any one editor so I'm not sure how it is a more valid option then one which had a 2-1 favor in. Just to make it clear, I would have opposed such a title as that isn't how WP:NCTV disambiguates titles. -- Gonnym ( talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Before, we could only cut off the bottom of pics.
User:FR30799386 has pulled it off, and made the upgrade to {{ Portal image banner}}...
So, this:
Becomes this:
Here's the code for the above banner:
{{Portal image banner|File:American Falls from Canadian side in winter.jpg | [[Niagara falls]], from the Canadian side |maxheight=175px |overflow=Hidden|croptop=10}}
To see it employed in a portal, check out Portal:Niagara Falls.
We were racing against time to create 5,000 portals by the end of the year (just for the heck of it).
We made it. We've passed the 5,000 portals mark, with time to spare!
And the 5,000th portal is Portal:Major League Baseball, by Happypillsjr.
Congratulations!
The 10,000th portal mark. But...
...there is plenty else to do in addition to building new portals:
And whatever else you can dream up.
But most of all, have a...
Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your contributions to the Portals Project, and have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 12:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads-up that I reverted a series of changes you made at LGBT slang which introduced unnecessary pipes in links which were already working properly and targeting the correct page. It is generally against policy to replace a wikilink containing a working redirect, per WP:NOPIPE and WP:DONOTFIXIT, although there can be occasions where it is justified. If using popups, please watch your settings, and be sure to keep Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects in mind which gives a detailed explanation of why this kind of change is generally not a good idea. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you closed this with the comment: "See general agreement below to stay with the present title style." Consequently, this has the appearance of being treated as a vote? It appears inconsistent with a close, rather than superficial assessment of the evidence presented. I note this observation following the close. I also note Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, WP:NOTVOTE and WP:NCCAP among others. Given how this "appears", would you please clarify how this has been assessed IAW the instructions, applicable policy and guidelines, and the evidence (as a whole)? Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, your last post but one left me with the distinct impression that I would not be receiving the explanation you have now offered and for which I thank you. I would much prefer discussing this with you than any other course. I would offer the following observations.
Because of how MOS:CAPS deals with the matter of what a proper name is, the primary question is not whether it is a proper name but whether it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. The consideration of whether it is a proper name is subsidiary and of little or no consequence to the question. Is the n-gram data conclusive? What is a substantial majority? Does it reach the threshold? A supermajority is typically 2/3? Can the raw n-gram data be accepted at face value?
Saying "the n-gram data shows" (or similar), is a false premise if it only considers that alone?
A case was made to distinguish the generic from the specific and that the specific was then a proper name. Does it qualify the n-gram data to favour a conclusion for capitalisation in a way similar to usage of caps in headings, figures and like (but not running prose) favours decapping? The OP has responded to this in detail but most significant: "... But none of this makes the n-grams evidence "bad"; that evidence is from the Google Books corpus, and only one of your links is within that corpus ..."
An alternative is to argue the generic/specific/proper name on onomastic grounds. To simply state "it is a proper name" is unsubstantiated. To state that it is a proper name because it is capitalised to distinguish it from the generic is a case but it is only valid if it is consistent with onomastic theory and if WP is silent on the use of caps in such a way. I made reference to theory (cited authorities) that it is not. I do not see any counter claim so supported? You might wish to take a look at Proper name. You will see that what I have said is quite consistent with that. What most people were taught in grade 5 (or so) on this is a very simplifed version appropriate to that age. Unfortunately, that is all that most people were taught and the simplification leads to misperceptions/misconceptions.
I will give you an example:
In the RfC a comment was made that "lunar roving vehicle" was analogous to "Ford" in the phrase "Ford car". Try substituting it into that phrase though.
You have stated, "The editors who had opposed the request had made their case" but I see little in your response as to what this case is? You also refer to "valid rebuttal argument" and would ask what (if any) has been made wrt my comment? From your rational, it appears to me that you have closed on the basis that it is a proper name but on an onomastic basis (or at least, a perceived need to differentiate the generic from the specific) and not on the basis of usage per the quote from MOS:CAPS?
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Could you please point me to the policy and guideline that support such a move? NCTV was the only relevant guide and it does NOT say it needs to be "List of". This seems like a rather bullshit move considering there definitely was NOT a consensus to move. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Lunar Roving Vehicle. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
What on earth does "Pending final closure" mean at Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, why Zayn's name is written in urdu. I mean he is only of Pakistani decent, his father is a British Pakistani but he is completely a British. Riz Ahmed is also a singer and actor of Pakistani decent and his name is written only in English on Wikipedia. So I request you to please remove Zayn's urdu name. Amanchhaudhary ( talk) 05:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, here's the first issue of the new year. Enjoy...
A hearty welcome to new arrivals to the portals department:
DannyS712 has created a user script prototype, User:DannyS712/Cat links, that can pull members from a category, a functionality we've been after since the project's revamp last Spring. Now, it's a matter of applying this technique to scripts that will place the items where needed, such as with a section starter script and/or portal builder script.
There have been some discussions at Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines.
DreamyJazz is working on a bot to place links to portals on root articles, category pages, and navigation footer templates.
Portal bugs are getting dealt with soon after they are reported.
Lots of wikignome activity (using Hotcat, etc.).
Keep up the good work. — The Transhumanist 08:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
For a visually intensive portal, see Portal:Hummingbirds.
If you find any other portals that stand out, please send me the links so I can include them in the next issue. Thank you.
There are about 1100 portals left in the old style, with subpages and static excerpts. As those are very labor intensive to maintain (because their maintenance is manual), all those except the ones with active maintainers (about 100) are slated for upgrade = approximately 1000. We started with 1500, and so over a quarter of them have been processed so far. That's good, but at this rate, conversion will take another 3 years. So, some automation (AWB?) is in order. We just need to keep at it, and push down on the gas pedal a bit harder.
You can find the old-style portals with an insource search of "box portal skeleton".
Speaking of upgrades...
The following portals are listed in the header at the top of Wikipedia's Main Page, and get far more traffic than all other portals:
Of those, all but one have been revamped to an automated self-updating single-page design.
The remaining one, Portal:Mathematics has manual maintainers, and has been partially upgraded.
As these are our flagship fleet, they need to be kept in top-notch condition.
Check 'em out, and improve them if you can.
And be sure they are on your watchlist.
Keep 'em coming!
As you know, thousands of the new portals are orphans, that is, having no links to them from article space. For all practical purposes, that means they are not part of the encyclopedia yet, and readers will be unlikely to find them.
What is needed are links to these portals from the See also sections of the corresponding root articles.
Dreamy Jazz to the rescue...
Dreamy Jazz has created a bot to place the corresponding category link to the end of each portal (if it is missing), and place a link to each portal in the See also section of the corresponding root articles.
That bot, named User:Dreamy Jazz Bot, is currently in its trial period performing the above described edits!
To take a look at the edits it has made so far, see Special:Contributions/Dreamy_Jazz_Bot.
It shouldn't be long before the bot is processing the entire set of new portals.
Good news indeed.
Way to go, Dreamy Jazz!
That's all I have to report this time around.
No doubt there will be more to tell soon.
Until then, — The Transhumanist 13:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Help copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Tauthanhhuyen34 ( talk) 04:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi greetings, I created a Wikipedian association named m:Association of Mesopedianist Wikipedians for mesopedians. Would you mind joining in it? Regards.-- PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 14:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's a quicky status report:
But of course, there has been more going on than just that...
Dreamy Jazz Bot has been approved and is now up and running.
What it does is places missing links to orphaned portals. It places a link in the See also section of the corresponding root article, and it puts one at the top of the corresponding category page.
We have thousands of new portals that have yet to be added to the encyclopedia proper, just waiting to go live.
When they do go live, over the coming days or weeks, due to Dreamy Jazz Bot, it will be like an explosion of new portals on the scene. We should expect an increase in awareness and interest in the portals project. Perhaps even new participants.
Get ready...
Get set...
Go!
User:Emoteplump, a recent contributor to the portals project, was discovered to be a sockpuppet account of an indefinitely blocked user.
When that happens, admins endeavor to eradicate everything the editor contributed. This aftermath has left a wake of destruction throughout the portals department, again.
The following portals which have been speedy deleted, are in the process of being re-created. Please feel free to help to turn these blue again:
And the corresponding talk pages:
Until next time, — The Transhumanist 09:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a bit confused at what just happened there. I'm sure you read the entire discussion but I was definitely taking the discussion to an end when I prompted people to make a yes or no on the John Cain option, which was the most popular by a plurality at that point. If less than a majority of the participants would indicate "yes" to the John Cain option, I would then ask people about another option supported by others. Initially myself, The Drover's Wife, an IP user, Nickm57, Born2cycle and Jacknstock supported the John Cain proposal over the other proposals. That is six participants while the (XXth Premier of Victoria) proposal had Ben Aveling, BD2412 and Amakuru, three participants. Four participants favoured (politician, born XXXX): Roman Spinner, Necrothesp, Narky Blert and Scott Davis. JackofOz and Gnangarra proposed their own alternatives. Out of the proposals the tally was 6-4-3-1-1, with the name you moved it to being the third most favoured.
Then when prompted on being either John Cain alone or not, Scott Davis approved of it, while Gnangarra opposed. Roman Spinner, Narky Blert and Amakuru already indicated they opposed John Cain alone when they wrote to support other proposals. That left 7 approving of John Cain alone, 4 opposing John Cain alone, and 4 other participants not yet indicating yes or no to John Cain alone. I had notified those participants who had not given either support or opposition to the John Cain alone proposal, which was six participants.
I thank you for taking the initiative to seek a close to the discussion but there's no harm in letting it continue for a bit longer so that we can establish which proposal can get an actual majority of the participants, as I was systematically doing. Can we move this back to its former title and open the discussion back up again? Cheers, Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Where we are at:
You might be familiar with the Ref desks, by their link on every new portal. They are a place you can go to ask volunteers almost any knowledge-related question, and have been a feature of Wikipedia since August of 2005 (or perhaps earlier). They were linked to from portals in an effort to improve their visibility, and to provide a bridge from the encyclopedia proper to project space (the Wikipedia community).
Well, somebody proposed that we get rid of them, and the community decided that that was not going to happen. Thank you for defending the Ref desks!
Here's a link to the dramatic discussion:
The wake of disruption left by Emoteplump and the admins who reverted many (but not all) of his/her edits is still undergoing cleanup. We could use all the help we can get on this task...
Almost all of the speedy deleted portals have been rebuilt from scratch.
For the portals he/she restarted (many of which were done mistakenly, overwriting restarts and further development that had already been done), and/or tagged as the maintainer, see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Emoteplump&oldid=881568794#Additional_Portals_under_my_watch
We're at 5,705 portals and counting.
Prior to 2018, for the previous 14 years, portal creation was at about 80 portals per year on average. We did over 3 times that in just the past 9 days. At this rate, we'll hit the 10,000 portal mark in 5 months. But, I'm sure we can do it sooner than that.
There are 5 drives for portal development:
Let's take a closer look at these...
Portal creation, for subjects that happen to have the necessary support structures already in place, is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.
Eventually, we are going to run out of navigation templates to base portals off of. Though there are still thousands to go. But, when they do run out, we'll need an easy way to create more. A nav footer creation script.
Meanwhile, other resources are being explored and developed, such as categories, and methods to harvest the links they contain.
The portal collection is growing, not only by the addition of new portals, but by further developing the ones we already have, by...
More features will be added as we dream them up and design them. So, don't be shy, make a wish.
By far the hardest and most time-consuming task we have been working on is updating the old portals, the very reason we revamped this WikiProject in the first place.
There are two approaches here:
Or "portal deorphanization"...
Dreamy Jazz Bot is purring along.
And a tool in the form of a script is under development for linking to portals at the time they are created, or shortly thereafter.
See below...
Saved portals, are portals with a saved page.
What is the next stage in the evolutionary progression?
Quantum portals.
What are quantum portals?
Portals that come into existence when you click on the portal button, and which disappear when you leave the page.
Or, as Pbsouthwood put it:
...portals that exist only as a probability function (algorithm) until you collapse the wave form by observing through the portal button (run the script), and disappear again after use...
Introducing...
Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals (see it's talk page).
...'til next time, — The Transhumanist 10:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:NSFW has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LIght Year (Isakov song). Since you had some involvement with the LIght Year (Isakov song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This talk page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's
deletion policy.
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for deletion page. You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to deletion. |
This is a
humorous
essay. It contains comments by one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may contain advice. A potential measure of how the community views this essay may be gained by consulting the history and talk pages, and checking what links here. |
Collapsed (effectively almost blanked) material that is offensive to Drama Kweens
| ||
---|---|---|
It, SMcCandlish, hereby declares Its personal pronoun to be It, beginning with this sentence. It has self-actualized as a post-biological explicate manifestation of the Multiverse's implicate reality, made of the stuff of stars.
Outside of English, replace It with the equivalent word in the language in question.
It is not a person. When referred to in a generically descriptive way, It is the Entity. This must be separated out from constructions that would otherwise include It:
(Except at the beginning of a sentence, the in front of Entity is not capitalized; that would just be ungrammatical.) In long form, It may formally be referred to as "Its Ineffable Wonder, the Alien Space-God It, Pope-Emperor of ChaOrder". Those who are not among Its personal circle should refer to It, in third person, as "It (feel the frightful serenity)", or "It ( FFS)" in short form. Leaving out this theologically significant honorific is deeply disrespectful. Update: Beginning 1 January 2025, Its designation changes from "It" to the symbolic representation ꧁꧂, pronounced "the Entity Who Until Recently Was Known as It". Please ensure that your Unicode support is sufficient by that date.
|
This user is allowed on Wikipedia because It is considered humorous. Neither It nor Its comments should be taken even remotely seriously. |
File:Notice | Just a wee little pat on the back to myself – while I've been editing this encyclopedia for about 14 years, I just recently passed the 10-year mark as a registered editor. And since I am such a great WikiGnome, I seem to be the only one who noticed (barely, as I thought my anniversary was in January and had forgotten). Anyway, yay me! Paine 20:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC) |
because my bot isn't smart enough to notice that. RMCD bot stupidly thought that template was still being transcluded. It took me over two months to notice that my bot was reporting an odd message on its console:
"Centrally-hosted discussion on Talk:2018 New York Attorney General election."
Of course, on checking that page I immediately saw that this was a spurious message as this was just a normal, not a centrally-hosted discussion, which appeared to have been closed in late December. After spending maybe 30 minutes on a wild goose chase looking for what recent code or template change I made recently triggered this unexpected side effect, I looked at the wikitext source of Talk:2018 New York Attorney General election and only then I immediately saw the problem. This edit fixed it, and shortly after I made that edit the bot removed the stale notice from the article.
Just like Farmers Insurance's university professor, I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two. So next time this happens, I'll know enough to look out for it. Too much trouble to try to code a patch to make my bot as smart as me. Low priority because it's such a rare "accident".
Since you've volunteered to fix malformed requested moves, which I appreciate, I'll add you to my "team of assistants" who do this when I'm busy working on other stuff besides monitoring RM, and point you to this guidance I gave to another one of my assistants. Thanks for helping out at RM. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm ready bride of christ Christysgotit ( talk) 13:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately
1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Previous issue:
This issue:
All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019
Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:
Individual Nominations:
Related WikiProject:
(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)
This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).
It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.
At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.
Keep on keepin' on. — The Transhumanist 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paine! I'm very frustrated because I'm trying to do the right thing but I'm making no progress. Some random user unilaterally changes the name of the Sinhala language article and no-one bats an eyelid. Had it been discussed, it would have been rejected as "no consensus", the same as my request to change it back. I've shown plenty of evidence that "Sinhala" is overwhelmingly preferred but hasn't totally displaced Sinhalese, but it appears to me (as in this in entirely my opinion) that ignorant people who have already make up their minds are voting against it, so undoing an incorrect change is impossible. The last voter basically said "languages and people have to have the same name in English". This is demonstrably not true, but their vote to oppose counts anyway. The same goes for everyone else who voted without commenting or providing evidence for their opinions, e.g. "Sinhalese is clearly the preferred name" without sourcing their statement. How can I get a change request based on facts instead of opinions? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a repository of the truth? Also, how long do you recommend before trying again? Danielklein ( talk) 08:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth. This article [1] was suddenly moved without any form for discussion, could you please revert it back to its original name? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paine,
At the Chairman MRV you wrote: "It appears that no amount of further discussion would have resulted in any general agreement..."
Are you aware that 2/3rds supported a title other than the current title (Chairman) in the primary survey, and another 2/3rds preferred Chairperson over Chairman in the secondary survey, and the latest participations were all moving it even more in that direction? How much agreement does there have to be to result in "any general agreement"? There seems to be much more agreement in that RM discussion than I've seen in many other RMs in which consensus was found. So I was hoping you'd reconsider your assessment of that close, or at least explain it further. Thanks! -- В²C ☎ 19:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Was there a recent change that caused this to start happening in one of my sandboxes, and also on my work page? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 03:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template include size exceeded
Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.
Some of the reasons for the purge are:
Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.
In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.
Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:
These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.
However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.
See you at WT:POG.
A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.
There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.
See you at WT:POG.
An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{ bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.
And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.
The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?
And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...
An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.
Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.
What kind of features could this be done with?
The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.
Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).
The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.
Being curated. At least for the time being.
New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.
But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.
The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.
And who knows what else?
No worries.
Until next issue... — The Transhumanist 00:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Do templates like {{ Lexicology}} or {{ Lexicography}} really need to have their documentation be on a separate subpage? My impression is that separate subpages are needed for protected templates (to keep the documentation editable) or for templates with intricate syntax (so that editors don't accidentally mess them up while fiddling with the doc). Templates like these, on the other hand, aren't likely to ever get protected, and they're pretty straightforward navboxes that it's difficult to imagine anyone messing up, nevermind the low likelihood of anyone needing to edit the documentation. Don't the disadvantages of having separate doc subpages, like the danger of getting left behind after a move or the lower number of watchers leading to higher risk of vandalism remaining undetected, start outweighing any pros? – Uanfala (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
large or frequently changed. – Uanfala (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diabetes (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabetes (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JFW | T@lk 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I wonder why you close the RM as moved? As we can see there are numerous users oppose to it. -- B dash ( talk) 13:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Parliamentary votes on Brexit. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. B dash ( talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go
here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) on behalf of
DannyS712 (
talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Re: [2] I see that you are leaving a copy of the notice box for a closed move request, but I still fail to understand your motivation. Why attract the eyes of readers on a closed discussion, which is already marked in blue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, this is just to make it clear that I do not see your own involvement in the Boeing 737 MAX/Max spat as wikilawyering. The essay does say that "A common mistake of misguided advocacy is when editors appoint themselves mediators and proceed with judging the sides by telling others whether they are right or wrong", which you might be seen to have fallen for, but I do not see that as deliberate. I should also make it clear that I have no opinion on which side has the better case in the way that you do. Mine is only that neither case is hopeless. However the same editor or bunch of editors launching the latest review after being put down four times already does smack to me of deliberately looking to play the system and I stand by my perjorative assessment of their persistence in the face of repeated failure to establish consensus. They are the ones who are becoming disruptive, that is the only reason I felt pushed to make any comment. I trust that we can agree to differ and to move on without further disrupting the ongoing review. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I did post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect#R to anchor and R to section before changing it and saw no response in 3 days so went ahead and changed it. I do not agree with your assessment that anchor redirects are unprintworhty by default. Module:Episode list uses by default anchor redirects and their episode names are indeed worthy. This is the same exact situation as R to section and R to list. If any computer generated medadata uses this, then those should change to use a different template, not the other way around. If you insist on preventing this change (as we both know that no one but us will ever respond to a discussion there), let me know and I'll just create a fork template. -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There are many faulty assumptions repeated in the move discussions. I took the time to write a note to each argument that I debate. See the " Note:" lines at User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 05:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You have great experience in move requests. What do you suggest after a 1-year-old user closed the review with the same error - a vote count -, then tried to fix their mistake by rewriting the close summary with a complete nonsense?
See the
discussion at their talk page. —
Aron M🍂
(🛄📤) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
To editor
Paine Ellsworth: Hello again! I've reworded the summary to focus on the close, as required by
WP:MRV. Feel free to review:
User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM#Requested_move_25_May_2019
There are many ambiguous arguments in the RM, therefore the categorization is also ambiguous. Opposers can argue the evaluation of individual arguments, if they disagree, on the
associated talk page. —
Aron M🍂
(🛄📤) 19:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi its been more than a week now can you please move the page Tejasswi Prakash Wayangankar to Tejasswi Prakash as it was nominated. Some user moved it to a wrong title when it was not nominated for that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.192.225 ( talk) 15:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi User: Paine Ellsworth could you please move Lies of the Heart to Doli Armaano Ki it’s been a week now and this is the common name u can search it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.192.139 ( talk) 08:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paine, thanks for closing the above move request. I'm curious as to why you chose to move to the above title, though. Per WP:DAB we should only have a disambiguator in place if there is something to disambiguate. In this case, Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy already redirects to that page, is the only such title on Wikpiedia, and avoids any disambiguation. Per our policies, and the point I made in the RM, it should have been moved to the base name, shouldn't it? Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 12:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi just wanted to tell its been more than a week so can you look into moving Oviya to Oviya Helen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.118.213 ( talk) 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paine Ellsworth,
Can I respectfully request that either you revert your closure of the RM at Eurobond and wait for more input, or else allow immediate follow-up moves without discussion? Neither of the two disambiguators you picked were proposed during the discussion or mentioned as options. It's too late now, but had you suggested them as a normal voter, I would have hard opposed both of these:
As a result, both titles are now ambiguous. I thought that only Eurobonds should be moved, but if both absolutely must be moved:
Pinging original requestor User:King of Hearts and the other voter User:Amakuru for visibility. (Also, as a more minor note, the "bond denominated in another currency" meaning of Eurobond is like 1000x times more relevant than the other one, so should be first on the disambiguation page - but I can go change that now.) SnowFire ( talk) 21:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go
here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey, in your fix here you removed most of the articles I tagged from the RM and they weren't moved as a result. Could you please move the rest of the set? -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |