![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The title makes me wonder if this might have something we could use, but I can't figure out how to get it to work, or even what it does: User:Dr Brains/ListPages.js.
The doc is no longer around, and didn't leave any instructions behind.
What does it do, and how does it work? — The Transhumanist 23:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for updating editors on this. I know it doesn't currently apply to manually maintained portals, but I just wanted to say that I'm going to try and convert the intros for the 30 or so portals I maintain. It's worked on two so far, with a bit of tweaking. Thank you to those who worked out how to do it! Bermicourt ( talk) 20:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Someone from the project edited my test portal with the summary "Rename Picture slideshow section to "Selected pictures", because it doesn't show up as a slideshow on mobile devices" -- does anyone know what the failure mode on the slideshow is for mobile devices? (I don't own one, so can't check.) I was assuming that I'd have to convert the slideshow to the random subpages model before going live on this one, but I've been putting it off as I like the functionality. Espresso Addict ( talk) 08:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Bit of a problem on Portal:Reptiles, 7 boxes relying on automatic presentation of content are now saying "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." Sincerely, InsaneHacker ( 💬) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, in the automation of the introduction section to portals we are loosing images or maps, as these are usually in the infoboxes and so the template replacement does not extract the image or map for the portal. Is there a way of overriding this to enable an image or map to be placed in the introduction or should the automated process be extended to include detail from the infobox? Keith D ( talk) 18:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
files=
. It however doesn't include images in infoboxes. --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
19:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
|file=
parameter is needed to code in an image which is not from the article.
Keith D (
talk)
00:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
How do you submit a new portal image so that it links to the actual portal rather than that ugly blue icon visible on newly created portals? Thanks. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 15:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the 'in the news' section on a number of portals, in particular:
I fixed it by disabling the template in one, Portal:24, before noticing there are a many more. I don’t know if this can be fixed in the template, to not generate errors if there’s no data. Or if it should just be removed on the assumption that news articles on e.g. Virginia Woolf are not going to appear often enough for it to be worthwhile.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
NewPP limit report
. I find this very useful for capturing those stats for a specific instance of a page (e.g. when random transclusion is used, so the page is constantly changing). — AfroThundr (
u ·
t ·
c)
07:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
while daysAgo < maxDays and os.clock() < 8
(8 being a number of seconds which may need tweaking).
Certes (
talk)
11:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Hi , I have some news here .
{{
Transclude lead excerpt|Melbourne}}
. Purging didn't help.
Melbourne is a long article. I'll see whether we can handle large pages more efficiently.
Certes (
talk)
15:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)In Portal:Kurdistan, one of the images in the slideshow has a broken caption (you need to scroll through them to see it). Seems it can’t handle a caption which invokes a module. The bug is present in the page even when it’s not displaying the image, which suggests it’s loading all those images but not displaying them which could be quite expensive. It’s not making it any faster it seems as there’s a distinct delay when you cycle though them.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 23:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
[[File:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies.png|thumb|240px|Military situation on {{#invoke:Iraq_Syria_map_date|date}}:<br />{{legend|#e2d974|Controlled by [[Kurdish Supreme Committee|Syrian Kurds]]}}{{legend|#d7e074|Controlled by [[Peshmerga|Iraqi Kurds]]}}{{legend|#b4b2ae|Controlled by the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State in Iraq and Syria]] (ISIL, ISIS, IS)}}]]
I just fixed all uses of it in portal space by adding captions to each one (though I cheated on the Scotland portal, just adding hard spaces as captions, as there were so many.)
The weird thing is, they didn't need captions until today. Those pictures worked fine without captions yesterday.
Even though there aren't any errors being thrown currenty, the bug is still there. Though I probably wouldn't have taken the time to add all those informative captions if the bug wasn't there. :) — The Transhumanist 23:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I am getting this error on Portal:Underwater diving. It is a big portal with lots of automated random excerpts in the various box sections. It was OK until I converted to {{ Transclude excerpts as random slideshow}}, and now there are quite a lot of templates that are not processed. It may be that I am just trying to go beyond what is reasonable in the current system, but maybe there is a way to tweak it. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This is from the HTML
|
---|
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1267 Cached time: 20180731124327 Cache expiry: 3600 Dynamic content: true CPU time usage: 7.432 seconds Real time usage: 8.992 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 57510/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 2097152/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 730052/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 20/40 Expensive parser function count: 5/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 847828/5000000 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Lua time usage: 5.436/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 24.74 MB/50 MB --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 7770.505 1 -total 70.96% 5513.587 17 Template:Transclude_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 11.65% 905.506 18 Template:Navbox 8.15% 632.955 188 Template:Ship 6.23% 484.163 25 Template:Columns-list 6.01% 466.894 18 Template:Collapsible_list 5.84% 453.648 1 Template:Random_slideshow 5.25% 407.665 1 Template:Recreational_dive_sites 3.63% 281.695 78 Template:SS 3.21% 249.269 77 Template:Imbox --> |
The Post-expand include size, whatever that is, seems to have hit the limit. Everything else in the top group 'looks' OK, but I am guessing · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Before
|
---|
<!-- NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1269 Cached time: 20180731134219 Cache expiry: 21600 Dynamic content: true CPU time usage: 4.168 seconds Real time usage: 4.959 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 44913/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 1626840/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 613695/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 20/40 Expensive parser function count: 2/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 329317/5000000 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Lua time usage: 2.485/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 10.12 MB/50 MB --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 3926.903 1 -total 23.55% 924.782 2 Template:Transclude_list_item_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 14.80% 581.262 18 Template:Navbox 12.83% 503.821 1 Template:Random_slideshow 12.78% 501.922 188 Template:Ship 12.68% 497.807 25 Template:Columns-list 12.62% 495.462 18 Template:Collapsible_list 10.73% 421.306 1 Template:Transclude_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 8.07% 316.848 1 Template:Transclude_selected_current_events 6.37% 250.167 1 Template:Recreational_dive_sites --> |
After
|
---|
<!-- NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1270 Cached time: 20180731134334 Cache expiry: 3600 Dynamic content: true CPU time usage: 8.872 seconds Real time usage: 10.533 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 62453/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 2097152/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 749109/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 24/40 Expensive parser function count: 6/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 948199/5000000 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Lua time usage: 6.596/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 22.04 MB/50 MB --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 9156.232 1 -total 60.90% 5576.263 17 Template:Transclude_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 11.53% 1056.080 18 Template:Navbox 10.75% 983.928 2 Template:Transclude_list_item_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 7.76% 710.863 188 Template:Ship 5.30% 485.315 1 Template:Random_slideshow 5.30% 484.931 1 Template:Recreational_dive_sites 5.12% 469.243 25 Template:Columns-list 5.06% 462.950 18 Template:Collapsible_list 3.46% 317.051 78 Template:SS --> |
|limit=
parameter. -
Evad37 [
talk
15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Full stats
|
---|
<!-- NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1266 Cached time: 20180731184805 Cache expiry: 3600 Dynamic content: true CPU time usage: 6.572 seconds Real time usage: 7.913 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 51801/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 2013571/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 662620/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 20/40 Expensive parser function count: 5/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 758943/5000000 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Lua time usage: 4.526/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 22.32 MB/50 MB --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 6430.083 1 -total 69.78% 4486.731 18 Template:Transclude_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 9.63% 619.190 18 Template:Navbox 7.94% 510.635 188 Template:Ship 7.14% 459.012 25 Template:Columns-list 6.88% 442.563 18 Template:Collapsible_list 6.37% 409.448 1 Template:Random_slideshow 4.20% 270.270 1 Template:Recreational_dive_sites 3.34% 214.923 78 Template:SS 2.64% 169.726 1 Template:Transclude_list_item_excerpts_as_random_slideshow --> |
Firstly, can I say that I am in awe of the absolutely amazing work done by so many keen editors here over the last few months. Naming no names, you all know who you are.
Anyway, I thought I'd drop by and start to pick up tips to manually improve Portal:Alps, and add in some of the new automated features being developed. Amongst all the complex challenges and solutions being discussed here, I actually found it quite hard to wade through and to pick out helpful links to where the good bits are already deployed and working fine. I finally managed to understand enough to try out a few of them in my sandbox - and I'd welcome feedback, especially from Bermicourt. But first I had to resort to read back through some of the really informative newsletter updates left on my talk page by The Transhumanist. I then pasted the most up-to-date instructions and links into the bottom of my mockup as a form of reference tool for myself. Only then could I understand enough to create a working demo.
So I was wondering, could we have some form of really obvious, high-profile 'shop window' on the Project page to help show off some of the updated Portals that demonstrate how well each one of these elements work? It would be great to see examples of individual elements, different column layouts and so forth, and maybe even some 'before and after' links. As well as helping people like me to see current developments in action, and to manually modify an existing Portal, I suggest it could be a useful section to keep updated whilst we're in transition, especially to show the 'non-believers' how great things are becoming. My apologies if I've missed something that's already been created - maybe it just isn't easy to find. Cheers all, Nick Moyes ( talk) 14:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:box portal skeleton}}
on the blank page, and press ↵ Enter.I am currently searching article space for links to www.1911encyclopedia.org a long dead website which I am replacing with links to wikisource using the template {{
cite EB1911}}
.
I used AWB to create the list and I included portals in it as they are visible to readers. The portal Portal:Crusades has shown up with two links:#
The reason for this is that the portal includes very old copies of various Wikipedia articles. In this case an old copy of John Hunyadi.
Someone who cares needs to remove the page "Selected Biographies" or the sub-pages of "Selected biography" (or turn them in to redirects to the current articles), or whatever, but old version of articles ought not to exist in portal space as they are indirectly visible to readers via links to portal space). -- PBS ( talk) 19:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Is there any tool to transclude wikitables? For example the Portal:Chess has an outdated table with the top 20 FIDE rating, which could be transcluded from FIDE world rankings. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 12:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
See edits by Plantdrew here: [1]. I previously raised this on their talk page, asking them not to trim relevant portals. There was no response from them, and they did at the time move on to doing taxobox cleanup... but now they are back to mass-removal of portals. Sometimes with misleading edit summaries like [2], [3] - Evad37 [ talk 09:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I see portals being deleted (not surprising given the recent discussions), but is anything being done thereafter to remove the deleted portals from article pages? Is there a script or bot or something? I noticed Portal:Prisons was speedily deleted a few months back, and would rather not manually pull it off every page where it now shows as a redlink. Suggestions welcome. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. In an attempt to improve the Portal:Pornography, I moved it to Portal:Erotica and Pornography. But now I'm having trouble displaying the images using the template {{ Random portal component}}. Is there a way to point to old subpages? I believed that all would be moved. If anyone can also help me in the portal layout. Thanks. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 20:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
File=
to File:
on several rows. File=Foo
would create a parameter called File
, allowing the template to use the syntax {{{File}}}
to retrieve the value Foo
. I don't think this template looks for a parameter called File
. Even if it does, the several File=
entries would overwrite each other and the template would only receive the last one. I think what was intended was File:
, to indicate that the image is in the File namespace.
Certes (
talk)
11:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I noticed above some concern about stubs appearing in portals. Keep in mind that our lua gurus have built-into the transclusion modules a stub filter, so that articles tagged as stubs are not displayed in portal slideshows. Just an FYI. ;) (Remember to show your appreciation to these guys, for the amazing features they have enabled in portals). — The Transhumanist 23:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussions are taking place as to whether the portals listed below are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted.
The portals will be discussed at WP:MFD in each respective deletion discussion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussions. The nomination may explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. North America 1000 21:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
One concept we have discussed, toward which we are approaching fairly quickly, is the capability to provide a button that generates a portal at the time you press the button. No stored page required. Pbsouthwood referred to them as "quantum portals". My guess is that this isn't more than a few years away, maybe as little as one. To allow editor contributions, we would need to have a parameter page though, or some other way of storing editor input. Like if you wanted to add pictures to an image slideshow. And differences in style could be handled on a settings page somewhere, like on the preferences page, including randomizing styles. I wonder, where would the bar be for quantum portals? — The Transhumanist 21:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's build a list of missing portals that are needed. What subjects would you like to see a portal on? — The Transhumanist 00:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note that there is already a standing consensus on portal creation: no limitations on scope. In other words, there is no established consensus to limit the scope of portals.
All of BrownHairedGirl's requests and suggestions fall in line with the stance she presented during the RFC proposal to delete all portals and the portal namespace:
*Support. Whatever the theoretical benefits of portals, the reality is that most of them are woefully under-maintained, and v little used. This been the case for years, so all the talk of "keep and improve them" is dreaming: there simply are not enough editors with a sustained interest in doing so, Worse, given the viewing figures, anyone advocating widespread improvement is unintentionally encouraging editors to waste their time. That would actively damage Wikipedia by diverting effort away from actually improving en.wp
I say this with some sadness because I recently spent a day or two making Template talk:YearInCountryPortalBox to automatically add portal links to thousands of country-by-year cats; but as I built it and viewed more portals, I became more and more convinced that my concerns were well-founded.
My ideal solution would be too keep about 20 major portals(art/science/etc plus continents), and delete the rest. But given the unhelpful binary nature of this proposal, I'd prefer outright deletion to either keeping them all or to having 1500 MfD debates. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This, and all of her postings since, show an extreme bias against portals, and seek to limit, filter, or delete them. Beware. — The Transhumanist 09:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I have made no secret of my position, and it hasn't changed. I have also posted several times to remind members of this project that there were ~150 editors who posted at the RFC to support either deletion of all portals, or a major cull. So my view is not an "extreme bias"; on the contrary it is an evidence-based assessment shared by many other editors.
Despite that strong support for a cull, this project seems decided to remark on a massive spree of creating hundreds of new portals, and several project members have explicitly rejected calls for a moratorium while a consensus is formed. This rapid push in the opposite direction to widespread community concern runs directly counter to the principles of consenus-buidling, so I am finding it hard to sustain the hope that dialogue here serves any purpose . I hope that my pessimism is misfounded. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't answered BHG's questions on most of the MfDs yet — there are eighteen of them — and I haven't had a chance to get back and see how she responded to the scope-related answer(s) that I did post. I'm still sifting through the various threads on this entire issue trying to catch up. Though I am working on, or about to work on, five responses, not all necessarily in this order:
The first is that there are MfDs in play right now. In order to give those the best chance of surviving those nominations, those portals need to be completed. Right now, the participants are arguing over incomplete portal starts. Portal stubs. I am disappointed that nobody has jumped into them to work on them. That is one of the main ways to save a page from deletion. Like the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Many of the points concerning whether portals of their scope should be retained are being covered in their respective MfDs, and may play an important part in the wider criteria discussions. Another very strong reason for me to work on those first, because it will force me to think about the issues in context, at the front lines, where user meets portal. So, those MfDs are my highest priority right now. The discussions here can wait 3 days or so. We have plenty of time to hash this out after the MfDs have run their course.
One of my other responses will be rather technical, dealing with the utility and limitations of the Selected articles frames of portals — the core feature of portals — including those for the subpage-based older model of portals, and of the new design paradigm. And, with the supplemental features that add further content not generally found on any other type of page on Wikipedia. And the other features too. The main issue I will be focused on in this response, is what scope portals are ideal for navigating, and I will be very specific as to why, and will show specific examples of portal components in my explanation. A supplemental issue here I will also be addressing is the scope of the entire portal system, and the system-level benefits that portals as a whole, can provide.
Another of the responses will deal with the ramifications of various levels of creation criteria upon the existing set of portals, especially the set of portals that existed at the time the RfC was posted. How many of the portals will qualify for deletion under various scope criteria? This will require that I delve into the set, and quantify the portals of various scopes. I could sure use your help on this one.
Another of my concerns is that BHG is rehashing the RfC all over again, and presenting the minority position as if it were community consensus. So, I am working on another response, that will analyze the consensus established in the RfC, and deal with BHG's various statements of position.
Then there is the issue of portal perspective, probably the most important issue of all. Looking at the value of portals from various angles. Most of the debates so far have dealt with "oh, we should have a portal on this one, rather than this one, because they have x number of topics." In this response, I will be looking at the user's experience while they are on the root article page, and exploring what impact having a portal button on that page might have on the user. What are the benefits of the individual leaves of this tree we are building to the user of any particular subject? In this response I will also be touching upon the irrelevance of comparing page visit counts with the counts of pages served by external search engines, and looking at how many hits can be deemed significant to pages that receive only internal traffic in relation to their cost in development time and effort. But, I'll be handling that issue mostly in one of the other responses.
There is a lot of territory to cover here, and each response will probably amount to a wall of text in their own right, so, please, bear with me. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 23:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. You clearly have strong views on that. I and others have different strong views. RFC is where those differences are resolved.
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The title makes me wonder if this might have something we could use, but I can't figure out how to get it to work, or even what it does: User:Dr Brains/ListPages.js.
The doc is no longer around, and didn't leave any instructions behind.
What does it do, and how does it work? — The Transhumanist 23:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for updating editors on this. I know it doesn't currently apply to manually maintained portals, but I just wanted to say that I'm going to try and convert the intros for the 30 or so portals I maintain. It's worked on two so far, with a bit of tweaking. Thank you to those who worked out how to do it! Bermicourt ( talk) 20:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Someone from the project edited my test portal with the summary "Rename Picture slideshow section to "Selected pictures", because it doesn't show up as a slideshow on mobile devices" -- does anyone know what the failure mode on the slideshow is for mobile devices? (I don't own one, so can't check.) I was assuming that I'd have to convert the slideshow to the random subpages model before going live on this one, but I've been putting it off as I like the functionality. Espresso Addict ( talk) 08:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Bit of a problem on Portal:Reptiles, 7 boxes relying on automatic presentation of content are now saying "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." Sincerely, InsaneHacker ( 💬) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, in the automation of the introduction section to portals we are loosing images or maps, as these are usually in the infoboxes and so the template replacement does not extract the image or map for the portal. Is there a way of overriding this to enable an image or map to be placed in the introduction or should the automated process be extended to include detail from the infobox? Keith D ( talk) 18:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
files=
. It however doesn't include images in infoboxes. --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
19:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
|file=
parameter is needed to code in an image which is not from the article.
Keith D (
talk)
00:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
How do you submit a new portal image so that it links to the actual portal rather than that ugly blue icon visible on newly created portals? Thanks. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 15:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the 'in the news' section on a number of portals, in particular:
I fixed it by disabling the template in one, Portal:24, before noticing there are a many more. I don’t know if this can be fixed in the template, to not generate errors if there’s no data. Or if it should just be removed on the assumption that news articles on e.g. Virginia Woolf are not going to appear often enough for it to be worthwhile.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
NewPP limit report
. I find this very useful for capturing those stats for a specific instance of a page (e.g. when random transclusion is used, so the page is constantly changing). — AfroThundr (
u ·
t ·
c)
07:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
while daysAgo < maxDays and os.clock() < 8
(8 being a number of seconds which may need tweaking).
Certes (
talk)
11:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Hi , I have some news here .
{{
Transclude lead excerpt|Melbourne}}
. Purging didn't help.
Melbourne is a long article. I'll see whether we can handle large pages more efficiently.
Certes (
talk)
15:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)In Portal:Kurdistan, one of the images in the slideshow has a broken caption (you need to scroll through them to see it). Seems it can’t handle a caption which invokes a module. The bug is present in the page even when it’s not displaying the image, which suggests it’s loading all those images but not displaying them which could be quite expensive. It’s not making it any faster it seems as there’s a distinct delay when you cycle though them.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 23:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
[[File:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies.png|thumb|240px|Military situation on {{#invoke:Iraq_Syria_map_date|date}}:<br />{{legend|#e2d974|Controlled by [[Kurdish Supreme Committee|Syrian Kurds]]}}{{legend|#d7e074|Controlled by [[Peshmerga|Iraqi Kurds]]}}{{legend|#b4b2ae|Controlled by the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State in Iraq and Syria]] (ISIL, ISIS, IS)}}]]
I just fixed all uses of it in portal space by adding captions to each one (though I cheated on the Scotland portal, just adding hard spaces as captions, as there were so many.)
The weird thing is, they didn't need captions until today. Those pictures worked fine without captions yesterday.
Even though there aren't any errors being thrown currenty, the bug is still there. Though I probably wouldn't have taken the time to add all those informative captions if the bug wasn't there. :) — The Transhumanist 23:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I am getting this error on Portal:Underwater diving. It is a big portal with lots of automated random excerpts in the various box sections. It was OK until I converted to {{ Transclude excerpts as random slideshow}}, and now there are quite a lot of templates that are not processed. It may be that I am just trying to go beyond what is reasonable in the current system, but maybe there is a way to tweak it. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This is from the HTML
|
---|
NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1267 Cached time: 20180731124327 Cache expiry: 3600 Dynamic content: true CPU time usage: 7.432 seconds Real time usage: 8.992 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 57510/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 2097152/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 730052/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 20/40 Expensive parser function count: 5/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 847828/5000000 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Lua time usage: 5.436/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 24.74 MB/50 MB --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 7770.505 1 -total 70.96% 5513.587 17 Template:Transclude_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 11.65% 905.506 18 Template:Navbox 8.15% 632.955 188 Template:Ship 6.23% 484.163 25 Template:Columns-list 6.01% 466.894 18 Template:Collapsible_list 5.84% 453.648 1 Template:Random_slideshow 5.25% 407.665 1 Template:Recreational_dive_sites 3.63% 281.695 78 Template:SS 3.21% 249.269 77 Template:Imbox --> |
The Post-expand include size, whatever that is, seems to have hit the limit. Everything else in the top group 'looks' OK, but I am guessing · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Before
|
---|
<!-- NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1269 Cached time: 20180731134219 Cache expiry: 21600 Dynamic content: true CPU time usage: 4.168 seconds Real time usage: 4.959 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 44913/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 1626840/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 613695/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 20/40 Expensive parser function count: 2/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 329317/5000000 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Lua time usage: 2.485/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 10.12 MB/50 MB --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 3926.903 1 -total 23.55% 924.782 2 Template:Transclude_list_item_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 14.80% 581.262 18 Template:Navbox 12.83% 503.821 1 Template:Random_slideshow 12.78% 501.922 188 Template:Ship 12.68% 497.807 25 Template:Columns-list 12.62% 495.462 18 Template:Collapsible_list 10.73% 421.306 1 Template:Transclude_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 8.07% 316.848 1 Template:Transclude_selected_current_events 6.37% 250.167 1 Template:Recreational_dive_sites --> |
After
|
---|
<!-- NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1270 Cached time: 20180731134334 Cache expiry: 3600 Dynamic content: true CPU time usage: 8.872 seconds Real time usage: 10.533 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 62453/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 2097152/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 749109/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 24/40 Expensive parser function count: 6/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 948199/5000000 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Lua time usage: 6.596/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 22.04 MB/50 MB --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 9156.232 1 -total 60.90% 5576.263 17 Template:Transclude_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 11.53% 1056.080 18 Template:Navbox 10.75% 983.928 2 Template:Transclude_list_item_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 7.76% 710.863 188 Template:Ship 5.30% 485.315 1 Template:Random_slideshow 5.30% 484.931 1 Template:Recreational_dive_sites 5.12% 469.243 25 Template:Columns-list 5.06% 462.950 18 Template:Collapsible_list 3.46% 317.051 78 Template:SS --> |
|limit=
parameter. -
Evad37 [
talk
15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Full stats
|
---|
<!-- NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1266 Cached time: 20180731184805 Cache expiry: 3600 Dynamic content: true CPU time usage: 6.572 seconds Real time usage: 7.913 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 51801/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 2013571/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 662620/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 20/40 Expensive parser function count: 5/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 758943/5000000 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Lua time usage: 4.526/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 22.32 MB/50 MB --> <!-- Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 6430.083 1 -total 69.78% 4486.731 18 Template:Transclude_excerpts_as_random_slideshow 9.63% 619.190 18 Template:Navbox 7.94% 510.635 188 Template:Ship 7.14% 459.012 25 Template:Columns-list 6.88% 442.563 18 Template:Collapsible_list 6.37% 409.448 1 Template:Random_slideshow 4.20% 270.270 1 Template:Recreational_dive_sites 3.34% 214.923 78 Template:SS 2.64% 169.726 1 Template:Transclude_list_item_excerpts_as_random_slideshow --> |
Firstly, can I say that I am in awe of the absolutely amazing work done by so many keen editors here over the last few months. Naming no names, you all know who you are.
Anyway, I thought I'd drop by and start to pick up tips to manually improve Portal:Alps, and add in some of the new automated features being developed. Amongst all the complex challenges and solutions being discussed here, I actually found it quite hard to wade through and to pick out helpful links to where the good bits are already deployed and working fine. I finally managed to understand enough to try out a few of them in my sandbox - and I'd welcome feedback, especially from Bermicourt. But first I had to resort to read back through some of the really informative newsletter updates left on my talk page by The Transhumanist. I then pasted the most up-to-date instructions and links into the bottom of my mockup as a form of reference tool for myself. Only then could I understand enough to create a working demo.
So I was wondering, could we have some form of really obvious, high-profile 'shop window' on the Project page to help show off some of the updated Portals that demonstrate how well each one of these elements work? It would be great to see examples of individual elements, different column layouts and so forth, and maybe even some 'before and after' links. As well as helping people like me to see current developments in action, and to manually modify an existing Portal, I suggest it could be a useful section to keep updated whilst we're in transition, especially to show the 'non-believers' how great things are becoming. My apologies if I've missed something that's already been created - maybe it just isn't easy to find. Cheers all, Nick Moyes ( talk) 14:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:box portal skeleton}}
on the blank page, and press ↵ Enter.I am currently searching article space for links to www.1911encyclopedia.org a long dead website which I am replacing with links to wikisource using the template {{
cite EB1911}}
.
I used AWB to create the list and I included portals in it as they are visible to readers. The portal Portal:Crusades has shown up with two links:#
The reason for this is that the portal includes very old copies of various Wikipedia articles. In this case an old copy of John Hunyadi.
Someone who cares needs to remove the page "Selected Biographies" or the sub-pages of "Selected biography" (or turn them in to redirects to the current articles), or whatever, but old version of articles ought not to exist in portal space as they are indirectly visible to readers via links to portal space). -- PBS ( talk) 19:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Is there any tool to transclude wikitables? For example the Portal:Chess has an outdated table with the top 20 FIDE rating, which could be transcluded from FIDE world rankings. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 12:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
See edits by Plantdrew here: [1]. I previously raised this on their talk page, asking them not to trim relevant portals. There was no response from them, and they did at the time move on to doing taxobox cleanup... but now they are back to mass-removal of portals. Sometimes with misleading edit summaries like [2], [3] - Evad37 [ talk 09:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I see portals being deleted (not surprising given the recent discussions), but is anything being done thereafter to remove the deleted portals from article pages? Is there a script or bot or something? I noticed Portal:Prisons was speedily deleted a few months back, and would rather not manually pull it off every page where it now shows as a redlink. Suggestions welcome. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. In an attempt to improve the Portal:Pornography, I moved it to Portal:Erotica and Pornography. But now I'm having trouble displaying the images using the template {{ Random portal component}}. Is there a way to point to old subpages? I believed that all would be moved. If anyone can also help me in the portal layout. Thanks. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 20:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
File=
to File:
on several rows. File=Foo
would create a parameter called File
, allowing the template to use the syntax {{{File}}}
to retrieve the value Foo
. I don't think this template looks for a parameter called File
. Even if it does, the several File=
entries would overwrite each other and the template would only receive the last one. I think what was intended was File:
, to indicate that the image is in the File namespace.
Certes (
talk)
11:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I noticed above some concern about stubs appearing in portals. Keep in mind that our lua gurus have built-into the transclusion modules a stub filter, so that articles tagged as stubs are not displayed in portal slideshows. Just an FYI. ;) (Remember to show your appreciation to these guys, for the amazing features they have enabled in portals). — The Transhumanist 23:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussions are taking place as to whether the portals listed below are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted.
The portals will be discussed at WP:MFD in each respective deletion discussion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussions. The nomination may explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. North America 1000 21:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
One concept we have discussed, toward which we are approaching fairly quickly, is the capability to provide a button that generates a portal at the time you press the button. No stored page required. Pbsouthwood referred to them as "quantum portals". My guess is that this isn't more than a few years away, maybe as little as one. To allow editor contributions, we would need to have a parameter page though, or some other way of storing editor input. Like if you wanted to add pictures to an image slideshow. And differences in style could be handled on a settings page somewhere, like on the preferences page, including randomizing styles. I wonder, where would the bar be for quantum portals? — The Transhumanist 21:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's build a list of missing portals that are needed. What subjects would you like to see a portal on? — The Transhumanist 00:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note that there is already a standing consensus on portal creation: no limitations on scope. In other words, there is no established consensus to limit the scope of portals.
All of BrownHairedGirl's requests and suggestions fall in line with the stance she presented during the RFC proposal to delete all portals and the portal namespace:
*Support. Whatever the theoretical benefits of portals, the reality is that most of them are woefully under-maintained, and v little used. This been the case for years, so all the talk of "keep and improve them" is dreaming: there simply are not enough editors with a sustained interest in doing so, Worse, given the viewing figures, anyone advocating widespread improvement is unintentionally encouraging editors to waste their time. That would actively damage Wikipedia by diverting effort away from actually improving en.wp
I say this with some sadness because I recently spent a day or two making Template talk:YearInCountryPortalBox to automatically add portal links to thousands of country-by-year cats; but as I built it and viewed more portals, I became more and more convinced that my concerns were well-founded.
My ideal solution would be too keep about 20 major portals(art/science/etc plus continents), and delete the rest. But given the unhelpful binary nature of this proposal, I'd prefer outright deletion to either keeping them all or to having 1500 MfD debates. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This, and all of her postings since, show an extreme bias against portals, and seek to limit, filter, or delete them. Beware. — The Transhumanist 09:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I have made no secret of my position, and it hasn't changed. I have also posted several times to remind members of this project that there were ~150 editors who posted at the RFC to support either deletion of all portals, or a major cull. So my view is not an "extreme bias"; on the contrary it is an evidence-based assessment shared by many other editors.
Despite that strong support for a cull, this project seems decided to remark on a massive spree of creating hundreds of new portals, and several project members have explicitly rejected calls for a moratorium while a consensus is formed. This rapid push in the opposite direction to widespread community concern runs directly counter to the principles of consenus-buidling, so I am finding it hard to sustain the hope that dialogue here serves any purpose . I hope that my pessimism is misfounded. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't answered BHG's questions on most of the MfDs yet — there are eighteen of them — and I haven't had a chance to get back and see how she responded to the scope-related answer(s) that I did post. I'm still sifting through the various threads on this entire issue trying to catch up. Though I am working on, or about to work on, five responses, not all necessarily in this order:
The first is that there are MfDs in play right now. In order to give those the best chance of surviving those nominations, those portals need to be completed. Right now, the participants are arguing over incomplete portal starts. Portal stubs. I am disappointed that nobody has jumped into them to work on them. That is one of the main ways to save a page from deletion. Like the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Many of the points concerning whether portals of their scope should be retained are being covered in their respective MfDs, and may play an important part in the wider criteria discussions. Another very strong reason for me to work on those first, because it will force me to think about the issues in context, at the front lines, where user meets portal. So, those MfDs are my highest priority right now. The discussions here can wait 3 days or so. We have plenty of time to hash this out after the MfDs have run their course.
One of my other responses will be rather technical, dealing with the utility and limitations of the Selected articles frames of portals — the core feature of portals — including those for the subpage-based older model of portals, and of the new design paradigm. And, with the supplemental features that add further content not generally found on any other type of page on Wikipedia. And the other features too. The main issue I will be focused on in this response, is what scope portals are ideal for navigating, and I will be very specific as to why, and will show specific examples of portal components in my explanation. A supplemental issue here I will also be addressing is the scope of the entire portal system, and the system-level benefits that portals as a whole, can provide.
Another of the responses will deal with the ramifications of various levels of creation criteria upon the existing set of portals, especially the set of portals that existed at the time the RfC was posted. How many of the portals will qualify for deletion under various scope criteria? This will require that I delve into the set, and quantify the portals of various scopes. I could sure use your help on this one.
Another of my concerns is that BHG is rehashing the RfC all over again, and presenting the minority position as if it were community consensus. So, I am working on another response, that will analyze the consensus established in the RfC, and deal with BHG's various statements of position.
Then there is the issue of portal perspective, probably the most important issue of all. Looking at the value of portals from various angles. Most of the debates so far have dealt with "oh, we should have a portal on this one, rather than this one, because they have x number of topics." In this response, I will be looking at the user's experience while they are on the root article page, and exploring what impact having a portal button on that page might have on the user. What are the benefits of the individual leaves of this tree we are building to the user of any particular subject? In this response I will also be touching upon the irrelevance of comparing page visit counts with the counts of pages served by external search engines, and looking at how many hits can be deemed significant to pages that receive only internal traffic in relation to their cost in development time and effort. But, I'll be handling that issue mostly in one of the other responses.
There is a lot of territory to cover here, and each response will probably amount to a wall of text in their own right, so, please, bear with me. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 23:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. You clearly have strong views on that. I and others have different strong views. RFC is where those differences are resolved.