User talk:Andrewa/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Andrewa. 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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

TonyBallioni, SkyWarrior and Primefac, you have just completely torpedoed my belief that panel closes are not a good idea. The close at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move 8 February 2018 is excellent. And I hope and believe I'm not just saying that because I happen to partly agree with the result... in fact I'm very disappointed that it's a no consensus close, but that is your call entirely and you've made it well. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I too was disappointed that it was a no consensus result, however I agree that was the best reading of the discussion. I consider a "rough consensus to not move" could have been read by a reasonable closer, but there is no substance to the difference. I was disappointed that the options born and nee, which in my opinion were perfectly satisfactory options, were not broadly supported, but that's how it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- To me rough consensus not to move is a significantly different decision to no consensus. I'd have been a lot happier with it! No consensus is never a good or stable situation. The two decisions have the same immediate result, but that's where the similarity ends. Andrewa (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  - True, that a consensus to not move would have been a cleaner result, but I'll disagree that "No consensus is never a good or stable situation". It is a good decision if it is the correct decision. Stable? The decision will be stable if proponents respect the decision. I argued for a moratorium until something significant changes. I think if we asked everyone: "Shall we leave the page titled as it is, subject only to something significant", I think consensus will be "yes". Finding consensus can mean altering the question to make it easier for everyone to answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    - I think we need to disagree on this. To say It is a good decision if it is the correct decision just begs the question; Of course it is! But it's a correct close only because we sometimes fail to reach consensus. It's always best to avoid this, but not always possible, because we are human and all fallible.
    - It's just a matter of which words we choose to describe it, but that can be very important, as your discussion of how the question is asked seems to indicate too. And I'm deliberately choosing very different words. Andrewa (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
      - I was surprised that you feel a need to disagree. I felt we were becoming very well aligned, and were just a little short on agreeing to the same words. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
        As Benjamin Whorf famously observed, the words we use both reveal and influence our thoughts. I seem to find this far more important than you do, and that's OK.
        
        We shouldn't expect to always agree, but I hope and observe that we often do. Andrewa (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Muddy waters

Muddy the waters redirecting to poisoning the well is unfortunate, as the article title has a clear negative POV, whereas "muddying the waters" is more neutral. Others putting information forward in anticipation of a request by B2C may help or hinder the reception of his request. Whether helping or hindering, I think it is bad, because it makes it more difficult for B2C to take full responsibility whatever he does. I think if anyone wants to give him advice, they should do it privately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, SmokeyJoe, but in linking to that article (title and all) you perhaps expressed yourself extremely badly, and if so I'd suggest you clarify that on the relevant page. Poisoning the well has, as you say, an extremely negative connotation, and could be taken as an uncalled-for insult by those of us who have participated. On the other hand, if the comments discourage B2C and/or that is the intent, that would indeed be poisoning the well.

I think if anyone wants to give him advice, they should do it privately. I agree to a point. But where do we draw the line? Which posts exactly do you find unhelpful?

I have made four recent recent edits to the page in question, one of them minor... three posts in all. This was the first, and I think it was entirely appropriate. Any problems there?

Then came this, replying to you. I guess you disagree with it. Is the problem just that you wanted the last word?

This is the most recent. I guess you disagree with it too, and you have a right to say that... just as I have a right to say things with which you disagree.

Or if my posts were OK except that I (twice at least) encouraged others to post things that weren't helpful, which posts (by others) do you find unhelpful?

Have a look at this reply to my earlier post on B2C's talk page. B2C can be quite reasonable. An indeff was the call and we run with it. But it will be a great pity if it becomes permanent, and the closer explicitly suggested it might not be. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Posts of general support or sympathy would be fine. The posts that are decidedly unhelpful to him would the the ones speculating on how he might negotiate an unblock. Also unhelpful or at least unkind are posts that respond to, that counter, a hypothetical appeal that he might make. I don't call your posts unhelpful, I disagree with a particular point, that most of the other posts are helpful and to be encouraged. Openly speculating on what he might do on his talk page is, in my opinion, not helpful to him reflecting on what was said at WP:AE. Consider my post to be measured response to some of the encouraging comments. I see DB wrote "Not a single person has requested he simply stay blocked". Is that a challenge for the several posters at WP:AE, including me, to write on his talk page, in anticipation of an unblock request, that his remaining blocked is perfectly satisfactory and that we are disinclined to believe any promises? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point I think but it may be overreacting. You're guessing what he might find helpful, and that's always dangerous. I fear that I might have more in common with B2C than you do (which may not be a good thing) and in his position I think I'd find others telegraphing their intentions helpful, although like getting shot at it's hard to tell how you'll react until it happens, and I hope not to find out! Andrewa (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Overreacting? I made one post because I think some discouragement of speculation on his talk page was appropriate. Am I putting too much effort into explaining little things? Sometimes, I find it takes a lot more effort to explain something not that important, and not clear cut, as compared to explaining something important. Also partly, you are good to chat with. I don't think I am guessing what he mind find helpful, instead I think he has to make a big decision, and others laying out paths robs him of the change to make the decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In B2C's position, I think I would find such comments helpful in general. I hope I would read them eventually, but take an enforced Wikibreak (but nowhere near two years) to consider whether I really found Wikipedia rewarding enough to attempt a comeback. Whether or not I were considering such, I hope I would lurk as a reader in the meantime. Then I'd ask to be unblocked in a very small way, maybe on condition of editing article talk pages only, three posts from me maximum per thread and no RMs, something like that. A new direction, as someone else said. If this worked, sometime later (and probably after the two years) I'd ask for a completely unconditional unblock, acknowledging that I'd always be under extra but non-specific scrutiny for any sort of disruption, and I think I'd then get it. But I would have changed, and the community would have changed.

It is, as you say, a big decision. I think you and I would we would approach it in different ways, and perhaps B2C will approach it in still a third way and we'll both be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If you look now, someone went and posted "I'm under the impression that B2C may feel <stuff>. My response: <poison in the well>". Disgraceful. I very much agree with the post of 18:53, 11 March 2018. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've already thanked them for that post.

As I've said there several times now, the ball is in B2C's court. I think that discussing it there was in general helpful, which is of course why I started the thread, but again that's really B2C's call, and I don't think that others trying to make it for them was helpful - it would have been far better to post on their (our) own talk pages (as you have several times now done) rather than clutter that of B2C.

But it's a tricky line to walk. I don't think the mention of grave dancing was at all helpful, frankly, and there have been some other similarly and needlessly insulting phrases used. But it wasn't even remotely appropriate to discuss that on B2C's talk page, and in hindsight I may have erred in criticising you there for your phrasing earlier. Andrewa (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Moved to User:Andrewa/Rock Solid Talent Entertainment. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree 100%, I'm new to portals but point me to a task and I'll have a go. Andrewa (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Coolness...

Dear Andrewa,

Thank you for joining WikiProject Portals.

One of the most urgent tasks right now is updating the main list of portals. There's a few hundred entries missing from there.

No need to worry about doing them all. Every little bit helps. If enough people keep picking away at it, a little at a time, it will get done pretty quick.

The list of missing entries is on its talk page. Instructions are included there.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Another important initial task is to get familiar with the portals. Browse the two lists mentioned above, looking at as many portals as you have time for, to see what there is to see. Be sure to jot down your ideas and observations, and share them with us on the WikiProject's talk page.

I look forward to collaborating with you. — The Transhumanist 12:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the Portals WikiProject.

Here's our first project-wide update. I hope you enjoy it...

Reboot

The WikiProject reboot has been a success: the new re-envisioned project is up and running, with new members, ongoing discussions about automation, design, and upkeep; maintained task queques; and updates to members, like this, the very first one!

The RfC

As you know, there's a proposal to delete all portals. It started out looking pretty dismal for portals, with primarily posts supporting their demise. It turned out that the proposer didn't post a deletion notice on the very pages being nominated for deletion (a requirement for all deletion discussions). Once that was done, a flood of opposition came in and has apparently turned the tide.

RfCs generally run for 30 days. It started April 8th, and so it has about 14 more days to run its course.

The more work we can do during that time on the portals, the stronger the reasons for keeping them will be. And the more prepared we will be for any MfDs that follow the closing of the RfC.

AWB?

You may be wondering why we asked for AWB experience in the member-sign-up list.

We are gearing up to do maintenance runs on the entire set of portals, and the more people we have who can use AWB, the better.

But we're not quite ready to start this yet.

To be able to use AWB on the portals, we first need to know what the end result needs to be. Like on the news sections, do we comment out the out-of-date ones, or do we place the code to activate the newsbot on those pages? That would require an assessment of WikiNews and its news generating performance (areas covered, volume in each area), etc.

You can help us figure this out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Discussions about news sections.

Another area we're gearing up for, to do passes with AWB, are upgrades to the intro sections of portals. Many of these have static (copied/pasted) excerpts that go stale over time.

We're trying to figure out how to make self-updating excerpts to replace the existing static excerpts that are on many portals, and once this is done, AWB will be used to place the new code. See the discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Discussions about selective transclusion in intros.

"What can I do?"

There are 3 major areas of activity right now:

Update the main portal list at Portal:Contents/Portals

There are a few hundred existing portals that are missing from this list.

The list of missing entries, and instructions on what to do, can be found at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet.

We need everybody's help on this. It's a big chore for one persons. But, many hands make light work. Please help chip away at this chore as much as you can. A little each day, form all of us, will get this done pretty quick.

Familiarize yourself with the portal system

In addition to browsing the portals in the 2 lists mentioned in the section above, you should take a look at the portal name space itself and what is in it.

That can be done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Watchlist.

Join in on the discussions

There are discussions on many aspects of the WikiProject's operations, with more to come.

Such as about the purposes and functions of portals, design discussions, and so on.

There's even a automated design discussion over at Village Pump Technical, on selective transclusion.

I hope to see you on the talk page.

What's coming?

In addition to the automation efforts mentioned above, we will be looking into how to automate the selection and display of alternating excerpts, and alternating pictures, for the various portal sections.

Watch for these discussions on the Wikiproject's talk page.

Summing up...

Get ready, get set, go! — The Transhumanist 22:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: The main example given at the RfC of the problems of portals was Portal:Cricket. Therefore, it's the top priority portal to update. Please lend a hand. - TT

The Transhumanist, there seems some doubt as to whether the WikiProject want to preserve this particular portal. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals. Andrewa (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being a member of the Portals WikiProject, and thank you for all the work you have all been doing on the portal namespace. To see the activity, check out the watchlist.

This is our 3rd issue, see previous issues at the Newsletter archive.

Top priority: Main list of portals needs updating

The top, and one of the most visible parts, of the portal system is Portal:Contents/Portals, which is intended to list all (completed) portals on Wikipedia.

About half of the missing existing portals have been added since this WikiProject's reboot (April 17th). Thank you to RockMagnetist, TriNitrobrick, Polyamorph, PratyushSinha101, Ganesha811, Bermicourt, Javert2113, Noyster, Ɱ, Lepricavark, XOR'easter, and Emir of Wikipedia, for working on this.

We are half-way to completion with this. We need everyone to chip in until it is done. Instructions, and the list of missing entries are at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet.

I hope you'll join me there. ("Many hands make light work").

Thank you.

Membership

We're at 66 members, with more joining daily. We even have 6 WikiGnomes!

Special thanks

I have awarded Certes with a portals barnstar on his talk page for his work on the new excerpt templates that are revolutionizing the portal system (Template:Transclude lead excerpt & Template:Transclude random excerpt). If you'd like to show your appreciation, please feel free to stop by his talk page and add your signature to the barnstar itself.

Thank you Certes. You are enabling this WikiProject to get the right things done, fast.

By the way, the templates have already gone international. After being told about the templates, Mossab wrote:

Thanks You very much!. Those are fantastic and great templates! I transferred them to Arabic Wikipedia and they do a magic great job. I worked to improve portal anatomy here and i do every thing i can to improve it and i am very sad for the nomination for deletion of portals :(. I am glad to be member on WikiProject Portals and i added my name with pleasure. Kind regards

RFC

As you know, the (April 8th) proposal to delete all portals and the portal namespace inspired the reboot of this WikiProject. RfCs typically run for 30 days, which means there are 5 days left including today, before the RfC will be closed. The !votes are predominantly "oppose", but many editors have shared their disappointment with the portal system. We have our work cut out for us in correcting the problems of the portals to address their concerns. Complaints ranged from being out of date and lacking maintenance, to taking up the time of editors that they felt (due to low traffic) would be better spent improving articles.

Anti-WikiProject drama

This past week has been somewhat stressful for me, with more than a little conflict...

It culminated with my being reported at the Administrator's Noticeboard "for spamming and canvassing". This is the second time I've been reported there during the RfC; the first one was for posting notices of the deletion discussion (the RfC) at the top of all portal pages.

The accusations were 1) Posting notices of the deletion discussion (the RfC) at the top of all portal pages, 2) Adding an Article alerts section to the Portals WikiProject page, and 3) posting notices (invitations) about this WikiProject on user talk and portal talk pages.

None of which fall under the Wikipedia definitions of spamming or canvassing.

Thank you, Lionelt and Lepricavark, for coming to my rescue. I don't know how the discussion would have turned out if you had not spoken up.

The discussion was closed as "no action necessary".

After that, the person responsible posted their thoughts to my talk page. Here they are, with my response:

Congratulations, it appears your relentless targeted advertising of the RFC, your beating the RFC Supporters with a stick by posting countless times there, your dishonest insistence that Current Events was on the chopping block, and your obstruction of clean up efforts at MfD are paying dividends. Have fun playing with Portal space where no one will read your work. I'm sure someone will eventually clean up the mess when your interest wanes. Cheers. Legacypac

Thank you. I accept your congratulations on behalf of Wikiproject Portals and the portal-loving community – it was a team effort. In addition, I'd like to clarify some things about your claims above...

Each page nominated for deletion must have a notice at the top of its page, per the deletion guideline. Not to have one there, would be unfair to those who use such pages, and would constitute a secret deletion tribunal. We don't do things that way on Wikipedia.
As new facts became available (e.g., a motivated and thriving WikiProject to support the portals, new building blocks, etc.), it was appropriate to post the developments to the RfC, to support informed decision making.
Proposals are literal, not figurative. The proposal specified "all portals". All means all.
The fact is, the rebooted WikiProject is cleaning up the mess, rather rapidly. By updating and upgrading the portals, rather than getting rid of them.
I think I'll be hanging around for awhile, but the project is more than likely to achieve critical mass and may outlive us all, due in part to the development of tools to assist editors in building, upgrading, and maintaining portals that are fully dynamic and self-updating.

Portals are more fun to work with than ever. Thank you for your role in making this happen. You made us try even harder, and inspired us to pull together as a team. You'll have a warm place in our hearts, forever. The Transhumanist

Automatically refreshed excerpts

The main advancement we've made so far is applying selective transclusion Transclusion is template technology, showing a page on another page. Selective transclusion shows only part of that page. We use it to show excerpts that always match the source. The two templates we have so far, are Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Obsoleting subpages

Excerpts are migrating toward the base page of each portal, and where this is done, a subpage is no longer needed.

Template:Transclude lead excerpt will be able to be used to put the intro excerpt directly on the portal page, rather than on an intro subpage, once we adapt a portal design to accommodate this.

Template:Transclude random excerpt is currently being used on 1st-level subpages, and eliminates the need for 2nd-level subpages. (Many portals have 2 levels of subpages).

There are about 1500 portals, but there are around 148,000 subpages in portal space. Further discussions are needed to develop designs and components that do not require them.

It is my hope that the portal of the future will be a single page, or close to it, pulling in excerpts from specified dynamic sources (like category pages), filtered by ratings. This would obviate the need for subpages at all (except for maybe the header and footer subpages, which store a portal's settings). A more likely near-term solution would be subpages with a list maintained by a bot, or editors using semi-automatic tools.

New portals

Since the reboot, a new portal has been created:

Portal:Limited recognition

Please watchlist these pages

Some central pages in the portal system. The more eyes on them, the better.

Wrapping up...

There's more in the works, like a rating system, further redesigns, etc. Keep an eye on the discussions on the project's talk page. They should start showing up there soon.

Hope to see you there. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 06:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We've grown to 73 members, and morale is high. Thank you for joining. Here is some news, and some tasks...

The RfC will be closed soon...

2018-05-11: preparations are being made to close the RfC. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals.

When there, be sure to notice the consultation link.

We're trying to get a prototypical single-page portal developed in time to show the RfC closers before they make their final decision. You can help. It's Portal:Humanism. So far, we've applied selective transclusion (automation) to excerpts, and have made the following sections without subpages: intro, selected article, selected biography, categories, related portals, wikiprojects, things to do, and wikimedia. Eight down, 4 to go, plus 2 formatting subpages (not sure we can migrate those). Automating every section, would also be nice.

Main objectives

Our main objectives currently, are:

Replace static excerpts with selective transclusions, so that the excerpts always stay fresh (that is, match the source content). We are now doing this on the portal base page as much as possible, to reduce the number of subpages that are needed. See #2...
Migrate the functions of subpages to the portal base pages. There are around 150,000 subpages in portal space. We aim to make these obsolete by using templates and other calls from the portal base pages.
Improve portal design to make portals self-update. Semi-dynamic sections update from a static list, as used in {{Transclude random excerpt}}. Fully-dynamic sections would update from a list maintained elsewhere on Wikipedia, like a category. We haven't found a way to do this yet, other than to create a bot (which we will probably need to do).

Maintenance pass #1: Upgrading the intro section

The intro section of many portals transcludes an "Intro" subpage that has an excerpt in it.

We're replacing that with a selective transclusion directly in the intro section, bypassing the subpage. Though, there's a little more to it...

For instructions, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Transclude intro excerpt directly on the portal base page.

Please skip Portal:American Civil War, as that is specifically being maintained by hand.

Maintenance pass #2: Obsoleting the Wikimedia subpages

One of the sections on many portals links to sister projects on the subject. This needlessly takes a subpage. The subpage can be made obsolete by using the template {{Wikimedia for portals}} directly on the portal base page.

This has been done for several hundred portals so far.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Obsolete a Wikimedia subpage for instructions.

Maintenance pass #3: calling the category tree from the portal base page

Certes figured out how...

{{subst:Text|<category|tree>}}{{subst:PAGENAME}}{{subst:Text|</categorytree>}}

For more information, see the thread Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Rendering PAGENAME inside categorytree tag doesn't work (it does now).

More to come...

In the meantime, see ya around the portals! — The Transhumanist 15:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Groove (drumming) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be mainly a list of unsourced examples. Drum grooves are covered in "Grooves (music)", so the need for a separate page is minimal.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MightyWarrior (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

We have grown to 79 members.

Please provide a warm welcome to our latest additions, Wpgbrown, Cactus.man, JLJ001, and Wumbolo.

A lot is going on, much of it on the WikiProject's talk page, so be sure to go there and join in on any of the many discussions taking place there.

Elsewhere around the portal project, or related to portals, the following is happening...

New news template ready for testing

Evad37 has created a new template, with supporting lua module, to handle news in portals...

{{Transclude selected current events}} is ready to be tested in some actual portals. Let Evad37 know if you need help with the search patterns.

Noyster commented that "This is the best portal innovation since sliced bread!"

See the relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Alternative to Wikinews.

Thank you, Evad.

Coming soon: Automatic article alerts (but there is a glitch)

Our WikiProject is now subscribed to the bot that makes automatic article alerts, but the subpage where they are posted has not been added to our WikiProject page yet because of a weird problem...

Featured portal nominations from two years ago keep popping up on there.

Please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Article alerts to see if you can figure out how to fix this.

Once that is remedied, it will be posted on our WikiProject page.

Thank you.

Note that, this will only track base pages, because to track the rest, we'd have to create over 140,000 talk pages for the subpages, and that just isn't worthwhile (as we're trying to remove the subpages anyways). Therefore, any alerts for subpages will still need to be posted manually.

New portal, still needs work

Portal:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, courtesy of Mozart834428196. See also, the discussion.

Drafting a new portals guideline

Your input/editing is welcome on the draft-in-progress of a new guideline for portals.

See or work on the draft at User:Cesdeva/sandbox11.

See also the discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines#RfC on new portal guidelines

RfC on new TOC layout for main portal list

There is a proposal to change the look of the table of contents at Portal:Contents/Portals.

See: Portal talk:Contents/Portals#RFC on layout update.

Deletion discussion survivors

Thank you to those who have participated in portal deletion discussions. There are still some editors out there who despise portals, and this comes across in their argumentation style. Wow. Such negativity. But, there is some good news...

Portal:Quidditch survived its 2nd deletion nomination
Portal:Prehistory of Antarctica did the same

Current deletion discussions are posted on our WikiProject page.

Portal space clean up

While portal detractors are trying to get rid of portals via MfD, we have deleted many of them via speedy deletion (per {{Db-p1}} or {{Db-p2}}). Essentially, they were bare skeletons, with maybe a little meat on them. The plus here is that speedy deletion is without prejudice to re-creating the portals. They can easily be restarted from scratch without getting approval, or be undeleted by request by someone willing to work on them. We have kept track of these, for when someone wants to rebuild them. They are listed at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet.

We are also removing subpages, the functions of which have been migrated to portal base pages. To see which ones have been removed, look for the redlinks in our watchlist.

There is also an MfD concerning some of these at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Redundant subpages of the Cornwall portal.

For subpages that need to be deleted, you can conveniently place this speedy deletion template at the top of each of them:

{{Db-g6|rationale=of subpage clean up – this subpage's function has been migrated to the portal base page and is no longer needed}}

Then an admin will come along and delete them.

Please help list the unlisted portals!

There are still 100 existing portals not yet presented on the main portal list at Portal:Contents/Portals. There were 400, so we've come a long way. Thank you! But we are not done yet...

Please list a couple of them. Every little bit helps. If each member of this project listed one more, it would almost all be done. Many hands make light work.

The list of missings, and instructions, are to be found at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet.

I hope to see you there!

Wrapping up

These developments make up just the tip of the iceberg. I'll have more to report in the next update, soon. — The Transhumanist 00:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There's an article about the Portals WikiProject in the new issue of Signpost:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-05-24/WikiProject report

Enjoy.

P.S.: We now have 80 members. Evad37 just joined! — The Transhumanist 01:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

We have grown to 89 members.

This is the seventh issue of this newsletter. For previous issues, see our newsletter archive.

Welcome

A warm welcome to our nearly one dozen new members...

Our new members include:

Be sure to say "hi" and welcome them to the team.

The portal set has shrunk

There were 1515 portals, but now we have 1475, because we speedy deleted a bunch of incompleted portals that had been sitting around for ages, that were empty shells or had very little content. Because they were speedied, they can be rebuilt from scratch without acquiring approval from WP:DRV.

Maintenance runs on the portals set have begun

This is what we have been gearing up for: upgrading the portals en masse, using AWB.

More than half of the Associated Wikimedia sections have been converted to no longer use a subpage. This chore will probably be completed over the next week or two. Many thanks to the WikiGnome Squad, who have added an Associated Wikimedia section to the many geography-related portals that lacked one. The rest of the subjects await. :)

The next maintenance drive will be on the intro sections. Notices have gone out to the WikiProjects for which one or more portals fall within their subject scope. Once enough time has elapsed for them to respond (1 week), AWB processing of intro sections will begin.

Thank you, you

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your part in the RfC. I went back and reread much of it. I believe your enthusiasm played a major part in turning the tide on there. I'm proud of all of you.

Why reread that mess, you ask?

To harvest ideas, and to keep the problems that need to be fixed firmly in mind. But, also to keep in touch. See below...

Thank yous all around

I've contacted all of the other opposers of the RfC proposal to delete portals, to thank them for their support, and to assure them that their decision was not made in vain. I updated them on our activities, provided the link to the interviews about this project in the Signpost, pointed out our newsletter archive so they can keep up-to-date with what we are doing, and I invited them all to come and have a look-see at our operations (on our talk page).

Sockpuppet, and reverting his work

It so happened that one of our members was a sockpuppet: JLJ001. According to the admin who blocked him, he was a particularly tricky long term abuser. This is a weird situation, since the user was quite helpful. He will be missed.

This has been somewhat disruptive, because admins are doing routine deletions of the pages (portals, templates, etc.) he created, and reversion of his edits (I don't know if they will be reverting all of them). Please bear with them, as they are only doing what is best in the long run.

The following pages have been deleted by the admins so far, that I know of:

Portal:Plymouth
Portal:Bedfordshire
Portal:Suffolk
Portal:Norfolk
User:JLJ001/tag
Template:Non-standard portal flag
Template:Portal flag

Automation so far, section by section...

Intro – {{Transclude lead excerpt}}
Selected article – {{Transclude random excerpt}}
In the news – {{Transclude selected current events}}
Associated Wikimedia – {{Wikimedia for portals|species=no|voy=no}}
Categories – {{#tag:categorytree|{{PAGENAME}}}}

Automatic article alerts is up and running

Automatic article alerts are now featured on the project page.

Some super out-of-date entries kept showing up on there, so posting it on the Project page was delayed. Thanks to Evad37 and AfroThundr for providing solutions on this one. Evad37 adjusted the workflow settings per Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing#Choosing workflows, to make sure only the appropriate page types show up. AfroThundr removed the tags from the old entries that caused them to keep showing up in the article alerts.

Other things that could use some automation

Noyster pointed out that it would be nice to automate the updating of the portals section at the Community bulletin board.

Another major component of the portal system is the main list of portals, at Portal:Contents/Portals. How would we go about automating the updating of that?

Please post your ideas on the WikiProject's talk page. Thank you.

Deletion discussion survivors

Keep in mind that we have already speedy deleted almost all of the nearly empty portals, which can be rebuilt without approval whenever it is convenient to do so. Other portals should be completed if at all possible rather than delete them through MfD (which requires approval from Deletion review to rebuild).

Portal:Juanes – see the discussion

(Current deletion discussions are posted on our WikiProject page).

Portals needing repair

Portal:Toys

Wrapping up

There's still more, but it will have to wait until next issue.

Until then, see ya around the project. — The Transhumanist 12:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The WikiProject now has 92 participants, including 16 admins.

Welcome

A warm welcome to the newest members of the team:

Be sure to say hi.

Congrats

Pbsouthwood has just gotten through the grueling RfA process to become a Wikipedia administrator. Be sure to congratulate him.

The reason he went for it was: "For some time I expect to be busy with subpage deletion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals as mentioned above. The amount of work is expected to keep me busy for some time. I am primarly a content creator and contributor to policy discussions, but would be willing to consider other admin work on request, providing that I feel that my involvement would be appropriate and not too far outside my comfort zone."

New feature: Picture slideshow

Picture slideshow

Image 1Sacramento Memorial Auditorium
Image 2Tower Bridge
Image 3Pocket Sacramento Canal
Image 4Capitol Mall, seen from the Capitol
Image 5State Capitol Building
Image 6US Bank Tower
Image 7Old Town Sacramento, the capital as it looked like in 19th century
Image 8Sacramento from near the Sacramento River

Evad37 has figured out a way to let the user flip through pictures without purging the page. Purging is awkward because there is an intermediary confirmation screen that you have to click on "yes". In the new picture slideshow section, all you have to do is click on the > to go to the next picture or < to instantly show the previous feature. The feature also shuffles the pictures when the page is initiated, so that they are shown in a different order each time the user visits the page (or purges it).

It is featured in Portal:Sacramento, California. Check it out to the right.

Keep in mind that the feature is a beta version. Please share your comments on how to refine this feature, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Refining the Picture slideshow.

The one-page portal has been achieved

We now have a one-page portal design. It isn't fully automated, nor is it even fully semi-automated, as there are still some manually filled-in areas. But it no longer requires any subpages in portal space, and that is a huge improvement. For example, Portal:Sacramento, California utilizes the one-page design concept. While is employs heavy use of templates, it does not have any subpages of its own.

I commend you for your teamwork

This is the most cooperative team I've ever seen. With a strong spirit of working together to get an important job done. Kudos to you.

In conclusion...

There's more. A lot more. But it will have to wait until next issue, but you don't have to wait. See what's going on at the WikiProject's talk page. — The Transhumanist 01:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrew I just had my first article moved to main space! I am so thrilled! I am sharing the joy! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your idea of advocacy in Bach editing. How would you mediate in the stalled DYK nomination, which - whatever the state of the article is - will not proceed as long as the tag on top is on, which concerns only the two editors? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon#Did you know? nomination?

I would first ask both to agree to a voluntary and temporary TBan on that article and its talk page. If one accepted and the other refused, take further action against the one refusing to make it a very specific CBan. Then tidy up the article and the DYK can go ahead. If neither agrees cross that bridge! But maybe you've done some of this already?

The other thing is that we seem to be moving towards consensus on an IBan. That's not as useful in resolving this DYK, but it will help. Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am bit allergic against bans of whatever form ;) - How can the merge/split tag be solved when the two who disagree can't interact? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We discuss it (hopefully briefly) on the article talk page without either of them commenting, form rough consensus there (and if nobody else comments, that is strong consensus), and then either action or just remove the tag. Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I hereby confer the Listerine Award on you and me. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple comments, not sure which of your many essays these relate to (could you consolidate them)?

I think you have been dismissive of the potential benefits to PT, which are certainly credible and there are two basic scenarios where a reader will benefit from appropriate PT selection:

When they use their search tool in a fashion that takes them right to the page. That can be due to a design limitation, or how the reader uses their search engine. WP's internal search does that if they type a word and hit enter. External tools can behave in a similar fashion, taking them dumbly to http://en.wikipedia.org/<term>.
When following a link from outside WP. If we convert a base name from a PT to a dab, we cannot expect the external site to correct its links, and any readers using those incoming links will be hindered.

I can also think of way to get empirical data instead of just guessing: Move a high-traffic dab from the basename to (disambiguation). Police the internal links as usual, ensuring links to the dab point to it directly at (disambiguation). The portion of traffic that still goes to the base name is the portion of traffic that might benefit from a PT. eg If there are zero internal links to Mercury, all the traffic for Mercury has followed an external link or used a non-optimal search method. This can be compared to the traffic for Mercury (disambiguation). If Plymouth is moved to Plymouth, Devon, then keeping the dab at Plymouth (disambiguation) would provide very good test data. I think more testing of the various theories would be good, instead of trying to guess reader intentions (such guesses are normally just extrapolations from our own expectations)--Nilf anion (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, Nilfanion! These are Well thought out and relevant comments, and I find them very helpful.

There are only three essays that are relevant that I can see:

User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic is obsolete, and should be only used to understand the other essays, and I think this is explicitly enough stated already.
User:Andrewa/Why primary topic is to be avoided is relevant to some of the points above, and is IMO the page and talk page you want.
User:Andrewa/negative benefit is in theory more general, but more recent and probably clearer. There may be scope to copy some of its material to Why primary topic is to be avoided. Some of the points you make are relevant there too.

There may be scope for consolidation of the last two. But for the moment I'm more inclined to develop both in parallel. There may be some duplication of effort on my part but I think it's the lesser effort.

I think you have been dismissive of the potential benefits to PT, which are certainly credible: I don't mean to be dismissive. But I do think a rethink is indicated.

When they use their search tool in a fashion that takes them right to the page... Example? I'm very interested in this if it's true! In the scenarios I have considered, it is at best neither a plus nor a minus.

When following a link from outside WP... True. But that's problem with any page move. It's not just links from non-Wikipedia web pages such as my linklog and offwikipedia essays, it's also browser bookmarks, cached pages, the wayback machine and similar, links in edit summaries, references in printed and ebook scholarly works... and more. But we don't normally consider that at all as a factor in RM discussions, instead we take the long term view, move if necessary to the best title regardless, and use hatnotes and redirects.

I think more testing of the various theories would be good, instead of trying to guess reader intentions (such guesses are normally just extrapolations from our own expectations)... Interested in any such input, but I think you are now the one being dismissive. My analysis is not trying to guess reader intentions. Instead, I am trying to consider all of the possibilities. This is a valid analytical technique, common in mathematics and logic. Yes, it takes some imagination, and I thank you for your efforts to find gaps. As I said, that's helpful. But I think these particular gaps are already covered. Andrewa (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

One example where a search will take them right to the page: Log out of your account fully, and using Wikipedia's default search type in "Venus" and hit enter. Don't pause for the drop down, just type it in and go. That's faster isn't it?

With regards to page moves, generally the new and improved title has a redirect from the older title - and therefore has no negative impact to link followers. PT is one of the few cases where we deliberately break links to what is an suitable title (if not optimal). When else would we actually suppress the redirect? We don't factor that in, but we should have an awareness of that at least. Its a good reason to justify the status quo unless there is a solid consensus for change.

My personal gut feeling is that the group that PT tries to protect is actually very small, and therefore we could do whatever the heck we wanted and its unlikely to significantly detract from reader experience. PT is therefore not worth the amount of editor time spent debating it (I'm not proposing this, but we could even use the Wikidata codes as article titles, and with the correct redirects, nothing would break). But I think we can obtain the data to confirm that, as opposed to going on gut feeling.--Nilf anion (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, granted that this particular example will give a reader benefit. Good catch! I think it's an unusual situation, but that is as you say guesswork. It's a good point and should be mentioned in my essay(s) and will be.

As you say, a page move is often covered by a redirect, except where there is a change of P T (whether to a new one or to decide that there isn't one) which is probably the most common exception - it may even be the only exception. Yes, another good point that should get a mention. Thinking about that one! Long term, that may even be an argument for avoiding P T, as we currently have many RMs that fit that category, and as you say these disadvantage readers. It would be good to avoid them.

Agree with your personal gut feeling of course, or at least with its consequences, and if you can produce empirical evidence that's something to consider. But my personal gut feeling is that it will just muddy the waters. We have compelling arguments that P T deserves a rethink, and it seems to me that any objective rethink would ditch P T. It's just a hangover from the early days. But it's also a principle into which a great many editors have invested a great deal of time, which makes it a difficult sell. Andrewa (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

With regards to the last point, I don't think scrapping PT is viable. Moving the goalposts substantially to would make the current battlefield cases non-issues, sure. But not outright scrapping. That will affect many vital articles, like those on every major academic subject and every country. Due to the extreme importance of those subjects, they are also likely to have the most incoming links and those links would be trashed.

IMO its natural that WP developed PT. In general, the most important subjects of the name were the first ones to have had the article created. Those became PT by default, not by conscious editorial decision-making. The PT rules are a codification of the that, and a way to address those anomalies where the wrong subject is at the base name. Trying to eradicate PT might solve the current issues, but would make matters worse for much more important articles.--Nilf anion (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

More excellent points. I have replied at User talk:Andrewa/Why primary topic is to be avoided#Some excellent points. Andrewa (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Nice to look at, hey, these are all very pleasant company"

Thank you for quality articles from 2003, such as Bathsheba and cymbal making, for Parables of Jesus and Image sensor format, for supporting IMSLP and many more, for images of your musical partners, for constructive admin services, unafraid to try impossible dreams, for "I believe in consensus. I don't know what it means either, but I'll try to make it work anyway." - Andrew, bearded and balding with a sense of humour, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andrew! I am here to ask a favor--if you are too busy, feel free to say so, I won't be offended. The suggest-bot sent me an article that I have been working on and I think it's pretty close to as good as I can make it but it always pays to have another set of eyes look for mistakes and flaws, so I am here to ask for your help. I wanted to ask if you would be willing to read it and tell me if you see anything that particularly needs changing--anything at all--I would be grateful. I have tried to remove the questionable references from the previous edition but I left a couple I was unsure about--the wayback machine is one--what the heck is that anyway? I could really use the insight of someone with more expertise writing on Wikipedia. Oh--and I wanted to tell you, I just left the other article. I decided I had too much of a sense of ownership and it was on me not to stay and fight, so I left them to do whatever they felt needed doing. I even took it off my watch page. So I moved on to Biblical criticism and would truly appreciate your input. And thank you Andrew--for everything. You have been awesomely amazingly great--whether you help with this article or not. I hope you will always consider me a friend. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

YAY! You are so awesome! Thank you. I saw you added a source--very cool. Any other comments? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Lots that could be done!

I was wondering whether any other sister projects are relevant... if so we could use template:Sister project links instead of just Wikisource. But Wiktionary doesn't have a definition of Biblical criticism (we could add one); That's just a matter of setting that parameter to "N". Wikisource seems to be the main one.

The lead needs work. It's too long for one paragraph, in my opinion.

And probably much more.

I see you're already a member of WikiProject Bible (hence WPBi as WPB is already WikiProject beer). Good stuff. I have been meaning for ages to set up a work group within WPBi to fill in the gaps of articles on People in the Bible. Even ones who get only one mention could be redirects to an article namespace page such as List of minor characters in the Old Testament for example. You may be the prod that finally gets that going! (In all my spare (;-> time.) Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead sentence or the entire paragraph needs work? I wrote the first half of the paragraph, including the lead sentence, which I used to replace part of what the original author had. The second half of the lead paragraph is the original author's, but it seemed appropriate as a summary, so I kept it. The lead sentence is a little long. I originally had a semicolon dividing it, then removed that because I was unsure if it was properly "Wiki" style to have a semicolon in the first sentence. Is it? I can't find a policy on it. The lead sentence has the identifying characteristics of the topic in it, and with the rest of the paragraph, summarizes the extensive body of material--I thought. What would you suggest in its place? If you can explain to me what needs doing--and if you could explain why--it would really help me learn from this and perhaps not repeat my error--whatever it is. I really need to learn from these experiences. Anyway, I appreciate you taking a look and will be grateful for any suggestions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't even know what a sister project is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh--and my lead sentence is a definition--is that not good? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I went and attempted some changes. Since I wasn't sure if it was the sentence or the paragraph--I did both. My adjustments may not address anything you were concerned about at all! But it's a little tighter. The lead is still a definition--it could be used for Wiktionary probably--maybe--sort of... or not. Tell me if you think it's an improvement or not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

See the template to which I linked, or wp:sister projects. The most important for our purposes are probably Wikimedia commons and Wikisource, followed by Wiktionary and Wikiquote . Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

uhmmm--okay--but I am unsure from a once over reading that page exactly what I should put where, so how about you and I say we have a rough consensus for it--and you go ahead and do it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So--if you could explain it to me more succinctly than the page, I would be happy to do as you have suggested. I don't really understand it--but I'll do it... :-) just because you think it's a good idea. Also, how can I get the quality reassessed? It's a start quality right now and I think that is no longer accurate. I asked on the page about assessment, but nothing seems to happen much there. Also--how does one go about alphabetizing the reference list? I have seen that in a couple of articles and thought it might be really helpful to finding things later. What is your opinion of use order vs. alphabetical order? Or do you have one? Andrew am I imposing on you with all my questions and not-knowingness? If I am just say you don't have time and I will go away--no hard feelings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

On the matter of matter of ordered reference lists, I don't know but am eager to learn. Can you find me a page on which it is done? Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Aaarrgh! I don't know if I can or not--I didn't bother to take note since I didn't think there was anything unusual in it. I will go look. I'm thinking it's something I've seen recently so that would mean some critical method--or one of the hundred people in the article!! I'll look! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay so that turned out to be really easy. Here's one Documentary hypothesis. And this one Textual criticism and this one Source criticism. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

More questions! Are you tired of me yet? How--(and why I suppose)--does one put a WikiBible portal on an article--or whatever one does with it?!? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, not even remotely tired of you... to quote Judge Bernstein on the last page of The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (a recommended read) explaining to Tom why he'll act for him for free: I like your idea of simple justice. The sort I deal with is often far too complex. Similarly, I spend much of my time as an admin dealing with people whose egos seem to matter much more to them than the fundamental goal of Wikipedia. It's necessary, but this is SO much better.

Not sure I understand the question about "WikiBible portal". I guess you mean Portal:Bible, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay good--if you ever change your mind just say. I guess I mean Portal:Bible I don't really know what I mean! But I am hoping for some of those other links you were talking about to other places and back again--sort of like traveling. It seems cool... :-) Thank you Andrew. If all admins were like you Wiki would be a better place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone else came along and put the portals on the talk page. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa: So what kind of time frame is normally involved in getting an article reviewed as a GA? Do you know? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea... but the first review is often unsuccessful, and just identifies issues. Andrewa (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The portal link has been on the article for a while, but yes I can see some recent talk page header updates. Is it all fixed now, do you think? Andrewa (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That was my experience getting my first article out too--it was rejected twice before it was finally moved to main space--but the reviewers were really really awesome--nice and helpful and very timely. I didn't wait more than a week at any time and it's already been more than a week waiting on this one, so I just wondered. I thought you knew everything! :-) I have all three portals now, and whoever changed the headings moved the article from start class to B when they did it. That's something I guess. I'll try to be patient. Sigh... Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

1) Replace the intro box sections on portals with an upgrade. See details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Tasks#AWB task: converting/upgrading intro sections.

2) Replace categories box sections on portals with an upgrade. See details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Tasks#AWB task: Converting category sections.

Enjoy. — The Transhumanist 07:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)