User talk:Andrewa/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions with 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 13

→

Questionable RM administration

I have several related concerns tor raise in the WP:ADMINACCT sphere:

If you solicit particular !voters and their comments across RMs, as you did here, that makes you WP:INVOLVED (and may also raise WP:CANVASS concerns). At bare minimum, you need to be a commenter in these RMs (if you have a clear opinion about their preferred outcome), not a relister/closer of them.
This is not the only questionable RM-related admin action you've taken lately, some of which verge on WP:SUPERVOTE or at least failure to assess consensus instead of just count heads; the closer/relister's duty is to assess the WP:P&G and WP:RS strengths of the arguments presented and to discount the arguments to avoid; not to treat RM or RfC or similar processes like a vote. Please review INVOLVED, WP:CLOSE, and WP:RMCLOSE in particular.
Also, your doing dumps of previous move and move-discussion stats into ongoing RM discussions (especially ones you are not commenting in but acting as an admin with regard to) is divisive, and implies controversy that generally does not exist or is tool obsolete to consider. We don't care who move-warred over what or why in 2009; we care what page titles make the most sense for our readers in 2018, under 2018 policies, guidelines, and reliable sourcing. Maybe it's "interesting" to you somehow that some moves eventually come full circle, but this has no bearing whatsoever on what name the page should have. We even have an entire process at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves that exists for producing this result, and WP:MR often has the effect of returning a page to an earlier title as well.

This probably comes off as more testy than it's intended, and perhaps even as if it relates to old drama from 2014-ish. It doesn't, and it's not meant that way. I would have raised the same issues with any other RM admin (or any WP:RMNAC for that matter). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: On that third bullet point, here's a great example: Talk:Danish colonial empire#Requested move 14 July 2018. Dredging up the RM past is rarely constructive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't even remember the old drama from 2014-ish. I do recall that we have had terse exchanges in the past on more than one occasion, but AFAIK these are all resolved, and I see no point in bringing them up again.

If you solicit particular !voters and their comments across RMs, as you did here, that makes you WP:INVOLVED (and may also raise WP:CANVASS concerns)... WP:CANVAS is a severe charge and so I'd like to deal with it first. I note the may. Are you or are you not suggesting that I have transgressed that guideline?

This is not the only questionable RM-related admin action you've taken lately, some of which verge on WP:SUPERVOTE or at least failure to assess consensus instead of just count heads. Please be specific. To exactly what what questionable RM-related admin action are you referring? Is it possible that it is really these edits (to which you have not directly referred) that have upset you?

(You don't need to remind me about not counting heads, see this shortcut which now has a little over 50 incoming links.)

Finally to your claim your doing dumps of previous move and move-discussion stats into ongoing RM discussions (especially ones you are not commenting in but acting as an admin with regard to) is divisive, and implies controversy that generally does not exist or is tool obsolete to consider. I assume you mean edits such as this one (if not can you be specific), although it doesn't fit the description at all... I'm not aware of ever having done dumps of previous move and move-discussion stats, but what I've often done is copied a page history or page history extract (but often longer than that one, see this one for example) which might otherwise have been lost in the move, and which documented previous moves. Is that what you're objecting to? Can you be specific? Your link to Talk:Danish colonial empire#Requested move 14 July 2018 is to a page I have never edited!

I've spent some time on this, SMcCandlish, and would appreciate an early reply. Andrewa (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: "I see no point in bringing them up again": Sure; I just wanted to be clear that it wasn't perpetuation of "old crap".

Canvassing is a subjective perception. And not a particularly serious label (lots of us transgress on that guideline without meaning to, just by directing people to a discussion without being sufficiently neutral about it). I'm not personally certain that soliciting one particular party's input is really canvassing. I do note that ANI threads frequently call it canvassing when a party solicits the input of only a handful of other editors whom the solicitor thinks is on their side. So, I think some would call it canvassing. My point was that it could be taken that way and that the intent of the guideline is to not solicit non-neutral input into a consensus discussion; it doesn't ever set a numerical limit, just the general principle. More to the point, your doing so indicates a clearly non-neutral viewpoint on the matter on your part, ergo you should recuse from acting administratively on RMs about the topic.

I'm not "upset", I'm asking you to review the procedures because you don't seem to be following them very closely. The FIR instance is one recent example, yes, of seeming to be doing a vote count without examining the rationales. It was on my mind due to recentness, but there were others over the last half-year or so. I wasn't going to go on a diff-digging expedition, because I'm not trying to "dramaboard" you. Anyway, if you created the NHC shortcut yourself, it seems weird and out of character to be treating a 50/50 votecount result in an RM as a split requiring a relisting when the one side has solid policy and source arguments and the other side has basically a bunch of subjective preferences and handwaving. I.e., if you'd closed it as "no consensus" I would have WP:MRed it. (The distinction is minor: A relisting is a declaration of no consensus, just without closure.)

Diff dumps: I do mean things like this (the 2010–2014 stuff just isn't relevant to the current RM discussion). I had not seen [1], and it does seem pertinent and appropriate, being very recent history, not stuff from years ago. I didn't mean to suggest never mentioning a prior RM, just not dumping extraneous RM history into the discussion. It's a signal-to-noise ratio matter, and a "muddying the water" one. The Danish link: Sorry I wasn't clearer; I didn't mean to imply it was one of yours. Rather, the point was that a "the talk page has comments across many years (over a decade) with differing opinions on article titles" rationale offered by someone, as I explained there, is a distraction and not helpful to the discussion. It's similar in nature to but much shorter than your [2] thing. It's just not useful to the consensus-forming process to make a big deal out "there once was a discussion ..." years go, when how we approach article titles changes over time, as does the real world we're titling things about, and as do the sources upon which we draw. RM should be focused on present/recent not ancient wiki-history.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No big deal

In other words, no big deal?

But IMO, accusing an admin of Questionable RM administration by violating WP:ADMINACCT is a big deal. You are wasting my time with this, and it smells very much as if that's because you feel that you had your fingers spanked.

You can tidy this up by explicitly stating that you now agree that none of this comes under WP:ADMINACCT or any behavioural guideline. And I suggest, in no more detail than that.

Is that an unreasonable request? If so, discuss.

We can then discuss the matters you raise on an appropriate talk page, and I'd very much like to do so. I am not perfect, and I'm grateful of your input here. But IMO it was raised in such an inappropriate way that it required a strong response. Note that I have not accused you of any behavioural fault, and nor am I asking for an apology. But you are not perfect either. Andrewa (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

We're already at the appropriate talk page and having the discussion. I have no idea what your point is in linking to the body of my commentary with the link wrapped around your own wording "no big deal" as if I agree. (Or mentioning WP:Behavioral guideline, which I never brought up at all.) "Spanked"? First off, I didn't even see that comment of yours until you diffed it in your post above; second, it doesn't even make much sense. It is not "out of process" for someone to suggest that process is being unnecessarily invoked; that's unclear on what "out of process" means. And the RM closed exactly as I predicted it would; the spanking has gone in the other direction: zero new comments were added that did not reiterate or just state agreement with the policy arguments already provided, so they were in fact sufficient to close with consensus to move, before you relisted.

But since you actually do appear want to make this simple "review the RM procedures" request into a big deal about your behavior and admin suitability ("be careful what you wish for"): You need to stop treating every question or challenge to your administrative actions as "accusations of Questionable RM administration by violating WP:ADMINACCT". Let's actually quote from that policy section directly:

"Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools" – no one can hold an admin accountable (other than by resorting to the dramaboards) if the admin reacts with hostility and defensiveness to being questioned or challenged.
"unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors" – An uncommunicative admin who cannot take questioning or criticism and won't calm lay out their reasoning for taking an action is an unexplaining and demoralizing admin.
"editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions" – not if the admin reacts as if they're under attack and about to run to a dramaboard himself to make claims of being "accused", etc. – implied threats that if retractions aren't forthcoming that Bad Stuff is going to happen.
"Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." – Aside from the prompt part, this isn't happening when the admin gets angry and stand-offish in the face of such queries; you have not justified anything, just taken an "I do wrong" assertive position that doesn't actually explicate or back up any of your decision-making process (while giving "I am not perfect" lip service).
Among the "eventual de-sysop" criteria is: "Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., ... explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)." Which is exactly why this discussion is happening.
Another is "Repeated or consistent poor judgment." It's difficult to assess the judgment when you won't explain it, and the avoidance of doing so is itself a form of poor judgment in the context.

I certainly did not come here to make some kind of ADMINACCT case against you; you're inadvertently making one against yourself, especially given that this is hardly the first time you've reacted with this "You'd better prove your awful accusations against me, or else" act when simply questioned or mildly criticized. (If I wanted you desysopped, I would have pursued that a long time ago, but I did not, and do not. We need more admins, not fewer.)

I'll repeat what I actually did come here for: "Please review INVOLVED, WP:CLOSE, and WP:RMCLOSE in particular ... I'm asking you to review the procedures because you don't seem to be following them very closely", followed by a clear explanation of the exact nature of the concerns. Nothing you've said here really addresses them at all, and is just stand-offish handwaving which has actually generated additional concerns. It's frankly really disappointing – and a bit disconcerting, at that.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a while to digest all of that! But could you perhaps say exactly what it will take to persuade you that I'm already familiar with WP:INVOLVED, WP:CLOSE, and WP:RMCLOSE, and have looked at them again as you requested? I'm still puzzled that you seemed to think I needed to review WP:NHC, which as I pointed out before is one of my personal hobbyhorses. Andrewa (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Just saying it should be enough. My entire point was that some of your recent RM activity didn't appear compatible with a close reading of those materials. I would think you'd've reviewed them in the interim, you say you have, and I have not noticed anything since then that would make me re-raise the same concerns. So it appears resolved from my perspective. Everything since my initial comment here has basically been your defensive reactions and my responses to them. I surmise retroactively that this happened because my quite literal heading, "Questionable RM administration" (i.e., you are working as an admin in RM, and in my subjective opinion some of that work was questionable under the policies and guidelines that apply – cf. your "I am not perfect") was interpreted by you as something like "everything about your adminship is questionable because of something you did at RM", which isn't something I would say. (If I believed an admin had run off the rails, I would have just taken the issue directly to WP:RFARB. I've never quite felt the need to do so; "badmins" usually get weeded out before any rise to my attention. I didn't even do this with the one who who issued my only block, later invalidated by WP:AN). In retrospect, I'll happily concede that the heading could be interpreted that way, and will revise it. I get the sense that some of your negative reaction above is due to belief that you've been accused of a general adminship failure rather than some iffy RM-related decisions, and I have issue with making it clear that's not the case. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

My conclusions

I have attempted to answer the questions raised. I leave it to others to judge whether my answers are reasonable and adequate, and whether (as I believe) this whole section was a pure waste of time.

I suggest we let it archive, but that should be as it was raised and discussed. Therefore I have reverted the change to the overall heading. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Works for me as well, other than it wasn't a waste of time; I asked you to review the applicable materials, you did, and what I was objecting to hasn't recurred (whether you agree it was a valid objection or not :-). I regret that it turned lengthily argumentative. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Look at it this way, Andy, people who are easy to play with normally aren't much good - Gye Bennetts, the first drummer I ever played with and probably still the best (unless you count me I guess... but we have very different approaches). It's not actually true but a convenient fiction at times. I thought Gye had a Wikipedia article at one stage, it was certainly discussed. He's mentioned at Tablewaiters, The Hitmen, Roddy Radalj and James Griffin (songwriter). But these days he has a day job, see https://5element.com.au/. Anyway, all good. Andrewa (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Sleishman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sleishman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleishman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #016, 15 Aug 2018

Future portal tool

Discussions are underway on the design of a portal tool (user script) that will hopefully have features for modifying portals at the click of a menu item, to make editing them easier. It might do things like change the color for you, add to a selection, add a new section, move a section, and so on.

If you'd like to be involved and suggest features for the tool, please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#What would you want a portal tool to be able to do?.

Progress report: upgrade of portals

As new portal components are built by our Lua gurus, those components are being used to upgrade portals. Each component automates a section of a portal in a particular way.

The sections that are mostly upgraded so far are the Intro, and the Associated Wikimedia section.

The sections currently undergoing upgrade are: Selected image, Categories, and the Intro.

The Intro? Isn't that done already?

Yes, and no.

The upgrade of the excerpt in intros is mostly complete (there are about 70 non-standard portals that still need it).

Now we are doing another upgrade of intros in the form of adding a panoramic picture at the top of the intro, on portals for which such a picture is available on Commons:. Dozens of panoramas have been added so far, and they are really starting to affect the look of portals — the portals that have them look really good.

Regions are the most likely subjects to have panoramas, but a surprising number of other subjects have banner-shaped pictures too. Some examples of non-geographic portals that they have been added to are:

Speaking of pictures, several hundred Selected image sections have been upgraded to include image slideshows.

Progress report: design

The push for automation continues, with new components under continuous testing in the field. As problems are spotted, they are reported to our programmers, who have done a fantastic job of keeping up with bug reports and fixing the relevant Lua modules fast. I am highly impressed.

Construction time on new portals is now down to as little as a minute or less. Though not in general. If you are lucky enough to spot portals that fit the profile of the new tools (their strengths), then a portal can be complete almost as soon as it is created, with the added time it takes to find and add a panorama. Source page titles are not generally standardized, and so it source pages in many cases must be entered manually. Where source page titles follow a standard naming convention, portal creation for those subjects goes quickly.

So, we still have some hurdles, but the outlook on portals is very good. New features, and many improvements to features are on the horizon. I'll be sure to report them when they become available.

What will the portal of the future look like? That is up to you!

See you on the project's talk pages.

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 20:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I completely agree Chad2271 (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated, Chad2271, but if you agree with everything I say, I feel I'm probably not being nearly adventurous enough.

In jazz improvisation there are three ways things happen:

things you plan and play, inventing them in your head
things you just play but they're no surprise, inventing them with your hands or voice
things that just happen and you think "oops, that's not what I meant at all, how do I now make it sound good anyway?"

and jazz is hot when all three things are happening... if the first isn't you're not thinking, if the second isn't you're not feeling, and if the third isn't you're not trying hard enough.

Or to put it another way, the biggest risk in life is to take no risks. That normally guarantees failure. Big risks, big rewards. Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment re: FC and AFC

Hello Andrewa, I expect you have seen that the discussion about moving A.F.C. Bournemouth to AFC Bournemouth has been closed and that the article has been moved as requested. The editor who did it, Paine Ellsworth, hinted that it might be wise to raise a request for comment on the wider question of whether to take out the dots in all of the F.C. and A.F.C. article names. I think you are probably more experienced in these matters than I. Could you please consider Paine Ellsworth's suggestion (including, for instance, where to put any RfC) and do as you think best? Thanks. --Frans Fowler (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

PS Just found this and this on the Football project Talk page --Frans Fowler (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I expect it will go to WP:MR, but they should first discuss with the closer. WP:AN would be an overreaction at this stage IMO but they may try it too. That doesn't really effect the RfC, except by possibly delaying it but I expect that by the time we're ready to propose an RfC both of those will have run their course, and if anything will make the RfC more relevant. They may well provide input that we should include in the RfC. Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

My record with RfCs is not good but happy to give this one a go, I was intending to anyway (assuming that nobody else did). The first thing is to clarify exactly what the RfC should propose. See User:Andrewa/RfC on sporting club names. Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #017, 22 Aug 2018

This issue is about portal creation...

Creating new portals

Myself and others have been testing and experimenting with the new components in upgrading existing portals and in building new portals. They have now been applied in hundreds of portals.

The templates are ready for general use for portal creation.

They are still a bit buggy, but the only way we are going to work the rest of the bugs out is by using them and reporting the bugs as we come across them.

I look forward to seeing what new portals you create!

Be sure to report bugs at WT:WPPORTD.

The main portal creation template is {{box portal skeleton}}.

Portal creation tips

After starting a portal using {{box portal skeleton}}...

Placing a panorama (banner picture) at the top of the intro section is a nice touch, and really makes a portal look good. {{box portal skeleton}} doesn't automatically insert panoramas. So, you will need to do that by hand. They can be found at Commons:. For some examples, check out Portal:Sharks, Portal:Cheese, and Portal:Florence
The search term provided in the Did you know? and In the news sections is very basic and rarely matches anything. It is best to replace that term with multiple search arguments, if possible (separate each argument with a pipe character). For example, in Portal:Capital punishment, see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal:Capital_punishment&diff=855255361&oldid=855137403 Searches in templates use Lua search notation.
Check the In the news and Did you know? sections for mismatches. That is, sometimes entries come up that shouldn't be displayed. If there are any, refine the search strings further, so they don't return such results.
Finish each portal you've created before creating a new one. We don't want unfinished portals sitting around.

Need a laugh?

Check out the Did you know? section on Portal:Determinism. — The Transhumanist 02:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI

You're likely familiar with WP:Not counting heads and WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages but if not thought I'd point them out. Sometimes I like to point them out in the discussion with "@Closer". In a wonderful bit of meta-something, the thread seems to include versions of make-work or dont-like that strike me as examples of arguing over rather arbitrary unimportant matters based on "editor sensibilities" rather than being driven by a desire to make a stellar reader experience. Ah well. Carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Have a look here and here. Andrewa (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A fellow useful shortcut creator! Go get 'em. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Normally I also create a talk page with an initial section of Why this page, see Wikipedia talk:Copying text within Wikipedia, but I see I didn't on this occasion. Andrewa (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:Andrewa/Archive_14#Help

Sort of flared up again at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Harassment. If you have anything helpful to add, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Grabergs sweet? But it's all okay, don't trouble yourself at all, it's all done--maybe for real all done. I got an apology at the teahouse and he came to my talk page and struck his comments and apologized again. I thought it was very big of him. I was impressed. I never meant him any harm and I harbor no ill will and hope we can now put all this behind us. Thank you for being a friend here Andrewa. I won't forget. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I did already have a look, and yes, it seems under control for now, but thanks for the heads-up Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Hang in there Jenhawk777. Or as I say here Give Wikipedia your best. It will be worth it. Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Pleasantly unexpected! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #018, 04 Sept 2018

Bug hunt!

As you know, portals are now supported by a number of new templates, which are in turn supported by some new Lua modules.

Those templates and modules are being put to the test, in the new portals that have been created since this WikiProject rebooted, plus a number of existing portals that have been revamped.

The new portals, and revamped ones, can be found at Category:Single-page portals.

Please browse the new portals at your leisure, and report any and all problems that you spot. Post bug and other portal problem reports at WT:WPPORTD. Please report bugs, quirks, awkward aspects, or anything weird or off that you notice. Compliments and suggestions are also welcome. :)

When you report a bug, please indicate the portal's name, the section that the problem appeared in, and the name of the article appearing (first) in the section with the problem. Most problems will likely be encountered in the Selected general articles" section, due to quirks in a displayed article's wikicode that the lua modules don't handle yet. Your help in spotting those is of utmost value. Thank you.

Don't delete portal subpages just yet

For portals that have been converted to the single-page design, we are not deleting their subpages at this time, because we are working on ways to harvest the data from those pages. For example, the Selected picture subpages include filenames and captions that would be valuable for the image slideshows. Please don't delete portal subpages, for now. They'll be slated for d-batch speedy deletion after harvesting. Thank you.

Development notes

We are currently testing a feature added to {{Transclude files as random slideshow}} that allows it to accept both sourcepages and filenames. Courtesy of Evad37. This will pave the way for harvesting files and their captions from portal subpages, for use in image slideshows.

We need your help

The bulk of the work is being done by a handful of editors. But we can't do it all. We need help with spotting bugs, refining the search parameters in new/revamped portals (in the "Did you know..." and "In the news" sections), adding images to slideshows for a broader selection (they default to showing the images on the root article page but are capable of showing so much more), adding panoramic pictures at the top of the intro section of region portals (cities, counties, states, provinces, countries, continents, and other regions), to name but a few task types.

It is rewarding to be a part of the growing portal phenomenon. And you get to see its expansion and refinement up close.

Feel free to join in on the fun. ;)

Thank you, — The Transhumanist 06:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #019, 22 Sept 2018

Portals progress report

Don't blink. You might miss something.

As of a few days ago, portals had doubled in about a month and a half.

Also, there were 98 incompleted portals in Category:Portals under construction. Now there are just 43.

The WikiProject page has been thoroughly revised

The goals, plans, and task sections have all been updated.

Orphaned portals need a home...

Many new portals are still orphans, and need links pointing to them:

A portal link at the bottom of corresponding navigation footer template. E.g., Template:Machines for Portal:Machines. See examples of a portals link at the bottom of Template:Robotics and Template:Forestry.
A {{Portal}} box in the See also section of the corresponding root article for each portal. If there is no See also section, create one and place the portal template in that. (Rather than placing them in an external links section -- they're not external links).
A {{Portal}} template placed at the top of the category page corresponding to each portal.

All new and revamped portals can be found at Category:Single-page portals.

Portal:Contents/Portals

This is the main list of portals.

Nearly 2,000 of the new portals need to be listed here.

They can be found at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet. Instructions are included there.

Customized Portal Rating system is now in place

Portals now have a new rating system of their own designed specifically to support portal evaluation! We were trying to use the standard assessment system for articles, but that doesn't fit portals very well.

Many thanks to Evad37, Waggers, AfroThundr3007730, SMcCandlish, Tom, BrendonTheWizard, and Pbsouthwood for their work and input on this.

The new system can be found at the top of all portal talk pages, in the WikiProject portals box. Those with "???" ratings need to be assessed, which makes up most of the older portals.

Most of the new portals were started out with an initial "Low" level of importance when their talk pages were created. Those deserving higher importance should be promoted as you come across them.

Improving the new portals

The starting point for new portals included minimal parameters and content, in the form of default values in the template(s) used for their creation.

Embellishing embedded search strings

So, for the search strings in the "Did you know..." and "In the news" sections, this was the magic word {{PAGENAME}}, which represents the portal's name. Unfortunately, the resulting term is alway capitalized, which limits its effectiveness as a search string for anything but proper nouns. Results for those two sections can be improved, by replacing the "PAGENAME" magic word with multiple search strings, and search strings that begin with lower case letters. There is no inherent limit as to how many search parameters may be included. Lua search notation is used. The more general the subject, the more subtopic search terms you may want to include. For example, on Portal:Avengers (comics), {{PAGENAME}} turned up nothing. But, when more parameters were added, as in the wikicode below...

{{Transclude selected recent additions | {{PAGENAME}} | Iron Man | Spiderman | Antman | Hawkeye | The Hulk | Incredible Hulk | David Banner | Captain America | Scarlet Witch | Black Widow | Tony Stark | Nick Fury | Age of Ultron | Infinity War | months=36 | header={{Box-header colour|Did you know... }}|max=6}}

... that returned several results in the portal's DYK section.

Be sure you make the improvements to both the DYK section and the "In the news" section, as they both require the search strings.

Expanding the slideshow contents

The default starting selection for the image slideshow in most new portals is whatever images happen to be in the corresponding root article (via the PAGENAME magic word). You can improve image slideshows by adding more sourcepages and filenames as parameters in the "Selected images" section of portals.

See Template:Transclude files as random slideshow/doc for instructions.

More exciting things are to come...

Portals used to take about 6 hours or more to create. Now, for subjects that have particular navigation support, we've got that down to about one minute each, with even more content displayed than ever. True, that means the new portals pick you, rather than the other way around. Creating a specific portal that doesn't happen to have the requisite navigation support is still pretty time consuming. But, we are working on extending our reach beyond the low-hanging fruit.

And efforts are ongoing to keep shaving time off of the creation process. Eventually, we may get it down to seconds each.

In addition to improving automation, we're always looking for new features and improvements that we can add to portals, and there is plenty of potential to expand on the standard design so that new portals are even better right out of the starting gate. Additional designs are also possible.

On the horizon, there are many more portals waiting to be created. And we can expect to see at least a few more section types emerge. I never expected slideshows, for example, especially not for excerpts. Who knows where innovation will take us next?

Keep up the great work everyone.

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 07:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Zimbabwean money proposal

Hi, I have returned after a two year hiatus, so I am kinda new to the idea of proposing major changes to the structure of the articles about Zimbabwean currency. If you have any questions please get in touch with me. --Marianian^(talk) 12:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Marianian. I've been busy IRL but hope to get back to this soon. Andrewa (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Reinventing the wheel

Talk:Hyde Park, London/Archives/2023/March#Requested move 22 September 2018. Compare Talk:Hyde Park, London/Archives/2023/March#Requested move 21 September 2015. Shame that nom missed the anniversary by one day... Narky Blert (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

(;-> Andrewa (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There are some editors whose goal in life seems to be to try to define WP:PTOPICs regardless of WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:TWODABS/WP:NOPRIMARY; or, alternatively, to undefine perfectly good PTOPICs. I feel sure that at least two of them are on your Usual Suspects list, as they are on mine. My Oath, but they create a lot of work for other editors. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. See on purists and purism for how I handle this on a (neglected) wiki at which I am founder-and-dictatator-for-life. (Democracy works really well when you close the electoral role at one member.) And it links back to a couple of my Wikipedia essays. Andrewa (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, and arguably more democratically, leave decisions to a committee of three with one member dead and another absent.

I recently abandoned a WP:GA nomination as fruitless because the reviewing editor objected to my use of semicolons. I tried to summon both Fowler & Fowler and Partridge to my aid; but alas! they never got back to me.

Do you know Microcosmographia Academica? sage advice from 1908. Link. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #020, 12 Oct 2018

Whew, a lot has been happening.

A bit of defending of the portals has been needed. But, most activity recently has been directed upon maintenance and development of existing portals.

The majority of portals now use the new design, about 2400 of them, leaving around 1200 portals that still employ the old style.

Newest portals

Please inspect these portals, and report problems or suggest improvements at WT:WPPORTD. Thank you.

MfDs

Since the last issue of this newsletter, Nineteen portals were nominated for deletion. All posted by the same person.

Two portals were deleted.

One resolved as "no consensus".

Sixteen resolved as "keep".

Links to the archived discussions are provided below:

Many thanks to those who participated in the discussions.

To watch for future MfD's, keep in mind that the Portals WikiProject is supported by automatic alerts. You can see them at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Article alerts: portals for deletion at MfD

Creation criteria

There was also some discussion of creation criteria for portals. The result was that one of the participants in the discussion reverted the portal guidelines to the old version, which has the minimum number of articles for a portal included in there: "about 20 articles", a guideline that was in place since 2009.

Many of the portals that existed prior to April 2018 do not have that many (being limited to however many subpages the portal creator created), and therefore, these portals need to be upgraded to the new design (which automatically provides many articles for display). Using the new design, exceeding 20 articles for display is very easy.

Linking to the new portals

Efforts have been underway to place links to new portals (all 2200 of them created since April).

Link (portal button) from corresponding category pages. Done
Link from See also section on corresponding root articles. Partially implemented
Link from bottom of corresponding templates. Partially implemented
Link for each portal on Portal:Contents/Portals. Partially implemented

Your help is needed. It is easy to access the page mentioned in #1, #2, & #3 from the portals themselves.

AWBers could do these tasks even faster (that's how the category pages were done), except #4...

Item #4 above pretty much has to be done by hand. (If you can find a way to speed that up, I would be very impressed). The links needing placement can be found at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet. Instructions are included there.

The conversion effort: news sections

There are still around 1200 old-style portals that have only undergone partial conversion to the new design concepts, still relying on subpages with copied/pasted excerpts that have been going stale for years, out of date (manually posted) news entries, etc.

The section currently being tackled on these is news. You can help by deleting any news section on the old-style portals that has news entries that are years old (that is the dead giveaway to a manual news section). Be sure not to delete the news sections of portals that have up-to-date news, or active maintainers. For maintainers, look at the portal's categories, and/or check the participants list at WP:WPPORT.

Eventually, conditional news sections (that appear only when news items are available for display) will be added using AWB to all portals without a news section.

News items (and even the news sections themselves) are automatically generated for portals that were created using the Basic portal start page. On those portals, there is a hidden comment at the top of the page (that you can see in the edit window), that says this:

Design development

Presently, we are in the process of implementing the new design features, creating new portals with them, and installing them in existing portals.

But, what about development of new new design features?

We have a wish department.

Post your wishes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Discussions about possible cool new features, and they might come true. Many have already, and for many of those, this is where they were posted.

Cascade effect

A resource that has been elusive so far will be obtained eventually: categories. That is, the ability to pull category member links to populate a page.

Rather than populate portals directly with such links, it may be more beneficial to the encyclopedia to utilize them in navigation footers, because portals already have the ability to generate themselves based on those.

So, this would create a cascade effect: auto-gathering entries from categories, would enable the construction of new navigation footers, that would in turn support the development of new portals.

The cascade effect would also be felt by existing portals, as existing navigation footers could be expanded using the category harvesting methods, which would in turn expand the coverage of portals that access those navigation footers.

You can help by providing leads about any potential category harvesting methods. Please report anything you know about harvesting categories at WT:WPPORTD. Thank you.

Looking into the future: the quantum portal?

One idea that has been floating around is the concept of a pageless portal. That is, a portal that isn't stored anywhere, instead being generated when you click on a menu item or button.

Many of the new portals were generated by a single click, and then saved via a second click.

Therefore, it seems likely that the portals of the future will employ the one-click concept.

Because of the need for customization by users, this concept would need to be augmented with a way to integrate user contributions. This could be done in at least two ways: posting an existing portal, autogenerating one from scratch if such does not yet exist, or have a special data page for user contributions that is folded into the auto-generated portal.

How soon? That is up to you. All that is needed are persons to implement it.

Until next time...

Keep up the good work on portals. They are improving daily. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 04:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:P T

Wikipedia:P T, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:P T and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:P T during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Widefox; talk 15:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Musical: The Prince of Tennis

Thanks for your input at The Prince of Tennis Musical Music List#Requested move 24 August 2018. My rationale for renaming the article is that Musical: The Prince of Tennis is the original full name of the series of musicals and I had wanted to rename The Prince of Tennis Musical Music List to Musical: The Prince of Tennis discography for consistency purposes and to match how articles are named across the website.

Also, the list of reliable sources for Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan didn't seem to go anywhere, since most people at the WikiProject seemed to oppose it, unfortunately. lullabying (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A little light relief

Special:Permalink/864855938. Certes (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

And she's trying a rare way to seven.

Brilliant, Certes. Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #021, 24 Oct 2018

Portals have passed the 4,000 mark.

More new portals...

Here's a list of portals created since the last issue

List of new portals

Please inspect these portals, report problems or suggest improvements at WT:WPPORTD, or develop them further (see below). Thank you.

What's next?

There is still lots to do...

There are many subject gaps that need to be filled. This can be done by creating new portals, or by adding Selected article sections to existing portals. To create a new portal, simply place {{subst:Basic portal start page}} on an empty portal page, and click "Preview". If the portal is complete, click "Save". After you try it, come share your experience and excitement at WT:WPPORTD.

Each new portal is just a starting point. Each portal of the new design can be further developed by:

refining the search parameters to improve the results displayed in the Did you know and In the news sections.
adding more specific Selected articles sections, like Selected biographies.
inserting a Recognized content section.
adding more pictures to the image slideshow.
placing a panoramic picture at the top of the intro section (especially for geographic portals).

Besides the new portals, there are still about 1200 portals of the old design that need to be converted to the new design.

Many portals need to be de-orphaned, by placing links to them (in the See also section of the corresponding root articles, at the bottom of the corresponding navigation footer templates, and on the corresponding category pages).

Many of the new portals still need to be listed at Portal:Contents/Portals.

Bugs keep popping up in portals. These need to be tracked down and reported at WT:WPPORTD.

Tools are needed to make developing and maintaining portals quicker and easier.

Dreaming up new features and capabilities. Innovation needs to continue, to design the portal of tomorrow, and the portal development-maintenance-system of the future. Automation!

So, if you find yourself with a little (or a lot) of free time, pick an area (or more) above and...

...dive in! — The Transhumanist 07:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)