User talk:Cassiopeia: Difference between revisions
Cassiopeia (talk | contribs) |
Cassiopeia (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
:::I do find it necessary to state that the over-riding issue for me is that, without discussion, you chose to semi-delete my article by moving it to draftspace rather than flagging up the article as needing improvement and even after I made those improvements to the timeline, which you acknowledged, you did not return the timeline to the main encyclopaedia, because of what seems to be a personal view regarding timelines. [[User:Rillington|Rillington]] ([[User talk:Rillington|talk]]) 14:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
:::I do find it necessary to state that the over-riding issue for me is that, without discussion, you chose to semi-delete my article by moving it to draftspace rather than flagging up the article as needing improvement and even after I made those improvements to the timeline, which you acknowledged, you did not return the timeline to the main encyclopaedia, because of what seems to be a personal view regarding timelines. [[User:Rillington|Rillington]] ([[User talk:Rillington|talk]]) 14:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ping|Rillington|This is Paul}}, Rillington, Pls slow down and re-read what I have written above. It is your personal agenda, as you stated "your personal project" to write the article. I am one of the Article for Creation (AfC) and new page (NPP) reviewers in Wikipedia. All new article created either via AfC or new page will need to go through review. If a new page (you you have initially created the article in) is not deemed meet the guideline, we, the reviewer, have the right to move the page to draft space for the creator to rework the draft article to a better stage. You have created more than 200 articles |
::::{{ping|Rillington|This is Paul}}, Rillington, Pls slow down and re-read what I have written above. It is your personal agenda, as you stated "your personal project" to write the article. I am one of the Article for Creation (AfC) and new page (NPP) reviewers in Wikipedia. All new article created either via AfC or new page will need to go through review. If a new page (you you have initially created the article in) is not deemed meet the guideline, we, the reviewer, have the right to move the page to draft space for the creator to rework the draft article to a better stage. You have created more than 200 articles since 2005 - see here [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/%20Rillington '''see here'''] and should have known the notability guidelines requirements for an article to be accepted in main space - see [[Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything]]. Your article was created without any sources provided for such I moved it to draft space. I have advised you that for what you want to do "time line article" might be nominated to merge/redirect to existing page even if the time line article is accepted in mainspace and did also informed if you guys disagree you could check with other editors for advice which Paul did without any intervention/opinions of mine in the thread in held desk. I have also provided you the links for your own perusal on further info and not only my opinions. You could resubmit the draft space and change the name of the article or merge the content as I had mentioned above. What my advice to you is hope your work would not end up fruitless and nominate to merge/redirect to existing page in the future and that is all.[[User:CASSIOPEIA|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>]]<sup>([[User talk:CASSIOPEIA|<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>]])</sup> 01:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
==Message for you [[User talk:Wyn.junior#Lists of telescopes moved to draftspace|HERE]]== |
==Message for you [[User talk:Wyn.junior#Lists of telescopes moved to draftspace|HERE]]== |
Revision as of 02:32, 16 February 2019
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
I noticed that you have relegated my Westward Television timeline to a draft, and without a redirect, thereby effectively removing it from Wikipedia. I have now made additions to the article, including adding six references. I hope that this will be sufficient for you to revoke the draft status and allow the timeline to be added to Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rillington Hi, Greetings. Thank you for the question above and I commend your efforts on searching the right sources for the draft article. I could not access 2 of your sources as there are no links, but from the other sources you provided, the sources are independent and reliable. To say that, there is an existing page Westward Television in English (EN) Wikipedia. The timeline (those that are significant and important ones) of Westward Television's content could be added into the existing page to better the content instead having a separate page just for the timeline for even the draft page is accepted, it would most likely to be nominated to merge with the existing page. It you decided to do that then after move the content over to the existing page, place {{Db-G7}} on top of the draft page and leave an edit summary stating "request drat article to be deleted by creator" before save/publish the edit. Let me know if anything I could help. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I've removed the two links and added two new references and also added some new information. Whilst I take the point that it still might be seen by some as inadequate as a stand-alone timeline, all of the timelines that I have created are added to beyond their first appearance on Wikipedia. Plus this timeline is part of an ongoing project to create timelines for all of the ITV companies, and it would be a shame if Westward was the only company not to have its own timeline. Therefore I really would like this timeline to be a stand-alone article and not, at best, a subsection of the existing Westward Television page. Do you think that the timeline is now good enough to be added to Wikipedia? Rillington (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Rillington, Kindly clarify what project 'this timeline is part of an ongoing project to create timelines for all of the ITV companies' you meant? Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a Wikipedia project. It's merely a goal I have set myself, to produce timelines for all of the ITV companies. With hindsight I shouldn't have used the word 'project'. Rillington (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Given the two sets of improvements I have made to the article, do you now think that it is of good enough quality to be part of Wikipedia as I would like to formally re-create the article. Rillington (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Rillington Good day. Pls do not recreate the article (for it will be duplicated) as it is already in the Wikipedia system as draft. The timeline (those that are significant and important ones) should be included in the existing page Westward Television instead of a separate page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I accept that to recreate it would result in a duplication but whilst it may be in the system, nobody can read the article. Therefore, given that you have acknowledged the improvements I have made, the solution would be to revoke the draft status and allow it to be viewable, or delete the draft and then re-create the article. Why you will now not accept the article as a stand-alone timeline? Rillington (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Rillington Greetings. As mentioned before time list should be part of the main article and not fork it out to another page as they should be part of the existing page. If you want the info to be viewed then include them in the existing page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 21:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- This seems to be your personal opinion, that you don't consider timelines to be part of Wikipedia and I have never come across anyone else objecting to timelines. Please tell me why you are objecting to my timeline. Rillington (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Rillington Pls see List of timelines and Warner Bros. and Apple Inc. don have timeline articles but info is incorporate in the existing article in the history section. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm grateful that you have added the above comment to This is Paul's talk page as your views on timelines impact on his efforts as much as they so on mine. I have added my reply to Paul's talkpage and I'd be grateful if you could please reply to my comments on Paul's talkpage. Thank you. Rillington (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I got asked to comment on this as someone who's worked on some of these articles so here goes. As far as I can see, there's been little objection to this up to now, apart from a couple of refimprove templates added here and there. If the problem is the length or lack of information for Westward Television then the solution could be to create a timeline of the ITV South West region, which would incorporate all of the franchise holders that operated in that region. This would make sense here since Westward and TSW were effectively the same company (TSW having purchased Westward). If the concern is about notability then again merging the articles into one with a redirect from each would make sense, as it then creates something if not unique then different. That would be my solution to this as there are a couple of small regions where several companies held the franchise.
- Also note that when I've created timelines I've grouped some of the smaller topics together, so for example, there is no Timeline of BBC Four because that would be quite small and may run into a similar problem as the Westward timeline, so it is grouped under Timeline of non-flagship BBC television channels which is of reasonable length and is well sourced.
- It is mentioned that information is often incorporated into articles, and I don't know what the general rule is regarding this, but there are timelines for cities, countries and all sorts of subjects which must surely contain duplicate information. Apple, inc. may not have a timeline, but could if someone created it I suppose, and there is a Timeline of Apple Inc. products.
- Perhaps I could suggest seeking a third opinion or something similar if you both vehemently disagree about this, which seems to be the case. This is Paul (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- This is Paul Hi, Timeline for company ( such as when the company purchased another company, what happen on the company and etc) commonly is incorporated in the "history section" and especially the the exiting article is still not large in size to fork it out. The reason the user Rillington wanted to fork it out is because that is their personal project which I dont think this is a good reason to do so. Do welcome to you to seek third party opinions. 22:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me CASSIOPEIA. Rillington had mentioned wanting to create these articles to me and I'd said it was worth going for it. I did privately wonder if it would be possible to do that since the information for a lot of the smaller ITV companies is limited. The three existing timelines covering the South West England ITV region are relatively short, but to combine them would create something of about 13K (which is a reasonable length) and quite well references, and there isn't currently anything that gives a full overview of the topic of ITV in that part of the UK. I have also suggested on my talk page broadening the article's remit to include related topics, such as content they produced for the ITV network, etc.
- On the subject of timelines, I don't think a timeline is a fork as such. My understanding of a fork is that it's a new article created from an existing article when more detail is needed about a topic but to add it to the existing article would give undue weight to the topic in that article. From what I can gather about timelines they appear to complement a main article and often contain duplicate information, but in list rather than prose form (see for example BBC and Timeline of the BBC which both mention the BBC's major milestones).
- There doesn't seem to be all that much information about timelines, yet we have a lot of them. My suggestion to both of you is to take this either to WP:DRN (I think my involvement precludes it from being a straightforward case of seeking a third opinion) or if there's a WP:MOS discussion board where it can be raised then to have a conversation there. I may even mention this at WP:HELPDESK to see if there is a policy covering the creation of timelines, how and when, etc. This is Paul (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- This is Paul Hi, Pls see List of timelines. To me company timeline (when they purchase this company, hired some CEO, etc) should be in the history section as to break out this section to a new article does not make sense especially the existing article is not that big in size. Rillington could submit the article for another reviewer to have a look (I know Reillinton created a number of such articles at late). I think in time, they would nominate to merge back to main article. Cheers. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- ok thanks again for your response. That seems like a reasonable solution. I've asked about this at the helpdesk and someone suggested WP:LISTN as a reference point. That would seem to suggest any topic list to be generally acceptable as long as they concern a notable topic discussed by independent sources, which this does, but there isn't much by way of guidelines to go on. Rillington has has addressed the lack of references which would have been a concern and it does now have a reasonable number of supporting references. Personally, and as eluded to earlier, I would have given these a broader remit, but we're all different. This is Paul (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- And given that I have addressed the lack of references, the timeline now fits the criteria for it to be added to Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. Therefore, it should no longer be classed as a draft. Rillington (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would support moving this back to the main space per WP:LISTN if both of you were in agreement about that. I've never had an article moved to draft space, and don't think I've created anything there for peer review, so I'm not familiar with the protocol in this situation. This is Paul (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Rillington and This is Paul: Greetings. Pls read Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists info and requirements. Timeline of a certain company is not a list as the lists in the stand alone article has no links to the list listed. Just because Rillington would like to write the time as their own project in Wikipedia, it does not mean it meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. As according to Rillington, they want the timeline info to be viewed by readers, then incorporate it to the existing article itself as the article is not large in size. As mentioned, you could move the draft to new page or resubmit the article for review by clicking the button atop "submit for review", and one of the reviewers will review it.(note, either the article in draft or new page, they will be subject to be reviewed prior the article is published in mainspace. When an article is in the draft page, there is usually a communication/comment which the reviewers would place in the draft page to guide/inform the creator what the draft article is lacking, how to improve the draft or why the draft is declined. In new page there is not such tools at the moment to facilitate that yet. So if an article is not acceptable, the article will either move to draft space so the editor could work on it, nominate for speedy deletion (CSD), propose for deletion or nominate (PROP), article for deletion (AfD)). Also do note even the article is accepted and published in the mainspace either via draft or new page, it would/might be nominated for AfD f not in a few months or in years down the road if the nominator deem the article fails notability guidelines or nominate to redirect / merge to existing article. If Rillington would like to help on editing/creating content in Wikipedia and I truly believe they do, then expand the existing articles of their interest or create other articles which the subjects are notable and have yet to have a page in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Rillington: @CASSIOPEIA: Thanks for the link, there's some useful information in that which will be good for future reference. I'm not seeing a resubmit button at the top of the draft page so perhaps need to change my preferences or have something installed that I don't currently have. What I'm going to propose is that I merge the information from this timeline and those of TSW and Westcountry to create one unique article titled Timeline of ITV in South West England. This will create something that is better referenced than the current articles (one of the issues raised being the lack of references), and we can have a redirect from each title to the relevant sections of the new article. I know this is then about the franchise rather than the company which wasn't the original intention of these articles, but all three current articles are short, and as was highlighted with the ITV in Wales timeline a timeline of TWW would have been relatively short and that is why there isn't one for that. If you're both in agreement with my proposal then I'll do the merger over the weekend. Hopefully that will then resolve this issue. If in the future someone proposes merging the timelines with the main ITV company articles then that's something to address at the time it happens. This is Paul (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Rillington and This is Paul: Greetings. Pls read Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists info and requirements. Timeline of a certain company is not a list as the lists in the stand alone article has no links to the list listed. Just because Rillington would like to write the time as their own project in Wikipedia, it does not mean it meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. As according to Rillington, they want the timeline info to be viewed by readers, then incorporate it to the existing article itself as the article is not large in size. As mentioned, you could move the draft to new page or resubmit the article for review by clicking the button atop "submit for review", and one of the reviewers will review it.(note, either the article in draft or new page, they will be subject to be reviewed prior the article is published in mainspace. When an article is in the draft page, there is usually a communication/comment which the reviewers would place in the draft page to guide/inform the creator what the draft article is lacking, how to improve the draft or why the draft is declined. In new page there is not such tools at the moment to facilitate that yet. So if an article is not acceptable, the article will either move to draft space so the editor could work on it, nominate for speedy deletion (CSD), propose for deletion or nominate (PROP), article for deletion (AfD)). Also do note even the article is accepted and published in the mainspace either via draft or new page, it would/might be nominated for AfD f not in a few months or in years down the road if the nominator deem the article fails notability guidelines or nominate to redirect / merge to existing article. If Rillington would like to help on editing/creating content in Wikipedia and I truly believe they do, then expand the existing articles of their interest or create other articles which the subjects are notable and have yet to have a page in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rillington and This is Paul:, Hi it would be better to write about the "franchise" and add timelines into the article. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's a possible long-term goal. In the short term though there are no franchise articles at present and it doesn't resolve your disagreement. This is Paul (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @This is Paul: The thing is if it is still a time line article, the issue still remains as they should be in the "history section of an article". Timeline articles usually gear toward articles such as arts, history, war, architecture and etc (usually over a "long" period of time and many "events" happen under a common subject which the events would have articles (notable) and also sub articles (notable) related to it.).Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk)
- I do find it necessary to state that the over-riding issue for me is that, without discussion, you chose to semi-delete my article by moving it to draftspace rather than flagging up the article as needing improvement and even after I made those improvements to the timeline, which you acknowledged, you did not return the timeline to the main encyclopaedia, because of what seems to be a personal view regarding timelines. Rillington (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Rillington and This is Paul:, Rillington, Pls slow down and re-read what I have written above. It is your personal agenda, as you stated "your personal project" to write the article. I am one of the Article for Creation (AfC) and new page (NPP) reviewers in Wikipedia. All new article created either via AfC or new page will need to go through review. If a new page (you you have initially created the article in) is not deemed meet the guideline, we, the reviewer, have the right to move the page to draft space for the creator to rework the draft article to a better stage. You have created more than 200 articles since 2005 - see here see here and should have known the notability guidelines requirements for an article to be accepted in main space - see Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Your article was created without any sources provided for such I moved it to draft space. I have advised you that for what you want to do "time line article" might be nominated to merge/redirect to existing page even if the time line article is accepted in mainspace and did also informed if you guys disagree you could check with other editors for advice which Paul did without any intervention/opinions of mine in the thread in held desk. I have also provided you the links for your own perusal on further info and not only my opinions. You could resubmit the draft space and change the name of the article or merge the content as I had mentioned above. What my advice to you is hope your work would not end up fruitless and nominate to merge/redirect to existing page in the future and that is all. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Message for you HERE
--Wyn.junior (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Request on 02:45:40, 11 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 68.103.78.155
I Need Some Help with the 2019 Conference USA football Article. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
68.103.78.155 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- 68.103.78.155, Hi I have left comment on the draft page. Have a read. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can use the
ambox
CSS class to show page issues to mobile readers. When you useambox
there are classes you can use.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 February. It will be on all wikis from 14 February (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #029, 13 Feb 2019
Where we are at:
- Single-page portals: 4,704
- Total portals: 5,705
The Ref desks survived the proposal to shut them down
You might be familiar with the Ref desks, by their link on every new portal. They are a place you can go to ask volunteers almost any knowledge-related question, and have been a feature of Wikipedia since August of 2005 (or perhaps earlier). They were linked to from portals in an effort to improve their visibility, and to provide a bridge from the encyclopedia proper to project space (the Wikipedia community).
Well, somebody proposed that we get rid of them, and the community decided that that was not going to happen. Thank you for defending the Ref desks!
Here's a link to the dramatic discussion:
The cleanup after sockpuppet Emoteplump continues...
The wake of disruption left by Emoteplump and the admins who reverted many (but not all) of his/her edits is still undergoing cleanup. We could use all the help we can get on this task...
Almost all of the speedy deleted portals have been rebuilt from scratch.
For the portals he/she restarted (many of which were done mistakenly, overwriting restarts and further development that had already been done), and/or tagged as the maintainer, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Emoteplump&oldid=881568794#Additional_Portals_under_my_watch
10,000 portals, here we come...
We're at 5,705 portals and counting.
New portals since issue #28
- Portal:Abitibi-Témiscamingue
- Portal:Ahold Delhaize
- Portal:AKB48
- Portal:Åland Islands
- Portal:Alaska Airlines
- Portal:Albanian Civil War
- Portal:Albertsons
- Portal:Alevism
- Portal:All in the Family
- Portal:Alternative metal
- Portal:Ambient music
- Portal:Ancient Near East mythology
- Portal:Ancient Roman religion
- Portal:Andrew Cuomo
- Portal:Anti-consumerism
- Portal:Antimatter
- Portal:Arameans
- Portal:Arianism
- Portal:Australian Crawl
- Portal:Bali
- Portal:Banten
- Portal:Bengkulu
- Portal:Black Lives Matter
- Portal:Bluegrass music
- Portal:Bonnie Tyler
- Portal:Breakbeat
- Portal:Calypso music
- Portal:Cambridgeshire
- Portal:Camila Cabello
- Portal:Capcom
- Portal:Capsicum
- Portal:Celtic music
- Portal:Central American music
- Portal:Central Java
- Portal:Central Kalimantan
- Portal:Central Sulawesi
- Portal:Chanel
- Portal:Cinema of Australia
- Portal:Cognitive psychology
- Portal:Communication studies
- Portal:Conservatism in the United States
- Portal:Cortina d'Ampezzo
- Portal:Cross-Strait relations
- Portal:Cryptozoology
- Portal:Danish folk music
- Portal:Disco
- Portal:Dyslexia
- Portal:East Java
- Portal:East Kalimantan
- Portal:East Nusa Tenggara
- Portal:Easy listening
- Portal:Ed Sheeran
- Portal:Ehime
- Portal:Electricity
- Portal:Electronica
- Portal:Electronic rock
- Portal:English folk music
- Portal:Environmental technology
- Portal:Experimental music
- Portal:Extreme metal
- Portal:Fall Out Boy
- Portal:Finnish Defence Forces
- Portal:Finnish folk music
- Portal:Football in Croatia
- Portal:Football in Jordan
- Portal:Funk
- Portal:Gamelan
- Portal:General Mills
- Portal:Germanic languages
- Portal:German language
- Portal:Government of Canada
- Portal:Government of Hong Kong
- Portal:Government of Indonesia
- Portal:Government of Ireland
- Portal:Government of Malaysia
- Portal:Government of Russia
- Portal:Government of Singapore
- Portal:Government of Spain
- Portal:Government of Thailand
- Portal:Grapes
- Portal:Green Party of the United States
- Portal:Grinspoon
- Portal:Gwen Stefani
- Portal:Hardcore punk
- Portal:Hardcore techno
- Portal:Haskell (programming language)
- Portal:History of art
- Portal:History of North America
- Portal:History of Thailand
- Portal:Hollywood
- Portal:Hotels
- Portal:House music
- Portal:Hungarian folk music
- Portal:Hunters & Collectors
- Portal:Hydrogen
- Portal:Icelandic folk music
- Portal:Indigenous music of North America
- Portal:Insomniac Games
- Portal:International field hockey
- Portal:International trade
- Portal:Iranian music
- Portal:Islamophobia
- Portal:Jambi
- Portal:Jet engines
- Portal:Jordin Sparks
- Portal:Julius Caesar
- Portal:Kannur
- Portal:Kansas City Spurs
- Portal:Kelly Rowland
- Portal:Kirby
- Portal:Kraft Heinz
- Portal:Krasnoyarsk Krai
- Portal:Kroger
- Portal:Kuala Lumpur
- Portal:Lampung
- Portal:Larry Kramer
- Portal:LeBron James
- Portal:Lehigh Valley
- Portal:Leicestershire
- Portal:Liège
- Portal:Liguria
- Portal:Los Angeles Aztecs
- Portal:Los Angeles Wolves
- Portal:Macedonian language
- Portal:Magnetism
- Portal:Maithripala Sirisena
- Portal:Maluku (province)
- Portal:Mangoes
- Portal:Marco Pierre White
- Portal:McLaren
- Portal:Menstrual cycle
- Portal:Metalcore
- Portal:Miami FC
- Portal:Microblogging
- Portal:Microtonal music
- Portal:Midnight Oil
- Portal:Minnesota Kicks
- Portal:Mission: Impossible
- Portal:Modernism (music)
- Portal:Moheener Ghoraguli
- Portal:Mondelez International
- Portal:Music genres
- Portal:Music of Bangladesh
- Portal:Music of India
- Portal:Music of Italy
- Portal:Music of Japan
- Portal:Music of Korea
- Portal:Music of Latin America
- Portal:Music of Micronesia
- Portal:Music of North Africa
- Portal:Music of Pakistan
- Portal:Music of Serbia
- Portal:Music of the Philippines
- Portal:Music of the United States
- Portal:Mutations
- Portal:National Rugby League
- Portal:Neoclassicism (music)
- Portal:Netball
- Portal:New York City Fire Department
- Portal:Nick Jr.
- Portal:Nobility
- Portal:Nordic countries
- Portal:North Africa
- Portal:North Kalimantan
- Portal:North Maluku
- Portal:North Pole
- Portal:North Queensland
- Portal:North Sulawesi
- Portal:North Sumatra
- Portal:Norwegian folk music
- Portal:Papua (province)
- Portal:Peaches
- Portal:Politics of Abkhazia
- Portal:Politics of Afghanistan
- Portal:Politics of Albania
- Portal:Politics of Algeria
- Portal:Politics of Andorra
- Portal:Politics of Angola
- Portal:Politics of Antigua and Barbuda
- Portal:Politics of Argentina
- Portal:Politics of Artsakh
- Portal:Politics of Bahrain
- Portal:Politics of Bangladesh
- Portal:Politics of Bavaria
- Portal:Politics of Belarus
- Portal:Politics of Belgium
- Portal:Politics of Belize
- Portal:Politics of Benin
- Portal:Politics of Bhutan
- Portal:Politics of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Portal:Politics of Botswana
- Portal:Politics of Brazil
- Portal:Politics of Brunei
- Portal:Politics of Bulgaria
- Portal:Politics of Burkina Faso
- Portal:Politics of Burundi
- Portal:Politics of Cambodia
- Portal:Politics of Cameroon
- Portal:Politics of China
- Portal:Politics of São Tomé and Príncipe
- Portal:Politics of South Sudan
- Portal:Politics of Sudan
- Portal:Politics of Tanzania
- Portal:Politics of the Republic of the Congo
- Portal:Politics of Togo
- Portal:Politics of Tunisia
- Portal:Politics of Uganda
- Portal:Pop rock
- Portal:Rap rock
- Portal:Ras Al Khaimah
- Portal:Riau
- Portal:Riau Islands
- Portal:Ricky Martin
- Portal:Royal Canadian Air Force
- Portal:Rutland
- Portal:Saxophones
- Portal:Semiotics
- Portal:Ska
- Portal:Soca music
- Portal:Soul music
- Portal:Sound sculptures
- Portal:Southeast Sulawesi
- Portal:South Kalimantan
- Portal:South Sulawesi
- Portal:South Sumatra
- Portal:Space: 1999
- Portal:Special Region of Yogyakarta
- Portal:Swedish folk music
- Portal:Tamil language
- Portal:Techno
- Portal:Terry Brooks
- Portal:The Living End
- Portal:Thrissur
- Portal:Trance music
- Portal:Tyrant flycatchers
- Portal:Veterinary medicine
- Portal:Wayanad
- Portal:Welsh folk music
- Portal:West Champaran district
- Portal:Western dress codes
- Portal:West Flanders
- Portal:West Java
- Portal:West Kalimantan
- Portal:West Nusa Tenggara
- Portal:West Papua (province)
- Portal:West Sulawesi
- Portal:West Sumatra
- Portal:Wildlife of India
- Portal:Wildlife of Nepal
- Portal:Windows 10
- Portal:Winter War
- Portal:Woodpeckers
- Portal:Worcestershire
- Portal:World economy
- Portal:World Ocean
- Portal:World Rally Championship
- Portal:World views
- Portal:XTC
- Portal:Yahoo!
- Portal:Yoruba people
- Portal:You Am I
- Portal:Young Wizards
- Portal:Yugoslavs
Prior to 2018, for the previous 14 years, portal creation was at about 80 portals per year on average. We did over 3 times that in just the past 9 days. At this rate, we'll hit the 10,000 portal mark in 5 months. But, I'm sure we can do it sooner than that.
What's next for portal pages?
There are 5 drives for portal development:
- Create new portals
- Expand existing portals, such as with new sections like Recognized content
- Convert or restart old-style portals into automated single-page portals
- Link to new portals from the encyclopedia
- Pageless portals
Let's take a closer look at these...
1: Creating new portals
Portal creation, for subjects that happen to have the necessary support structures already in place, is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.
Eventually, we are going to run out of navigation templates to base portals off of. Though there are still thousands to go. But, when they do run out, we'll need an easy way to create more. A nav footer creation script.
Meanwhile, other resources are being explored and developed, such as categories, and methods to harvest the links they contain.
2: Expanding existing portals
The portal collection is growing, not only by the addition of new portals, but by further developing the ones we already have, by...
- Improving and/or adding search parameters to better power the Did you know and In the news sections.
- Adding more selected content sections, like Selected biographies.
- Adding and maintaining Recognized content sections, via JL-Bot.
- Adding pictures to the image slideshow.
- Adding panoramic pics.
- Categorizing portals.
More features will be added as we dream them up and design them. So, don't be shy, make a wish.
3: Converting old portals
By far the hardest and most time-consuming task we have been working on is updating the old portals, the very reason we revamped this WikiProject in the first place.
There are two approaches here:
- A) Restart a portal from scratch, using our automated tools. For basic no-frills portals, that works find. But, for more elaborate portals, as that tends to lose content and features, the following approach is being tried...
- B) Upgrade a portal section by section, so little to nothing is lost in the process.
4: Linking to new portals
Or "portal deorphanization"...
Dreamy Jazz Bot is purring along.
And a tool in the form of a script is under development for linking to portals at the time they are created, or shortly thereafter.
5...
See below...
New WikiProject for the post-saved-portal phase of operations...
Saved portals, are portals with a saved page.
What is the next stage in the evolutionary progression?
Quantum portals.
What are quantum portals?
Portals that come into existence when you click on the portal button, and which disappear when you leave the page.
Or, as Pbsouthwood put it:
...portals that exist only as a probability function (algorithm) until you collapse the wave form by observing through the portal button (run the script), and disappear again after use...
Introducing...
Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals (see it's talk page).
Keep on keepin' on
...'til next time, — The Transhumanist 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)