User talk:Charlesdrakew: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:27, 2 December 2018

I've decided that I like to keep conversations together. So...

If you are here to respond to something I've posted on your talk page, feel free to reply there as I will have watchlisted your page.

If you leave a message here on my talkpage I'll respond here unless you ask me to do something different. Thanks!

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

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 07:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

A close should not be reverted without discussion, take to deletioon review if you disagree Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC) 21:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rhode Island Public Transit Authority routes is out of order. You have not given due weight to policy based arguments. This needs an admin overview. If you will not self-revert it will be taken to review.Charles (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rhode Island Public Transit Authority routes, I don't agree that non-admins should be able to make decisions on whether consensus is made. @Atlantic306: explain yourself. Ajf773 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- The revert of the close without communication was wrong as you voted in the discussion so are not an uninvolved editor, and non admins are permitted to make nac closures when the consensus is obvious but as there is dispute I will relist, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Instead of relisting will leave it open Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - On a technicality Charles shouldn't of reverted the AFD (instead going to DRV) but on the otherhand Atlantic306 you should've explained why you chose to close as Keep,

From an outside point of view this should've been closed as Delete because:

A) 1 vote is saying Keep "because it's in a category",

B) Others are saying NOTDIR is irrelevant (there's been a too-and-fro debate on this for years on whether NOTDIR is applicable to bus routes or not)

C) A few !keepers are simply saying "It can be fixed" but aren't providing any policy behind them

In some respects I feel arguements are weak on both sides but with !Deletes they're all going by actual policy whereas the !Keeps are not .... Ofcourse the !deletes could've been expanded on but either way I'm seeing more Delete than I am Keep.... Just my 2c anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you've opened it, Nevermind then

. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that technically I should have taken it to review, but that all takes valuable time, and boldly reverting an ill considered close seems to have remedied the situation. Thanks to Atlantic306 for not making us go trough the whole tedious process.Charles (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting airport articles

Hello, I have noticed you frequently remove route information on airport articles. Could you please refrain from doing so in the future? General consensus is there's no problem with including this information. Thanks! SportingFlyer talk 23:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is general consensus.Charles (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's general consensus destination lists and future destinations do not violate WP:NOTTRAVEL - they're not a list of best restaurants in Paris with phone numbers, for instance. SportingFlyer talk 20:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 04:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Airport

It was agreed that existing airline destinations did not need refs, only routes that are starting or ending. Mark999 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hence this on most UK airport articles which was added by myself many years ago " WHEN ADDING A NEW ROUTE, OR ADDING AN END DATE FOR A ROUTE PLEASE ADD A REFERENCE, ALSO ADD THE ROUTE AND LINK ON THE CORRESPONDING AIRPORTS ARTICLE AND THE AIRLINES ARTICLE IF IT IS A NEW DESTINATION, ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT REFERENCED WILL BE REMOVED." Mark999 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is your caps lock key stuck?Charles (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are wiling to actually listen, it has been agreed upon withing WikiProject Airports not to provide refs for existing routes but only to provide them for new routes or old routes, if you have a problem with this, please take it up there before reverting everything and threatening other users. Otherwise you will find people will revert your edits. Mark999 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portals WikiProject update #022, 11 Nov 2018

Welcome AmericanAir88

Give a hearty welcome to AmericanAir88, who has adopted working on portals as one of his main purposes on Wikipedia. So far, he has created the following portals:

Way to go!

Where's Evad?

Evad disappeared from Wikipedia on October 18.

He has been, and will continue to be, sorely missed.

Hopefully, he is okay, on a Caribbean cruise or something.

The conversion continues

Portals of the old design, are slowly but surely being converted to the new single-page design.

One factor that has slowed things down is that for many sections, the section header call and section contents call are integrated into a template and buried in a lua module, locking them in on each portal. They have been that way for years.

This means that these sections can't be directly edited like the other sections on the same portal. So, search/replaces affect all the sections except those. So, upgrading headers on these portals, for example, misses the integrated sections and inadvertently results in 2 different header colors.

Before we can continue with the upgrade of these portals, the headers and section contents calls need to be restored to each portal, so that those can be edited in concert with the other sections on the portal, and worked on independently of each other.

This is underway, with a solution implemented on about 1/4 of the affected portals so far. Around 300 of them. The remaining 900 should be done within a couple weeks or so.

Going wide...

We now have banner-shaped pictures included in the introduction sections of 180 portals. The rarity of such pictures has made it difficult to find suitably narrow images for display across the tops of portals.

We have a solution for this, courtesy of FR30799386...

Most pictures are not banner-shaped. But, you can still use them as banners. Here's how:

{{Portal image banner|File:Blueberries .jpg |maxheight=120px |overflow=Hidden }}

Using both maxheight=120px and overflow=Hidden produces this:

Project's status

There are now 4,140 portals, with more being created almost daily. Prior to this project's reboot, portals were created at about the rate of 80 per year. Since April of this year, we've created about 2,600 new portals, or 32.5 years' worth at the old rate.

Of those new portals, about 3/4 of them need links leading to them. Almost all of them are linked to from the category system, but they still need links in article see also sections, at the bottom of navigation templates, and on the main portals list at Portal:Contents/Portals.

Of the 1500 portals created before the reboot, about 300 have been completely converted to the new design so far. About 1100 more have been partially converted, with intros, image slideshows, and associated wikimedia sections getting the most attention.

Discussion has resumed on the portal guidelines.

Until next issue...

See ya round the portal system! — The Transhumanist 11:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Charlesdrakew. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On my edition of Dawkins' page

Hi! I erased the parenthesis that said "which advocates the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design" because in the context of Richard Dawkins' opinions on abortion this point is not relevant, and it seems to me more like a way of poisoning the well. I agree that intelligent design is pseudoscience, but regardless of whether it is or not, writing it there and in that way all it does is take the objectivity out of the article. I'm sorry I didn't specify it when I did the editing, because I'm just beginning to find out how the editing works in this forum. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.180.102.204 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #023, 25 Nov 2018

There are now 4,180 portals.

Will we break 5,000 by the end of the year?

I know we can. But, that is up to you!

( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}} or {{subst:bpsp}} )

Happy Holidays

Hello everyone! Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice (if it's occurring in your area of the world), and thanks for your work in maintaining, improving, and expanding portals. Cheers, — The Transhumanist 06:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Jingling along

The following portals have been created since the last issue:

Keep 'em coming!

By the way, the above list was generated using this Petscan query. It can be easily modified by changing the date. The data page (under the Output tab) also has options for receiving the data in CSV or tabbed format, which some operating systems automatically load into a spreadsheet program for ease of use, such as copying and pasting the desired column (like page names).

In closing

We'll keep it short this issue.

Expect a flood next time. Or the one after that.

Cheerio, — The Transhumanist 07:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my edit for "Center Parcs UK"

ok so I edited the fact that the treehouses were opened in 2011, not 2010. the source provided literally states that they were opened in 2011, so when I edited it with the source still provided, it was removed and the false info came back? sorry if this isn't the right place to mention it - Gwh9Gaming

~~Fair enough~~. It would help if you explained it in the edit summary box as you always should. Then it would not look like casual vandalism.Charles (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the source is dated August 2010 and it appears that they were ready in that year for use in 2011 although it is not entirely clear.Charles (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the boilerplate message, but it's required. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:27, 2 December 2018 edit Jcc (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 9,460 edits →‎Edit warring: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:27, 2 December 2018 edit undo Jcc (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 9,460 edits →‎Edit warring Next edit →
Line 884:		Line 884:

	'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy\|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule\|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting\|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Jcc\|jcc]] ([[User talk:Jcc#top\|tea and biscuits]]) 11:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)		'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy\|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule\|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting\|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Jcc\|jcc]] ([[User talk:Jcc#top\|tea and biscuits]]) 11:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
			:Apologies for the boilerplate message, but it's required. [[User:Jcc\|jcc]] ([[User talk:Jcc#top\|tea and biscuits]]) 11:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)