User talk:BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl is a Wikipedia admin

I have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.

I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

Merge Proposal

Hi there!

Rembrandt research in Australia

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

I am researching a Rembrandt that may have been in the collection of Dr John Radcliffe 17th century inherited down to Dr J R Radcliffe 19th -20th century. Rembrandt was exhibited title Christ raising the daughter of Jarius in a major exhibition in Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum 1934 loaned by Dr JR Radciffe . I am attempting to link the two. Very difficult. Note The painting has been located in Australia with exhibition label,also no record of where the work is. I feel it was in the collection of Dr J Radcliffe as he did collect Rembrants work. For your interest. Regards Bryan Collie

Nikola Kicev

can you change my height in my bio :) 191 cm

Deletion review for 2018 UPSL Season

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2018 UPSL Season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Addition to list

Hi... Actress /Model Carmen Electra is From Ohio

👍

Publishing The Thames British School Warsaw Article

Hello BrownHairedGirl!

The reason I'm getting in touch with you is really just to make a very kind request...

I noticed that you had recently edited the British School Warsaw article and was just wondering if you could help to publish the article on Thames British School Warsaw. I'd greatly appreciate any help you can offer.

Also, I noticed on your profile page that you might be owned by one or more dogs. I really hope that they are lenient masters. :)

All the best,

Praevalebit

WP:TROUT

Please show me how I can easily use WP:TWINKLE to upmerge a category to both of its parent categories as a target. I'd be interested in that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf:

1. use WP:TWINKLE
2. On the drop-don box where by default it says "delete", select "merge"
3. Below that enter the first merge target
4. Type the rationale
5. Press submit, and you will be taken to the CFD page.

The above covers all cases where you want to merge one Category to one target.

For multiple merge targets, simply edit the nomination in front of you to add any further merge targets.

So there it is. Easy. Hundreds of other editors do it routinely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not possible. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: So you really find that not easy?

Really? Is that your idea of joke?

Or are you genuinely, honestly telling me that after two million edits you have such severe WP:COMPETENCE issues that you find it impossible to use the second option on a drop-down menu? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote: there is no way to choose both targets with Twinkle, so I'd have to manually re-edit it. Your concern that someone can't see the entire rationale from the category itself and has to go to CfD to actually read is... pointless? If anyone suggested a category I created for deletion and I cared at all, I would look at the CfD itself to read the discussion. Since there is no ability with the semi-automated tool to choose both parents as a target then I don't know why you're suggesting it, since I used Twinkle in the first place. Your suggestion is to use a tool that I already used to accomplish something that can't be accomplished with it to benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to read a discussion at the place where the discussion is held? Is that your idea of a joke? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Please do grow up and stop nitpicking about whether Twinkle does every step for you. I never claimed that it does that: what I wrote[1] was It's really v v easy to use WP:TWINKLE to create a nomination which actually says "merge Cat:X to Cat:Y". AS above, you can use it to do ~90% of the job, and and then do one more easy step. The whole cycle can be done in 20 seconds or less.

This is all v simple. It's about communication, namely clearly signposting a proposal so that editors can make a rapid decision on whether they want to engage further.

You ask benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to read a discussion at the place where the discussion is held?

Simple: because they want to make an early decision on whether it does interest them ... and provide accurate and complete info at the signposting stage helps them make that choice with minimum time-wasting. You contemptuously choose to give them inaccurate and incomplete info.

It's all a very similar issue to edit summaries. Yes, any editor can open up any edit and see what it did. But per WP:FIS, "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it." Clear CFD listings are just like that: they help other editors decide whether to read further. When an edit summary is missing or uninformative, every other editor who sees the edit (in a page history, watchlist, recent changes list, user contribs list etc) has waste time finding out for themselves what the editor could and should have conveyed in the summaries. Same with XFD listings.

You seem to have an active hostility to the very concept of effective communication, so I'm going to spell this out for you.

As I shown above, there is very simple and easy method by which you can:

A/ ensure that CFD tag is as clear as possible about what is proposed

B/ ensure that the summary at the top of the entry on CFD daily Log convey accurately what is to be done

This is not about other editors being lazy. It is about the fact that XFD listing discussion pages are long, so most editors speed-read XFD listing pages, skimming and scanning to make a set of triaging steps on each section. e.g.

1. What categories are involved (the heading)
2. What is proposed to do with them (in the listing)
3. Why is this proposed (in the rationale)
4. has there been much discussion? (see how big the discussion is)
5. What arguments are being made? (read the discussion)

The sooner and more clearly the info is presented, the better they make an assessment of whether to invest more time going further into the listing. This is about how clear communication helps other editors to decide how much more of their limited time to invest. You description of them as lazy is deeply contemptuous of your fellow editors.

So look at that CFD for Category:American Jewish conservatives.

1. The speed-reader sees the heading. Intersection of religion and politics: I might be interested. But what's involved? so proceed to read the listing
2. They look at the listing. What? Delete? Why while Jewish Conserbvatives no longer be categorised as Conservatives? so read the nominator's rationale
3. Read the rationale. It begins with "/Upmerge". WTF, I thought the listing says "delete"? What's this about?
   Glance back at the listing. Yes, it says delete. Nominator is confused, maybe the next sentence says more.
   So read on. But no mention of what those parent categories are. Grrr.
   So ctrl-clock tto open up the category page, and scan to the bottom to see the parent categories: Category:American Jews and Category:American conservative people.
   Ahh!!!OK, they will still be categorised by both attributes. I don't mind either way whether or not that merger happens, so move on.

All of that third step would be entirely un-needed if you had the basic courtesy to use the tools in front of you to spend only an extra few seconds of your time listing the actual proposed action and the merge targets. But because you are lazy and/or arrogant and/or contemptuous of your fellow editors, you force every single one of them of them to spend more time finding out for themselves what you could so easily have told them in a few seconds.

That applies to each person who assess that entry. So do a few sums.

That page has had 675 pageviews. Be generous, say each reader came back 5 times. So that 135 difft readers.

Say that half of those read beyond the headline, to figure out what that nomination was proposing to do.

It's likely to take each of them took 20 seconds to open up Category:American Jewish conservatives to check the parent cats which you say are the merge target. Maybe more, but let's take a short time. Multiply that out: 135 X 20 seconds = 45 minutes.

That's right. You refusal to spend a few seconds of your own time clearly conveying that proposal has wasted 45 minutes of other editors time. That's very selfish behaviour.

And that's 45 minutes for every single category which list with incomplete, or contradictory info.

I am very glad that you have no responsibility for motorway signage. Because if you were in charge, you'd be saying something like "why bother making these huge motorway signs like this? Why benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to leave the motorway to find out where the junction leads to?"

And you'd probably remove the smaller signs on local which show the name of the street, benefit lazy or otherwise disinterested users who don't want to have to get out, knock on a door, and ask "what street is this".

I just took a look at your latest 500 edits: almost zero non-automated summaries. So your are consistent in your non-communication ... but you have been on en.wp long enough to know the long-standing bolded guidance that It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit. What a selfish attitude to bring to a collaborative project like Wikipedia . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What is selfish about this? Why is it you think that you are the only person who writes this kind of stuff to me? What is it about you that in 2M+ edits, I only butt heads with one person? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly as I expected: no substantive answer, not even an acknowledgement of the case I made. Just deflection.

(I did hope for better, which is why I took the time to reply, but my expectations were v low).

Why do you only butt heads with one person? As you know, that's not actually the case. But it seems that most others give up much sooner in the face of your sustained passive aggression, as happened here[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

So you get mad when I post an 89-word response on my talk for being too long and then you post a novella here? You surfaced this problem that I am "selfish" for not providing manual edit summaries. I am asking how that is selfish. You consistently apply some moral value judgement to my actions (lazy, selfish, rude) which is not exactly apparent. In spite of my better judgement, I am trusting that you are saying something meaningful with these claims: I am more concerned with being an ethical person than a good Wikipedia editor, so when you make these asides, I care more about that than about drop-down menus and efficiency in Twinkle. And please take your own advice and "grow up" and "stop whining": you know what I mean about butting heads and your link is not "butting heads" with this user; it's him saying, "that's enough" and moving on. You never do that ever and are the only person who needlessly hounds me about minutiae and makes some moral statement about my character. So forgive me for thinking that things that are more important are more important and taking stock in your judgement but my question stands as you couldn't be bothered to answer it. How are these edit summaries "selfish"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your selfishness and lack of communication make it very difficult to collaborate with you. I'm assuming that this will be another drive-by complaint that resolves nothing based on your personal preferences. But if you decide that you want to actually have a conversation (that you initiated), then please post to my talk. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Koavf (Justin), you did not I posted a long explanation of why I reproached you. You did not even acknowledge the substance of it, and just dismissed it as novella.

Yet now you accuse me of lack of communication? That's an unjustified and childish parrot-like response which has no place in a consensus-based project.

You claim above that you are more concerned with being an ethical person than a good Wikipedia editor. If so, then I suggest you have a long hard ethical discussion with yourself about how it is ethical to participate in a collaborative project and systematically, deliberately fail to communicate in a way which makes your intentions clear ... and that you also think very about about the ethics of describing as lazy people who resent having to do extra research in order to discover core information which you could have added in seconds when you raised the issue.

You (lack of) edit summaries are as blatantly selfish as your failure to communicate clearly making XFD nominations for exactly the same reason: per Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary, "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it.".

Do you not understand that? Or do you simply not care? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand, I just think you are wrong. So I asked you to explain and you can't/won't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I'm not sure what I am supposed to do with this information. No one else has ever said these things to me in 15 years, so... . ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. You asked me to explain, and I did at length.

I can only speculate why you claim others don't point this out to you. But as I noted above, another editor (Marcocapelle) did ask you to fix your CFD nom, and you ignored that too. So my working assumption is that you simply choose not to hear when people say these things to you, and that's why you make a your demonstrably false claim that nNo one else has ever said these things to me in 15 years.

But I note that you still have not responded to my substantive explanation of the problem other than to say that you think I am wrong. That's weird: do you think, for example that Help:Edit summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary is "wrong"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Bots and AWB

I'm not a bot or AWB user but I appreciate the suggestion. At the bottom of this thread [3] Certes ran two reports. The first one is portals with less than 20 new articles (he's got a weird way of defining it). I'd like someone to MfD the whole batch of 435 with a link to his post and that whole thread. That will sweep up both some of TTH's and some creations by his followers. The sweetest part is these were identified as too narrow within the project's own existing guidelines by a project member. I've done a lot of portal MFDing so it would be better if someone like you could take the lead on this, especially since I don't have the skills to automate. TTH insists every portal needs a delete tag on it BTW. Direct link to the report [4] Legacypac (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Legacypac, and sorry for being slow to get back to you on this one.

Many thanks for the pointers. I looked at that discussion, and also at the report: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/33923.

The result seemed odd to me, and I didn't think that it was a suitable basis for a mass nomination without further checking. (I'm not entirely sure that I understand what the @Certes's code was doing, and I note Certes's caveats about it not being a suitable basis for deletion selection. However, it would be very welcome of Certes and other members of WP:WPPORT devoted some effort to assisting the cleanup. I am extremely disappointed by the way in which that project has left the cleanup efforts almost entirely to editors who are not part of the project, and the project's collective failure to pro-actively help remove junk from the pages within its scope seems to me to an abdication of the WikiProject's responsibilities)

So I forked it to https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/34403, which omits the pages-in-another-portal test.

In ran it initially with a threshold of 20, which gave me a list of about 30 portals. About 15 of those formed the basis of my MFD nominations yesterday. (About half the list was dab pages, which I obviously excluded).

I have now raised the threshold to 35, which seems to be throwing up lots of portals which in reality have less than 20 articles. I am working through that list, which gave me e.g. Portal:Industry, California and Portal:Jambi, both now at MFD. I'll continue working though that list, one at a time. It's tedious and time-consuming, but so long as WP:WPPORT members don't assist, then that's where we are at.

BTW, Legacypac, it's great to find you and me in agreement. We seem to have been at loggerheads on most things for the last few months, so it's good to find an area where we do agree . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the info helpful. I was wondering how you were selecting the random ones you are nominating. This will take forever one at a time, with the delete voters losing interest and the portal fans bringing in eafh other with notifications. We need to batch the noms somehow. There is plenty of bad behavior around portals. I've now been accused of "fraud" at the Small Cities Portals nomination while Northamerica1000 has been voting over and over in the same MfDs. I fail to see why anyone finds these pages useful. Legacypac (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac, I am suggesting doing thousands of them one at a time. But in the absence of clear guidelines, I think it's helpful to establish a few precedents before doing group nominations for clusters of similar portals.

In other words, test the waters with individual nominations of one or two, then group the rest of the set.

e.g. the set which you identified at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jambi would make an excellent followup.

However, I take your point about voter fatigue. So would you like to go through https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/34403, and see if you can identify any more sets, like those Indonesian provinces?

If so, then we can write a suitable rationale for the group, and I can use AWB to tag them all so that they all link directly to the appropriate MFD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I see some Univ of North Carolina campuses to bundle there.

The benefit of grouping by topic is it also sweeps up a few portals by other random authors with the TTH mass creations. We can follow the list of portals groupings, though that page is quite incomplete I've learned. It excluded all the Indian districts, most of the small cities, US Counties, and others that have been deleted. Food portals would make one or more good groupings for example.

Another way that emphasizes the indiscriminate nature of the creations without getting into debates about the merits of this or that portal few readers look at anyway would be to bundle all portals mass created between Time A and B. Even one or two hour blocks will yield large groups, while one or a few days will still be large groups for some other periods. This will help directly justify X3 and result in slam dunk deletes rather than the portal by portal debates where I fear we will end up ruining the perfect delete track record to date. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

[5] Like the Indonesian ones near the top created between :24 and :42. It would take me longer to nominate them for deletion one by one than it took to create them. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi BHG. Thanks for pointing me here from a random MfD. Thanks for cleaning up the unexpectedly large number of TTH’s autoPortal creations. If feel a bit responsibly in that I may have encouraged him to have done this. My argument was that Portals are content forking, and that a better way to do Portals (if they are to continue), is to make them automatic, so that no Portal has its own creative history. Creative content should exist in mainspace articles. Portals should transclude selected content, not rewrite content. For me, this sounds like a huge coding challenge. I did not anticipate that TTH would create thousands unilaterally.

There are too many TTH/ portal discussions for me to keep up with. I am thinking TTH needs to be forced to only create portals with formally approved Bots. Bot policy is pretty good at holding back half baked ideas. Do you agree? How can we make it happen. Can you make it happen simply by threatening him with a WP:BLOCK if he again mass-creates Portals without an approved Bot? I think he and his colleagues should be limited to a maximum 50 autoPortals for demonstration purposes. I suspect that 50 might also be the final number. One portal for 100000 articles. Coded functionality should allow the browser to auto-browse deeper. I also think this may bring increased relevance to categories. Not holding my breath though, just ideas. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No threats necessary. See WP:MASSCREATION, recently revised. Now, any amount of portals over 25 to 50, created by semi-automatic means falls under the jurisdiction of BAG (Bot Approvals Group) and must get their approval. Anyone who violates that policy may be subject to a block.    — The Transhumanist   08:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

TTH breached WP:MASSCREATION and WP:MEATBOT before the rewording to make them more clear. The rewording is because you deny breaching them so we made it even more clear. Legacypac (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A crazy idea - the mother of all MfDs 3500-4500 automated Portals in one go in a collapse box. Getting X3 through is proving difficult because of off the wall objections and the idea of running it for two more weeks while we chip away at the list a few at a time. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe & @Legacypac, thanks again to you both for your comments. Since you are both warning off individual nominations, I will desist thefrom.

I don't think that a single mass nomination would work, and it could be regarded as wildly disruptive.

So I think the way forward lies in identifying clusters, as Legacypac has done already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• I’m very happy with test cases, especially if clearly labelled as a test case typical of many others. You can’t just call it a test case after the fact, and argue for a CSD. I am against what looks like the start of the 4500 individual nominations. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals/Assessment is useful - but they have not assessed 4,699 portals yet. Still...

• I just did a group nom at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Bottom_Importance_Portals
• Category:Low-importance_Portal_pages 1,142 assessed portals - a good AWB job?
• Category:Incomplete-Class Portal pages only 9 portals
• Category:Basic-Class Portal pages only 9 pages which says something about the assessments

It's kind of hard to argue that keeping pages the project assessed as "low importance" is important when lots of people want to ax all the pages. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Portals RfC

Hi. I noticed you started a draft RfC, and I was wondering if I could get an invitation to the discussion (I found out about it since I'm a (talk page stalker)). Regardless of your answer, you may want to copy some of the ideas at User:DannyS712/rfc4. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @DannyS712

Many thanks for telling me about that. Good work on trying to get the ball rolling, though I note that discussion on your page seems to have stalled.

I have three concerns:

1. User:DannyS712/rfc4 is a very strongly directional proposal for a specific outcome, whereas per WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCST, RFCs should ask neutral questions, which is what am trying to do. So I don't think that our approaches would be compatible.
2. You draft proposes a cleanup process, based on presumed support for some inclusion criteria. I think that's back-to-front, and that the community will be better served by first establsihing a consensus on which portals should exist, and then separately discussing processes for cleaning up any large sets of exceptions
3. I invited 4 other editors on the basis of trying to create a balanced group of 5. Inviting someone else now, before the others have even replied, would not be a good faith way of treating the prospective group.

So I'll post a note at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria, and see what the others think ... if anyone else does work with me on it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm not at all tied to my draft - it was just a potential idea. I agree with you about point #2, and completely understand #3 - let me know if anything changes. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @DannyS712. Will do! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories Establishments in Portland, Oregon

There are these pages starting in 2000 and most were at CFD already, here[6] and here[7]. In light of the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia results, I think the debate on those should be re-opened with a new CFD. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, WilliamJE.

I reckon we should wait until the New York City CFD closes. That will be a good measure of where consensus lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Close of RFC on mass creation of portals

this discussion relates to my close[8] of WP:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus_on_mass_creation_of_Portals

I'm very happy to discuss any close I make, but when words are put in my mouth, and bogus ad hominems are thrown at me, and maliciously false accusations of bad faith are made, the discussion stops right there.
Stay off my talk, @SMcCandlish:. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd suggest that much of this verbiage can be trimmed: "It is less clear whether that moratorium extends to all creations of new portals, or when and how that moratorium should end, but it is clear that there is no existing guideline which codifies the consensus here for a radical change of approach. So I urge that editors refrain from testing boundaries of community consensus by creating only those new portals which appear to them to be acceptable." The proposal was "mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools be paused until clearer community consensus is established", so manual portal creation wasn't covered in the first place. Your close kind of suggests otherwise and may "scare someone into silence", if you will, about a non-automated portal idea they've been working on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I see your point, but my aim was to reduce drama. The broad context is that the community's consensus on what portals should exist is unclear; the WP:WPPORT editors clearly have a different view to the views widely held elsewhere, and that underpins a lot of the recent drama.

The RFC proposal is indeed formally about "mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools", but it is very clear from the extensive discussion that concerns go much wider than that. That clearly indicates that this is a time for consensus-building rather than page creation, not least because it would be a great pity for any editor to put a lot of work now into building something which may soon be deprecated.

So I think it's unhelpful to characterise my comment as scare someone into silence. I have no desire to scare anyone, but I do think it would be irresponsible to close the RFC without saying something to the effect of "this whole area is up in the air, so please exercise caution". My aim was, and remains, to remind everyone of the importance of building a broad consensus so that we can move towards ending the drama.

In doing that, I was v conscious that the terse close of WP:ENDPORTALS had addressed only the narrow question posed, leading to wildly different assumptions about what it meant for other issues. For example, there was good grounds for saying that the mood of that discussion amounted to "no, don't delete them all, but there are too many narrow portals" ... but TTH and some others interpreted the RFC as a mandate to start mass auto-creation, leading to the current drama. In hindsight, I think that if @Cyberpower678 had noted in their close the need resolve the other issues on which there was such extensive discussion and such a wide range of views, we might have avoided the current ruckus.

So I think it would do the community no service at all to omit the reminder what we need now is to build that broad consensus.

Note that since no RFC has yet been started on the principles, I am now working with a few other editors of varying viewpoints to draft an RFC which would try to set guidelines on which portals should exist. See User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria and its talkpage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, ? —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678, I commented on an action of yours. I don't like doing that behind ppl's backs, so I pinged you just so you were that I had mentioned you. I'm not seeking any response from you, but of course if you wanted to say something, that'd be fine too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, other than the "mandate" bit. Lack of consensus against something, on WP, is in fact permission to try it, per WP:EDITING policy. One doesn't need a clear "mandate" from the community go do something, or we'd never get anything done. The issue here is the scale of what's been attempted, questionable purpose of many of the micro-topical portals under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#INDEX policy, and the alleged maintenance costs. (However, some of these allegations are clearly overblown when it comes to automated stuff; the automation is the opposite of maintenance. The real maint. costs are going to be more subtle, like how many pages have to be edited if a portal-related category changes names; that sort of thing.) Someone else pointed out that not all of the MfD deletions were non-controversial. I would add that several are questionable, e.g. the ones on cities and larger regions, the ones on topics of clear encyclopedic interest and with numerous articles (e.g. jiu-jitsu/jujutsu), versus those that are too narrow like "spaghetti".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: please don't put words in my mouth. I neither used nor implied a need for a "mandate".

What I did try to do was to guide editors to avoiding controversy, per WP:RECKLESS ... and to build a WP:CONSENSUS.

And please don't try to drag this discussion into our personal preferences for the future. Those discussions are happening are happening elsewhere, and there is no need to replicate them here.

But if you think that some of deletions are controversial, that only underline the need for what I said in my close: that editors need to build a community consensus on criteria for whether a portal should exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Um, I'll just quote you back to yourself: "TTH and some others interpreted the RFC as a mandate to start mass auto-creation, leading to the current drama." And "don't try to drag this discussion into our personal preferences for the future" doesn't appear to relate in any way to a single thing I said; I'm mostly agreeing with you that quite a few portals are problematic. I'm not sure what's going on here, but it looks like "I get angry when when my closes are faintly criticized, and will spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent". Not helpful. Anyway, I agree that "editors need to build a community consensus on criteria for whether a portal should exist"; I've been saying this for a long time, and the reason I signed up for WikiProject Portals in the first place was to be involved in that (AFAIK, the only serious drafting of that stuff so far has been on a portals MoS page, which doesn't get to the meat of the current matter). I'm glad the RfC drafting stuff is open, and will comment on its talk page. I'll say first off, though, that options 5 and 6 are not actually possible under policy (namely WP:CONLEVEL and ArbCom rulings about it, and WP:EDITING, respectively).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: a thoroughly bad faith comment like that bogus allegation that I get angry because my close is criticised marks the end of our discussion.

I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance, but if you want to engage in that sort of smeary, twisted ad hominem, the discussion is over.

Given that you agree that we need a consensus of criteria for portals, I really wonder what on earth was the point of this whole discussion.

The RFC is not a public drafting process. I chose a small groups of people with differing views to facilitate quick progress. So the talk page is for that group only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Portal group (which SMcCandlish is part) ignored the widely held view that there were too many narrow topic portals. They breached WP:MEATBOT. They claimed we should not delete any portals while they came up with a new guideline, but then did not come up with a new guideline before creating or converting 5700 portals. TTH even admitted at AN that no one is following the existing guidelines in creating portals. One editor has been dismissing the 100% delete results of the MFDs as "controversial" but if you ignore the small group that is defending their breaches of policy and general community consensus that portals need to be well thought out, darn near every other MfD/AN/VP participant is against the massive increase in portals. I suggest drafting a guideline and running an RFC. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you review my own talk page discussions about portals, you'll see that I've strongly advocated merging "micro-topical" portals, and predicting that their separate existence would cause some backlash from various editors. However, that these various editors are lashing back (sometimes with a tone more like lashing out – lots of personally directed vindictiveness) does not mean in fact that a MEATBOT violation has occurred. That's a specific claim of editorial malfeasance you'd have to prove at a venue for examining user behavior (ANI, RFARB, AE, etc.). See also WP:ASPERSIONS (and ad hominem and guilt by association more generally); you cannot legitimately imply I have some kind of hive mind attitude about portals simply because I've signed up as a participant in the relevant wikiproject. The entire purpose of wikiprojects is to gather input from people interested in something, in whatever way, and build a broad-based consensus – not to forge lock-step thinking (a WP:FACTION), the opposite of the idea. If you want to allege the existence of a FACTION, that's another behavioral matter you'll have to present diffs to prove.

Moving on, several of the MfDs were in fact contentious, and multiple editors asked you to shelve your "MfD trophy case" stuff. It's simply divisive and pointless to try to make this a numbers game when everyone without really severe brain damage can immediately see that most of those MfDs were against worthless portals (and the edge cases, on topics that are arguably broad enough and of enough reader interest to justify a portal) were the ones that were contentious. If you started nominating less obvious deletion candidates, your success/fail rate at MfD would very obviously reverse itself immediately. There is no question, I think, that we don't need things like "Portal:E (mathematical constant)" and "Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn". If you try to turn this probable site-wide consensus into a "kill all portals" forum-shopping expedition, to overturn the VPPOL RfC last year, that's not going to work.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

technical matter about MFD

I disagree with the nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE of course, but as a technical matter doesn't your MFD about wp:ITSACASTLE require some notice at the essay itself? --Doncram (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doncram: (talk page stalker) It does, and BHG added a tag earlier. See Special:Diff/888263300. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, sorry, there is notice there now. --Doncram (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @DannyS712.

Doncram, my tag was added to the so-called "essay" 38 minutes before you posted here[9].

And Doncram, your second comment here[10] removed Danny's comment.

This sort of high-frequency basic incompetence is a large part of why so many NRHP editors are fed up with you. It wears the patience very fast.

Do read WP:CIR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I support your actions, but …nothing. So why am I am here? Maybe to point out that this backlash was a certainty, but would nevertheless be unpleasant to experience (or I would find it so) and not responding seems as undesirable as continuing to respond (or take the bait). I'm just recognising the bind you are being placed in. Regards, cygnis insignis 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @cygnis insignis.

It is the eternal dilemma on wikipedia. When some rude editor makes false accusations, rejects calls to back off, and then creates a shitstorm complete with diffs edited to misrepresent them, what to do?

I was tempted to ignore ... but then the crap and the lies become the new truth.

And yet, by engaging, I may be climbing down into the gutter with him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This editor has blown any credibility on the portals topic already and they just sealed that. A little pushback is ok, but too much is like throwing oneself in the mud pit too. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"lies become the new truth." this concept has been test-marketed and shown to a populist and effective method of framing discussion and manufacturing consent. So it goes. We are here to use sourced information, facts in context, anything that doesn't use citations requires vehement defence. Those that wish to parasitise our content as community members ought to challenged, vehemently! cygnis insignis 12:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

People will tell lies about you here. Remaining calm shows them for what they are and who you are. Start the IBAN now and be happy for it :) Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I stick my nose in here to ask if you plan on pursuing this at ArbCom, and if not, can I briefly (just once and then leave you alone) encourage you to do so, rather than settle for an uneasy truce and/or i-ban? This was bothering me last night, and (per User:Iridescent's comment at ANI), it is quickly becoming clear to me who is likely harassing whom via email. I am usually in favor of having quarreling people with different perspectives on who's at fault just leave each other alone. But if what you describe is accurate, it is really beyond the pale, and cannot be explained by different perspectives, especially going back to the ANI thread with fake accusations. I hope this isn't considered pot stirring, but that shouldn't stand.

My understanding per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE is that admins can't block based on private information - even if they immediately notify ArbCom. Please consider forwarding them the emails (if you haven't already). It need not be a full case if things are that clear cut. It's possible we annoy each other enough that you won't value this opinion; that's fine. And I'm obviously not the person who would have to deal with the stress and trouble, so I won't bug you no matter what you decide. But IMHO you shouldn't let this drop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam, and thanks for your message.

I just don't have the stomach for a full-blown arb case. I think I have been through two of them, and they were horrendous timesinks. Even though this one has only two parties, the sheer amount of nonsense I have seen so far makes me think that this will be another impenetrable forest.

However, the worst bit of it all is SMcCandlish's accusation here[11] that engaged in offline harassment, to which I responded here[12]. That's a foul smear.

Would it really be possible to ask Arbcom to just examine the issue of that claim? If so how would I go about it?

Do I go to WP:RFAR and start a case, saying that evidence is in an email?

Sorry if that sounds silly, but after The Troubles case I have tried to avoid Arbcom, so I am not up to speed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It isn't silly; the ways of ArbCom are not clear and simple. I should be more confident about this, being an ex-Arb, but this is only my best guess:

• Rather than continually hedging my wording to avoid being accused of stating as a fact that SMcC did something wrong, when I obviously can't prove it, just assume that everything I say below starts out "If what you describe is accurate..."
• It really does meet the definition of harassment/pestering (unwanted aggressive emails after the thread close) and (much worse, IMHO) gaslighting/smearing (false accusations against the target made by the harasser, on-wiki).
• In general, I very much doubt ArbCom wants to make it difficult for recipients of harassment to report it.
• I think you can just email ArbCom with a brief summary of what happened (point them to the ANI close, and forward (not just a screenshot, but actually forward) all the emails, and ask them to investigate the claim of harassment.
• It's based on fairly limited evidence, easily separable from the chaff of the ANI thread, and easily separable from personalities and perspectives and opinions. No guarantees, obviously, but I do think they would be willing to investigate privately, with no on-wiki full-blown case.
• If they do, they will contact SMcC offline to get his side of the story. I very much doubt there would be anything on-wiki to blow up.
• If they don't, then (a) sorry to give you bad advice, and (b) they will give you much better advice.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, Floquenbeam. You clearly get what is going on. I did think of describing it as gaslighting, but feared that might be over-the-top, so it is reassuring to see you can spot that aspect of it.

In the meantime I had received an email from a checkuser who offered to help pass things on, so I sent stuff that way.

I will take your kind advice and send them an email directly, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org.

This is great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm no expert in ArbCom things, but I can't help thinking this one should be relatively simple (and yeah, I hope that doesn't come back to bite me ;-). The evidence is off-wiki email, plus a single ANI section containing accusations. So no great list of participants, no public evidence phase, and all investigated in private. It shouldn't be anything like the great public drama fests that some cases turn into. As long as you're telling the truth (and I'm quite certain you are), I don't see that you have anything to fear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Additing A Biography : Support Request

Hello Brownhairedgirl Josh Eson (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Umm, hello Josh.

Was their any purpose to your post, or is this just a social call? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello

This is a social call to let you know that I for one appreciate all of the good things that you do here. If this was 160 years ago, I would leave a Carte de visite for you. Alas, it is 2019. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. That's kind. I have been much encouraged by recent responses at ANI, and am now feeling a little more confident that this is coming to an end.

I love the notion of an old calling card. I once encountered a stash of printed calling cards in the papers of a long-deceased middle-class relative, from late Victorian Dublin. Below the name etc they had a whole sentence of ornate prose in a hideous italicised font expressing the depth and sincerity of their regret at the mutual misfortune at having called when the the other was not "AT HOME" (capitalised and scare-quoted), and the sincerity and constancy of their best wishes and deep regards. Wish I had kept one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Lines

at the top of your draft t/p seems to be a bit OTT to me. Whilst you have your own choices about handling of user-space stuff, I don't foresee about how enabling a free-for-all discussion during the brain-storming-stage will lead to acute disruption. At any case, I made a comment over there but have self-reverted. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 11:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric, I'd love to agree with you ... but I kept it closed in part because of my experience previous discussions with on editor in this area who posted multi-screenful rambling replies to anything, and in part to try to get some initial work done quickly.

And I've already had one mega-drama of acute disruption from an angry editor looking for a fight. If that sorta stuff was kept, the page would be a mess.

I dunno yet if this exercise will work, but it seems to me to be worth trying to iron out the wrinkles in a draft before putting it out to open development.

It's a pity that you didn't respect my request to post here rather than on the draft talk, but thanks for self-reverting.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Multi-screenful rambling replies? I checked the t/p but do not seem to locate anything. Sorry,I was unaware of the standoff between you and SMC. Sigh.

I did not spot the red lines at top of the t/p, when I got to the section directly (from Popups) and it was when the page reloaded, that I noticed it. An edit notice is more efficient for these purposes. ∯WBG^converse 11:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said, that was my experience previous of discussions with an editor in this area. Not on this page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, brr, that would appear to be a creepy thing to do, under the circumstances. Maybe the user is fine with this, your explanation and self-revert indicates you thought it might be otherwise. So why insert yourself in this way? cygnis insignis 11:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC) my reply tool inserted this without me seeing there were already replies, and the explanation that WBG was unaware of "standoff". cygnis insignis 12:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, sorry? ∯WBG^converse 12:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A(nother) barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	This is the closest symbol to what I am looking for, since the portals have become spam as the Vikings are on the beaches of Ireland. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert! That's v kind.

I share your view of this forest of drive-portals (500 portals in 500–1000 minutes, according to their creator) as spam ... but I am ultimately less concerned about whether my view turns out to align with the consensus than that we do get some stable consensus. I think it's a v bad idea to have so many barely-used and almost content-free uncurated portals, but I think that the worst outcome would be a continuation of the current unresolved deep divide. The community really needs some sort of broad and stable consensus on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is even more important to arrive at a consensus. It won't be a broad consensus in that it won't have the support of 75% of the community, but it will be sufficient that it be agreed to be what we have agreed on. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Aha. If two sections on a talk page have the same title, navigation goes to the first one, and the last one is usually what is intended. That's not a bug, and not a feature; it's just the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Robert, I work off a levels-of-consensus model which I first encountered in about 1982, from the Seneca Falls Peace Camp in New York.

1. Endorse
2. Don't endorse, but will support if group chooses it
3. Don't endorse, and if group chooses it, I'll not help implement
4. if group chooses it, I'll campaign against it
5. If group chooses it, I quit

Sometimes, the best we can get is decent majority of ppl at level 3 or better. But I hope can do better than that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment and Request

The majority of Wikipedians appear to be in agreement against expanded portals, so that you and the group will probably be at level 1 or 2, but at least 3.

If you file a Request for Arbitration, please notify me on my talk page, so that I can add a statement asking the ArbCom to accept it. I see several issues that should be considered by ArbCom (although ArbCom normally prefers to do as little as they can). The issues are not limited to conduct by SMcC. I think that it may be appropriate to authorize ArbCom discretionary sanctions for deletion discussions.

If another of the deletion discussions becomes unpleasant or there is another case at WP:AN or WP:ANI about portals, I will go ahead and file an Arbitration Request myself. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		I felt this was an appropriate barnstar for keeping your cool - my initial thoughts on that ANI were a long way off, and I wanted to both apologise and thank you for keeping calm as it rolled on. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Nosebagbear. That's very kind of you, tho I'm not sure how calm I really was!

For what it's worth, I think that few of us get many things right the first time. The most important thing is being willing to change one's mind as the evidence changes, and you have done just that. That's gold-dust. Hang onto it!

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Unsolicited private editing comment

In light of your recent travails, here is an unsolicited suggestion for keeping your drafts private until you're ready for public interaction. There are many ways to do this, here's a simple one I sometimes use. Save your drafts in a notepad document. Then, use the editors you are comfortable with, but always preview, never save. Keep copying your draft to the notepad document. When you are ready and willing for those who stalk your draft space to collaborate, save your edit. I apologize in advance if this is in any way annoying; I just thought you might find it helpful.Jacona (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jacona, and thanks v much for that suggestion. But I won't be taking it up.

I did my initial drafting offline, as I often do ... but when I wanted input from others I was determined to do it openly. I really dislike offline plotting, and in 13 years on Wikipedia I have never to discuss any substantive policy or content issues by email. I use email sparingly (normally <10 emails a year), to sort out personal misunderstandings. If a discussion looks like getting into content or policy, I take it back on-wiki.

That actually worked well in this case. My draft page had 180 views in its first 3 days, and only one editor decided to ignore the invitees only notice. And that one seemed to be looking for something to have a fight about, so I suspect that if it hadn't been that page which provided the venue for the flare-up, it'd have been something else.

But thanks again for taking the time to write. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tags

The cfr tags have gone awry on some pages, eg Category:Places of worship in England by city, where a closing } is missing. Oculi (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Oculi. I had spotted it, and am fixing them now.

Egg-on-face time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

trout/egg/whatever

couold you close my coffea egg issue please? thnaks JarrahTree 14:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, no egg-on-your-face, @JarrahTree. I had never heard of coffea until I did a bit of burrowing just now.

I'd was going to close as you ask, but then I saw that the merge has support on other grounds. So it's now ineligible for WP:CSK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Closed as ?

It may be helpful to add a closing statement in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks for the headsup, @Marcocapelle.

Some glitch in the save there. It was a no consensus close. Now fixed[13]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Closure of Adminstrators' noticeboard appeal

This is to inform you that I have complied to your request to open a RfC on the subject of the disputed image in Jewish religious clothing. Hopefully, we'll receive greater participation there and, eventually, resolve this issue to the satisfaction of all concerned. Thanks. Davidbena (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Davidbena.

Sorry for the abrupt close[14] at AN, but I wanted to avoid more content-related posts being made at a location which isn't about content.

I hope that the RFC reaches a consensus which all involved can live with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the community does not necessarily have to abide by the results of votes cast on a RfC. Am I correct? For example, if there is a scientific or medical RfC, and the people voting on an issue in those fields are not familiar with the scientific issues, the view of the scientific community with its supportive evidence prevails. Can we say the same thing about this RfC? Davidbena (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, Davidbena. The job of an RFC closer is to weigh consensus against policy and and evidence, not to count heads, so the RFC close should reflect the community's policy-based assessment of whatever evidence is presented. Please do take some time to read and study the core policy WP:Consensus: in summary, you may think that the consensus is wrong, but it still stands.

I strongly urge you to rethink the way you are approaching this whole issue. My preliminary impression is that you are reluctant to use or accept normal consensus-forking processes ... and if that really is the case, it's a path which will eventually end badly for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)us

Actually, I did read somewhere on Wikipedia policy that a RfC is NOT a vote count. It may, indeed, reflect the community consensus, but it is not a vote count. As for accepting the consensus, as you saw we had a consensus not to add the image, and, yet, still, you opted that we take the RfC route.Davidbena (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal RFC draft

Hi BHG,

I think there are some good ideas in there already. However, I think there is one fundamental problem with the current portal discussion, and that is that there is no consensus what portals are there for. Who is the audience? How should the audience be reached? I think that more clarity on the purpose(s) of portals should inform the criteria for portals. Here is my not completely neutral contribution if you are interested. The Wikihistory of portals at the end should be edited mercilessly and improved and not be used as such.

So, what are portals for?

• They can serve a navigational purpose, augmenting lists/categories/navboxes/outlines by an additional sorted and pretty list of links. Portal:Alps is an example. This type of portals is made for readers, to allow them to find related content. They typically require very low maintenance, and could survive without a dedciated WikiProject behind them.
• Portals can be mini-main pages, with DYKs, anniversaries, news and selected articles/pictures, together with some navigational features. Portal:Belgium is an example. This is also made for readers, with the hope that selections serve as clickbait to encourage readers to browse more.
• They can serve as a place for editors to announce and showcase their work. Many portals on the German Wikipedia do this, for example de:Portal:Mainz or de:Portal:Medizin. This is often done in collaboration with related WikiProjects. Here on enwiki, many such pages are often linked to instead of transcluded from the portal, for example Portal:Germany/New article announcements. But Portal:Germany/Did you know is such a showcase, with its archive naming contributors.
• They can serve as places where existing editors ask others for help and attempt to encourage editing. The "Things you can do" section of Portal:Germany is supposed to be such a place. This also works best in collaboration with a WikiProject.
• Some ambitious portals try to do all things at once. de:Portal:Medizin is one of the German "informative portals", their "best" portals. It is a bit overwhelming, but contains lots of great stuff: navigation, several subsets of the category tree with an introduction, who to talk to about medicine articles in the German Wikipedia, lists of the most read articles. It doesn't try to be super-sleek or super-low maintenance, but is absolutely full of content, and encourages contributions.

During Wikipedia's growth phase (when the editorship was growing), many wikiprojects and portals were created, usually for broad topic areas. Those were often of the more ambitious type that only works with a dedicated team of maintainers and project organisers and cheerleaders. I myself played that role for Portal:Germany and the associated Wikiproject back in 2006/7. In the following years, portal creation focussed more on the navigational aspects, and many fairly static navigation portals were made. Portal activity died down, and the Featured Portal process died in its sleep in 2017. When the shutdown of the portal namespace was suggested in 2018, many of the old "manual maintenance" portals were in terrible condition, transcluding nonexistent monthly selected articles not updated for years. Some people think full automation is the answer. I disagree, because I still want portals aspire to the ideal of being everything: being there for readers and editors and potential contributors and to show off what you have recently written. That kind of things only works with dedicated maintainers. (At Portal:Germany, Gerda Arendt does a great job with the DYKs, I update everything else once a year, and a handful of other people write a new news item every couple of months).

None of the types of portals we currently have seems to be working particularly well in terms of readership, though. The dewiki portals don't have all that many readers either. If we can't attract outside readers, we can either give up portals completely or go back to the approach where a portal is the local main page of a WikiProject, mostly there for announcing and praising our work to each other.

Sorry for the wall of text, hope there is something useful for your RfC drafting activity in there somewhere, —Kusma (t·c) 20:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This is very good background and analysis. German Wiki has community endorsed Portal guidelines which I've adapted as a possible solution here [15]. Your feedback would be valuable. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal Issues and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, @Robert McClenon. As I noted[16] at WP:ARC, I think that the community is handling his, and that an Arbcom case would simply divert energies away from the consensus-building processes which are needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:UP#OWN

Please keep in mind that there's no such thing as an "invite-only page" on Wikipedia. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)But there's If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request at WP:NOBAN. PamD 15:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you BrendonTheWizard. V kind of you.

But did you perhaps consider that after 13 years as an admin a few contribs, I might have a bit of an idea about where where policy stands?

Or that maybe I might have grasped the point you seem to have missed that using userpages to hold a small-group drafting discussion on Wiki is not forbidden by WP:UP#OWN? And see Pam's quote above.

Or that the issue has already been raised by me in a big drama at WP:ANI, where there was zero support for another editor's insistence that they had a right to post there if they wanted?

Anyway, have a lovely day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

02

Hi BHG. I thinking how to title this post and the cat walked across the keyboard. I had been considering portals and their O
₂ so I'm leaving it :) The main page of this document once had featured portals, no longer I see, but still has them linked from the top right after "anyone can edit". Has anyone proposed changing that, the apparent elevation of a namespace detached from the foundations of wikipedia and attached by the will of their creators. cygnis insignis 08:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: if you want to propose a change to the main page,the place to start is by making a news subsection of Talk:Main Page#General_discussion.

Those 7 core portals seem to me to be actually okay. Their existence was one of their two mains reasons why WP:ENDPORTALS was rejected. Personally, I supported deleting all portals because losing those 7 okay and well-used portals seemed to me to be a much lesser evil than keeping what was then a total of 1500 portals whose average state was somewhere between mediocre and dire. Sadly, we now have thousands of portals, whose average state varies between dire an abysmal; the good portals are a tiny majority.

But I should say that so long as the 7 portals exist, I would probably not support their removal from that slot, unless there was something clearly better to use the space. So long as those top-level portals exist and are of better-than-average quality, it seems to me they are good candidates for that little slot on front page.

Of course, you have to make up your own mind on what you want to propose. It may be that the consensus will turn out to be a million miles from my view. I just didn't want you to risk leaving any impression that my pointer to how to pursue this was an indication of my support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it is helpful to get your view on this. I have been avoiding reading the previous discussions. My objections are the same as they were ten years ago, and if they were proposed tomorrow, what has played out is an experiment on wikipedia that is detached from its principles and foundations. The effect on the community is a project that promotes the maintenance and creation of pages that are likely vulnerable to deletion in what might appear to the proud creator to be a capricious decision, queue a bunch of disgruntled users who have been woefully misled about the value of their personal opinion in wikipedia's articles and discussion pages. cygnis insignis 22:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

indonesian football

you are brave, most eds in this area do not have english as their native language, and worse.... JarrahTree 10:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I was just cleaning up the non-existent Category:Football clubs in Lampung, which listed on Special:WantedCategories. We'll see if I get flamed for it ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

tak bisa, saya bisa bercakap atau coba mencari kelucuan persona... no problems, btw we have very few good bilinugual admins left in the indonesian and malay speaking part of wp en - JarrahTree 10:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that ... but I'm afraid I'm not going to learn thosee languages just to help out! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

likewise I will never walk the horrenduous plank of RFA for the sake of the huge mess they are assessment wise, terima kasih... JarrahTree 10:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

sequences

I fail to see a valid critique of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1916_murders_by_continent of narrow cat - when oldfactory was playing with the death categories close to 10 years ago - sometimes it took ages for populating - and they were similar to this - a valid sequence well worth keeping and not touching, unless I am missing something - JarrahTree 10:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree, huh? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

imho hugo has created valid sequence of murder in oceania categories - they are not narrow scope - they take time to populate and are not narrow - admittedly it is mot a murder a night like british c class tv shows - but it is valid I reckon JarrahTree 11:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree my complaint to @Hugo999 is that he repeatedly populate categories them without creating them (contrary to WP:REDNOT), and expects others to finish the job which he systematically leaves half-done.

My smallcat comment to Hugo is based on the by-year-by-country categories for countries where en.wp has little coverage, not on the by-year-by-consistent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigurd Ring

Hello! Do you think it's a good idea to have the old article name as his name in the article's text?! That's what I tried to address. Please stop just edit-warring & fix it in a way that's acceptable to you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing, please stop edit-warring to reintroduce an error. Your revert left the page in non-existent categories. I have no view on the other issues, so please feel free make what other changes you like, without breaking the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I had no intention of altering any categories, only went in and updated the name after the move and have no idea how any categories got changed. I didn't do that. As an administrator on English Wikipedia, you have "no view" on whether or not we should have the old article name as the person's name in the article's text? Pardon me, but I find that remarkable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019 at Women in Red

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Reverting category edits

You keep reverting many of my category edits saying "Better to use a category which actually exists" but the categories do exist. At first I just assumed I must have had a typo in the category name (although I usually copy and paste the names, so that's not that likely) but when the number of reverts kept growing, I started checking the previous version of the reverted article, where I am finding that the category does exists and there is nothing wrong. If you are seeing these as redlinks, then I think you have some problem with your computer/browser etc. Thanks Kerry (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kerry

No, there was no browser problem. They were all listed in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in non-existent location categories.

I eventually realised that some of them were OK, despite being in the error category. The problem is bug T33628 in the Wikipedia software, which doesn't refresh the page when the category is created. I guess you must have created the categories after modifying the locations? That would one way to get caught in the bug.

(BTW, nothing wrong with doing that way. It's a flaw in the software)

Anyway, sorry for the un-ndeeded reverts. I'll try in future to remember to purge all the pages before starting revert the errors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

With categories, you can't create them before you use them, because someone deletes them complaining the category is empty. So you have to make them after you first use them. If I had created the 100-or-so new categories I knew needed up front (which would be a logical way to do the task), then none of the categories would have been redlinks, but most/all of those categories would have been deleted before my first use of them since the overall task took me about two weeks and the first use could have occurred anywhere in that time. We have two policies (no empty categories, no redlink categories) which mean it's not actually possible to create a category within our policy framework. There is no policy nor framework for larger projects which need to be done in a more systematic way so we are forced to things in an ad hoc way which in turn creates more one-off errors. Kerry (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW, you mentioned "they were all listed in" but didn't say what list you were referring to. What was that? I am interested to see if it is a way I can track the problem myself to speed up the process. Kerry (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, @Kerry, the underlying problem here is a software bug: T33628.

That's why Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in non-existent location categories reported a problem which had in fact been resolved. So I was mostly chasing a phantom; there were a few remaining redinks, but mostly not.

The way I do a job like that is to create the categories as I go. Edit a page, find a redlink create the category. If I see a series of categories, I create the series, then promptly populate each with one page, and fill them up at my leisure. That's what I did today with the subcats of Category:Musicians from Northern Ireland by county.

The tracking category for such errors is Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in non-existent location categories. Every 3 days, non-existent but non-empty categories are listed at Special:WantedCategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Your experience might be different to mine, because you're an administrator, I am not. I suspect other admins aren't going to rush to delete your categories with same zealous enthuasiasm as they delete mine. Re the error category. Thanks but I see it is specific to requested photo categories. I was hoping for a tool that would find me any redlink category I had used, as my usual problem relates to "ordinary" categories not admin categories like requested photos. If we had tools like that, people could clean up after themselves but when you get redlinks created as consequence of using templates (my situation), you don't see any "red" on the template use to warn you. For example, I found that having the preference to see disambiguation links in orange, easily allowed me to spot I was linking to disambiguation pages and correct them on the spot. I'm sure there used to be a preference to display categories at the top of an article (which would make it easier to see redlink ones) but that preference seems to have disappeared (or at least I can't find it any more). Kerry (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kerry, you'll still see the red when you save the page in a non-existent category. Even anon IPs get that.

And if you want to track all non-empty red cats, then Special:WantedCategories is there and needs no privileges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Again our experience is different here too. Categories don't display automatically on a mobile device, but you can enable them in Preferences (I think it's one of the gadgets) but I don't think anon IPs can do that as Preferences are linked to accounts. But, even with categories being displayed, on a small screen, categories are displayed so far away from the area of the article you are viewing/editing you are unlikely to see them regardless of colour (hence my desire for the old preference to display them at the top when you are actively working with them). So a mobile user might never even know about categories, and so has no way of knowing about the side-effect of using a template involves a category. Because of my disability I can't use a large screen so I use a tablet or very small screen laptop, but I do have to use it in desktop mode (because it's almost impossible to edit in mobile mode) which means I get only a fraction of the screen real estate to actually display the chunk of the article I am working so if there is a side-effect happening off screen, then I won't see it. It would be better if you got a warning when you try to Save that there are redlinked categories (or redlinked anything really). Then you would know and take action as appropiate. Having said that, Commons does have exactly that warning about missing categories, but you still get the warning even when you have created the category recently, so the system trains you to ignore the warnings as you assume they are "yet another false alarm"; I am guessing that this is the same lag problem with the categories on Commons. Clearly fixing this lag would solve a lot of problems. Kerry (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kerry, I hadn't realised you were using a mobile device. I have never used one on en.wp, but from what you describe it seems that they are simply unsuitable for categorisation work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Free and open-source software categories

Hi BrownHairedGirl, thanks for updating the category names for free and open-source software articles. I was unsure of how to do this efficiently, and you saved me a lot of work while showing the best way to handle this.

I do have a question: since the project page move turned the WikiProject into a task force, would it still be appropriate to continue using the {{WikiProject Free and open-source software}} template (which refers to it as a WikiProject) on talk pages? Or would it be better to fold the template into {{WikiProject Computing}}, which indicates that the project is a task force? — Newslinger talk 06:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Indonesian portals

If you would like to offer a detailed repsonse on wiki or off wiki why I think your nomination is/was totally out of order - you are most welcome to your choice of venue. Or if you dont wish to discuss the subject - thats fine as well, I leave it up to you, and in the end it doesnt bother me - but as I was the individual who first asked transhumanist to help create them - I figure you could actually have a rationale from the origins of that set of portals - rather than what has happened so far JarrahTree 14:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree

1. I discuss Wiki issues on-wiki. I use email only to smooth over misunderstandings, or (v occasionally) to give discreet advice about conduct. So if you have anything substantive to say, please say it on wiki.
2. I nominated one Indonesian portal: Portal:Jambi. Here's the nomination as I made it: [17].
3. If you have some reasoned response to the evidence I presented at MfD, then you should state it at the MfD. I note that your response at the MfD does not even try to address my rationale for deletion: the entire tree of Category:Jambi+subcats contains only 18 non-stub, non-biographical articles, so it does not even meet the risibly low bare minimum of 20 set by the fans of mass-created auto-portals at WP:WPPORT.
4. The fact that neither you nor TTH bothered to check how many articles were involved before creating the portal is a sad illustration of the disgraceful lack of scrutiny involved in TTH's wave of portalspam.
5. It is sad that you have come here to tell me that I am "totally out of order" without providing any reasoning in policy, procedure or evidence. Like all consensus-forming discussions on Wikipedia, MfD relies on reasoned debate. Unsupported comments like "totally out of order" add no value to the discussion, and are part of the sad but widespread personalisation of debate by those who advocate portalspam. If arbcom case does open a case, I will cite this one small (and relatively mild) example of the attitudinal and conduct problems of those who advocate portalpsam.

Bet wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I do hope that was best and not bet. I realise I misread the tfd totally, and I am sorry for that, and I have no interest in the tfd wars - judge me as you like.

My unreserved apology for my over-reaction, I honestly couldnt be bothered wasting your time or mine any more - I was more concerned Monk (TV series) wise for the completeness of the set, and I can see your interest in the background to it - the set of articles that go to make the background. If you wish to tar me as a portalspam enthusiast simply because I felt that the smaller scope portals from under-edited areas of the Indonesia should be kept that is your call. I have not interest in the tfd arguments from either side. I had had on my talk page an instruction how to make more portals,(which I never followed up) and have converses the th - hopefully that does not constitute an issue. I regularly leave welcome messages for editors who are found to be socks, or who get blocked - and I dont have a message on my talk - I am not responsible for the actions of those whom I interact with (maybe we all should for a range of reasons) I simply wanted to be stridently defensive of the Indonesian content which I have dealt with for ten years plus, and find under considerable erosion of integrity from a wide range of sources. I do hope we have further visits in the Indonesian project where you can help the admin process as we have so few eds or admins left actually doing positive things, thanks for what you have done so far.

Have fun. JarrahTree 00:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I only become aware the delightful irony of being unaware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal_Issues until after this discussion... I really see there is indeed fun. enjoy. JarrahTree 07:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal_Issues

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I'm Cameron11598 and I am one of the Arbitration Committee's clerks. Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal_Issues has exceeded the 500 word limit. Unfortunately you will need to collapse excess portions of your statement or myself or one of the other clerks may do so to enforce the word limit. Thank you for your time in this matter. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cameron

Is it enough to use {{Collapse top}}|{{Collapse bottom}}? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That should work. Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cameron, I make this[18] a reduction to 390 words. Is that OK? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That works thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

thanks

for the three men in the boat explanation - it all seemed a bit weird JarrahTree 00:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree, you're welcome. It sure was v weird. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor

• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive

• In the media: Women's history month

• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding

• Featured content: Out of this world

• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM

• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations

• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles

• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive

• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention

• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion

• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37

• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?

• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch

• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi - We have categories for example for Category:Harvard Law School faculty and Category:Deans of Harvard Law School. I tried to set up a Deans category for Brooklyn Law School a couple of days ago - but that hasn't been acted on (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects&action=edit&section=38), and you deleted the categories from deans themselves. Was I too quick? --2604:2000:E010:1100:BC9D:F3C9:280C:5387 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not taken a view on whether the category should exist. But right now it does not exist, and pages should not be added to a non-existent category. See WP:REDNOT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I see. It is different than the "red link articles is ok if likely to be created" approach. Now I see. 2604:2000:E010:1100:BC9D:F3C9:280C:5387 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Closed discussion and move

Hello,

Do you have any clue why Category:Ambassadors of the European Union to the Republic of Macedonia does not seem to have been moved to Category:Ambassadors of the European Union to North Macedonia, unlike all other categories in the Macedonia and international organisations CfD? Place Clichy (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Place Clichy

Thanks for spotting that.

ISTR that when Cydebot took an unscheduled holiday a week or two ago, some CFDs were implemented manually. I think thank that WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 15#Macedonia_and_international_organisations got caught up in that, so that one must have been omitted.

I will process it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to you! There was one single article, but I preferred to have it treated by someone used to discussion post-closure than moving it myself! Place Clichy (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. As closer, it was my job to get it right first time. Thanks for being so nice about my screw-up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Saftzie

Hi! I'm Saftzie. I have moved from ShoutWiki. I am an admin there. Saftzie (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Saftzie. Welcome to Wikipedia, but please don't use it for promotional purposes. (See WP:NOTPROMO).

That message looks like pure promotion, so please don't do that again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay! Got it! Sorry! I was telling you where I am from. Saftzie (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits

Discussion moved to User talk:Lester R. Brown#COI_editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

I got your message about editing Lester R. Brown's page and see that all my changes have been undone! A bit disturbing. I am his assistant and he asked me to make changes to this. What do I need to do to be able to edit this?

Thanks for any help you can provide...

Lester R. Brown (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ok, then!

Got your message, dayam! So harsh! Talk about abuse! You have many glaring mistakes on his page, including a misspelling of his name, but if this is how you do business, so be it. We won't try to edit (correct) it anymore. What's the point of having the edit function if you can't do it? Just saying...

17:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lester R. Brown (talk • contribs)

@Lester R. Brown: The purpose is make it easy for anyone to join in editing, subject to editing policies. I am sorry that you find the concept of a conflict of interest to be "harsh", but it is part of the distinction between an encyclopedia and social media. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft RFC Update?

Hi BHG, is there any update you can give to "the public" concerning the effort to craft a portal RfC? Anything editors can do to help move this portal issue forward? Thanks! Leviv ich 14:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Levivich

Thanks for your msg, and sorry for the silence. I took a break from the discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria when the shitstorm erupted as I was bizarrely accused of "gaming the system" and several other spurious charges. When that died down, the matter ended up as arbcom case request, which took more time and had more diversions (see here), I didn't feel like going back to it while that was still live. Arbcom seems to be heading towards rejecting the case, and leaving it to the community to find solutions. I hadn't even visited the draft page in two weeks while all the drama was underway ... but now that this seems likely again to be a matter for the community to resolve, the RFC needs attention again.

I think it's an open question now whether we continue to try this path of a small group creating a draft proposal, or consider some other approach. I'd welcome your thoughts on that, Levivich.

And what about my two collaborators, @Bermicourt and @Legacypac? Sorry for my inactivity ... but do you think we should restart our work on that draft?

My concern in this remains is that the community should discuss the issues at an RFC with some framework, with a range of specific proposals to consider. That way, the discussion will have some focus. I still want to do my best to ensure that the RFC proposal does not skew discussion in any particular direction. I doubt that any draft can cover all possibilities, but I do hope that it can include as many as possible of the options which may attract non-trivial support.

Are we on the right path? Or should we just say "we tried, but the storm was too big and we're giving up"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

PS I should stress all discussions I have had about the Draft RFC have been on-wiki, and I want to keep it that way. So anything there is on it is public. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the right path. I fear that a A123 B123 C123 multiple choice RFC will not get to a coherent result. The German model has merit, with votes up or down being simplier. However invariably some people will find any proposal that says X to be too strict or too loose. Maybe not enough people will find any proposal just right to pass. That leaves the existing guideline, which some portal fans say does not apply to them at all (diffs available). The MfDs are building precedent in some policy areas but it is a long slow process. I wish I knew the magic answer. I wish the portal fans would put forward something they could live with for an RFC but the WikiProject discussions have failed to achieve any consensus. Perhaps a series of RFCs to incrimentally change the guidelines is the answer. One on scope (number of articles), several on subject matter (BLPs, single persons, single companies, geographic metrics, groups of species etc), another on the inclusion or exclusion of references (up until 2014 some portals had references, but the refs were causing display errors so 4 to 6 people agreed to trash all the refs) Legacypac (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

BHG, it should go without saying, but of course neither you nor any other volunteer-with-no-deadline ever needs to apologize for not somehow being faster in putting out fires you didn't start. The time that you and others have put into trying to resolve this is greatly appreciated. Here are my thoughts, but please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the situation or the history (and based on my understanding, I hope I am misunderstanding).

• The Arbcom case request will be denied. All AN proposals are dead. The ANI threads won't be helpful. The various WT:POG proposals are not going anywhere.
• There are two distinct categories of portals at issue:
  1. Roughly 4,000 "automated portals" that were created (or converted from old portals) with a non-WP:BAG-approved script in an automated process that took less than a minute per portal, as described here
  2. Roughly 1,000 "non-automated portals", which is basically all other portals, including "handmade" and "original" portals
• The community has handled unauthorized mass-creation of pages in two ways in the past:
  • Fram mentioned at AN that previous mass-creations were mass-deleted, for example the cases of User:Sander.v.Ginkel, User:Dr. Blofeld, and User:Jaguar. (I don't know where to find links to those discussions.)
  • In the case of User:Neelix's redirects, they were not mass-deleted, but rather went through MfD one by one (link to the 1.2MB full list of redirects). This process started around November 2015 and took two and a half years, until March 2018. (Glancing through that full list, it seems like the majority are currently deleted. Is there a tool that can count the exact amount?)
• The two categories of portals (automated and non-automated) should be handled separately.
  • Though the X3 proposal at AN closed as no consensus, I have hope that consensus can still be reached because there was almost 2:1 numerical support, it was held at WP:AN and not WP:VPP, the conversation was muddied, and most importantly, unlike when the thread at AN started, we now have data about portal MfD results. So, perhaps a new proposal at VPP regarding mass-deletion of the unauthorized-mass-created portals (were they all script-created?), which lays out (in a neutral way) the facts about how many there are, how they were created, MfD results, and the outcome of WP's past experiences with similar situations, and that takes into consideration the feedback generated from the various discussions so far, with separate Yes/No survey and discussion sections.
  • As for the rest, and the general question of criteria for the creation/deletion of portals, I agree with Lpac's suggestion of multiple RfCs proposing specific changes to WP:POG. I think the draft in your user-space is worth continuing with to workshop and prepare the proposed RfCs, and I can already see a few RfC questions seem like they're nearly ready to be posed.
• I think any proposals should be made, if possible, by a panel of 2 or 3 experienced administrators, who are, after all, the "janitors" elected to help clean up the wiki, so as to clearly make the proposals depersonalized and neutral (and ward off any complaints of "disruption", etc.). Thank you again for the time that you and many others have put into this, including reading this long rant :-) Leviv ich 20:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A couple points. The Neelix cleanup did get X1 speedy but we had to analyze and tag each one. Most were not run through RfD, though the edge cases were, and clearly good ones were checked and deleted from the cleanup lists. It was a long painfully slow time wasting process that saw maybe 70% deleted and a whole lot of useless but harmless left alone. The alternative was to nuke the lot with no prejudice to recreation of useful redirects.

[19] is really enlightening. The "no consensus" close, made by the Admin that forced an extension to a month for the whole thing when many editors were expecting a one week discussion, looks like a !supervote. Support 22 Oppose 14 I'd not counted votes yet. I assumed User:GoldenRing did that correctly, because I have much respect for them. We were so sure that X3 was going to happen after a week that there was an implementation discussion at CSD talk gearing up for the inevitable. What would be the process to overturn GoldenRing's close on X3? Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

By my count, out of 46 editors who !voted on Proposal 4: 27 supported; 11 opposed because the discussion should have been somewhere other than AN, because the X3 should have a longer "waiting period", or because it should be a P2 expansion or PortalPROD instead of a new X3 criteria ("procedural opposes"); 1 opposed but could support with an exception; and the remaining 7 opposed mass deletion generally. Leviv ich 00:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That is an even better count Levivich. We should try to overturn the close. MFD has now been broken by portal spam nominations. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is what that count is based on:

Supports

1. Iridescent
2. SerialNumber54129
3. Legacypac
4. CoolSkittle
5. Kusma
6. Johnbod
7. eggofreason
8. Beyond My Ken
9. Hut 8.5
10. Robert McClenon
11. Fram
12. Rlin8
13. Fish and karate
14. RGloucester
15. SemiHypercube
16. UnitedStatesian
17. Susmuffin
18. K.e.coffman
19. BrownHairedGirl
20. Reywas92
21. Levivich
22. Bilorv
23. Bermicourt ("with exceptions")
24. Ealdgyth
25. StraussInTheHouse
26. John M Wolfson
27. Arthur Rubin

Opposes

1. AfroThundr3007730
2. Guilherme Burn
3. Triptothecottage ("a) on procedural grounds this shouldn't be discussed at the AN 'closed shop' and b) because these portals are doing no harm so great that they can be deleted without due process")
4. RockMagnetist
5. Waggers
6. Crazynas
7. ɱ
8. Alanscottwalker
9. Thryduulf ("I could support something that explicitly excluded portals which are in use and/or are being developed...")
10. SmokeyJoe (discussion at AN not CSD)
11. SMcCandlish (discussion at AN not VPPOL)
12. Paine Ellsworth ("per SmokeyJoe et al")
13. wumbolo ("WP:P2 covers unnecessary portals, and there is no rationale presented other than WP:IDLI to delete a large proportion of all of them, which were all kept after a RfC in 2018 [ed: this is not what was being proposed]. The next time content policies are created at AN by the cabal of admins, I am retiring from Wikipedia")
14. Wugapodes ("Strong oppose per wumbolo below: criterion P2 already covers a number of these, the rest should be discussed. I still stand by my original comment which follows this addition... [Original comment:] Weak oppose on principle...I'm fine with nuking these portals and not opposed to deleting them, any diamonds in the rough will prove their worth by being created again, but I would prefer one big MfD with the rationale 'created by The Transhumanist')
15. NorthAmerica1000 (P2 not X3)
16. Nosebagbear (PortalPROD instead of X3)
17. Gaelan ("CSD is for stuff where there's zero grey area. At best, this should be a specialized PROD.")
18. Tavix ("expanding P2, Portal PROD, and even MFD")
19. pythoncoder ("...should be dealt with preferably quickly, but this proposal as written is not the right way to do it...at least a longer waiting period so users may object")

Also, much thanks to BHG for that brilliant MfD bundle. Leviv ich 22:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I ever had anything deleted enmass Levivich without my consent. German politicians were the only ones I think because some were BLPs. I agree that mass creations aren't a good idea but in the early days on here I felt like I was doing a much needed thing getting us to branch in different areas worldwide. A lot of my stubs were expanded and are now half decent, a lot weren't, the project is still a working development. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect a response to the ping! Thank you for your many contributions over the years. This was all long, long before my time here; I only mentioned you because someone else had mentioned you (along with others). Anyway, I went digging and I did get a kick out of reading, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe, "God give us a few weeks to expand a few of them.", and then looking, ten years later, at Claus Peter Poppe. Leviv ich 00:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

AWB for CFD tagging

How do you persuade AWB to fill in the correct target (for the rename) in edits like this one? I've looked for clues in the documentation but find nothing. Oculi (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oculi, I wrote a Custom Module for AWB which I hack about as needed on a case-by-case basis. Modules are written in C#, which is not a language I now well, but I have learnt how to hack it about enough to do some simple tasks like that. I would be happy to email you the module if you like ... but my code is crude and undocumented, so you would have to assume full responsibility for understanding what the code does, and be able to amend it as needed for your purposes. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 13 for some of the complexities which can be involved.

So lemme know if you'd like the email. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Excellent - please do send the module; caveats noted. I think my email is enabled. Oculi (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal Issues RFArb

This is a courtesy notice that the portal issues RFArb has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC for organisations/organizations categories

Well done for launching Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC:_spelling_of_"organisation"/"organization"_in_descriptive_category_names with such a clear explanation.

I was going to say "Congratulations...", but that could be premature. – Fayenatic London 07:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayenatic. I had been meaning to start that RFC for at least a year, but never quite got my head around how to explain it even half-clearly. I realised yesterday that we currently have 4 open full CFDs on this issue, plus more being listed at CFDS so regularly that there's almost always several on the page. So I re-read the current full CFDs and saw some v thoughtful comments by @Rathfelder and Oculi: which gave me confidence that they could be part of the basis of a possibly-coherent RFC proposal.

It's early days yet, but at least it hasn't been shot down in flames at the outset. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have been saying for some years at cfd that 'ize' is perfectly acceptable UK English but had expected no progress. The average cfd on this topic attracts more vehemence than the rfc has generated thus far (astonishingly). If this rfc succeeds in advocating zee throughout, is that then implemented or is cfd still required? Oculi (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You have indeed been saying that for some years, @Oculi, and I was a slow convert to your good sense. Sorry.

If the the RFC passes in favour of standarisation, whether complete or partial, then WP:NCCAT should be updated accordingly. Then WP:C2B & WP:C2C can be used to speedily rename the remaining "S" spellings.

It's early days, but so far I am pleasantly surprised by the responses. As of right now, after nearly 3 days, the tally is 16 support, 5 oppose, 2 compromise. That is 69.5% support ... but fingers crossed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Al-Feiha FC

A tag has been placed on Category:Al-Feiha FC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This category has been superseded by Category:Al-Fayha FC, so it's no longer needed. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Please watch out for Wikidata links in cases like this. The abandoned spelling Category:Al-Feiha FC was the one that had been linked to two Arabic Wikipedias, and those links would have been lost by deleting the old English page. I've merged the Wikidata records for the two spellings now. – Fayenatic London 13:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

AWB modules question

Hi. You seem to know a lot about AWB modules. I know that there is an option to restrict adding "orphan" tags to pages with exactly 0 incoming links - is there a way for a module to access the number of incoming links? Eg, from the category of orphaned articles, skip all those with 2 or fewer links, but if it has at least 3 then remove the tag. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, @DannyS712, but my 40 years of programming has nearly all been a matter of quick-and-dirty hacking. (My crude coding did actually once win me 5 minutes of global fame, but that's a story which I won't expand at all publicly). In the last year or two I have been using modules quite prolifically, but a creator of elegant code like you would be horrified at the crudeness of some of my modules, and at the number of revisions the drafts need before they will even compile, let alone pass the first tests.

So my answer to your question is "not that I am aware of". As far as I know, modules can access only the text of the page. I have managed to stretch that capability a bit by substing in custom templates in my userspace which perform more checks. For example. User:BHG/linklist might be {{#ifexist: List of {{{1}}}s|something|something else}}, and I'd add a call to subst it with a parameter derived from the page text), but that isn't always viable.

I am v happy to share what little I know, but I am more yer mum's school sewing kit than a couturier. You'll find much more skilled people on the AWB talk pages, or at WP:VPT (which is full of v helpful quick-responding super-wizards).

Hope this helps at least a wee bit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, and for calling my code elegant. But, its really not - take a look at User:DannyS712/Cat links 3/CL helper.js :) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

2600:1:9229:E205:6470:C6C1:2065:4ACF

I do not block IP indef. But why you did? Hhkohh (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Hhkohh. I guess it was because I am tired. I will knock it back to 1 week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the range was blocked for a month fyi --DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Psst

Okay, so I ran into this issue the other day when I closed a topic on AN/I - When you closed the section you didn't {{abottom}} the bottom of the convo which caused the template to continue to the end of the page. Is that the right thing to do? Or am I forgetting something? Just curious since I literally just did the same thing myself. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Dusti. I spotted that there was an ec when I went to save my close, so reloaded and forgot to ad the bottom. Thanks for the fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course! So that is the right template then? I've been gone for a couple of years and I'm trying to work out the things I've forgotten lol. It's amazing what I remember, thought. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For an effective way to propose the deletion of more than one thousand portals that were recklessly created, saving months of work. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Robert McClenon. It took me a while to figure how to use AWB to identify those which met all the criteria I set out at MFD:Mass-created portals based on a single navbox, but once I got the custom module working and tested, it wasn't too big a job.

The community now has a central venue where it can make a decision on whether to keep this type of portal. We will see where the consensus lands ... and if there is a consensus to delete this batch in this way, then I will nominate the rest of TTH's creations which meet the same criteria.

And if there is not a consensus to delete, then will have a better understanding of the community's view on how to proceed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

[20] really? You gonna do a second MfD? I've stopped nominating TTH creations because you are picking them up. Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac, Yes, really.

I honestly thought that adding the extra portals would help all sides by allowing everyone to make one decision on the issue (per WP:MULTI), but some editors don't see it that way. I clearly misjudged the mood.

There is no benefit in having anyone feeling that there might have been some underhand intent, or in having the substance of the discussion lost in a procedural wrangle, so the only sensible step was to apologise for my good faith error and promptly withdraw the additions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Both good moves. One editor is sure pushing hard against any path forward and continues to throw out wild accusations. I'm going to keep bundling in smaller noms with a focus on non-TTH creations. Legacypac (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Legacypac.

But look, I am concerned that you are flooding MFD with far too many simultaneous discussions. We now have one major discussion open on a point which, if accepted, will result in the removal of a very high proportion of TTH's creations. If consensus doesn't favour deletion of the 1390, then we will have learnt where consensus actually stands.

Rather than opening yet more discussions, t would be much better to let MFD digest the very large number of nominations already open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I will take the request to let MFD digest the large number of portal nominations that we have so far as being addressed to me, to User:Legacypac, and to a small number of other MFD regulars. Okay. I will stop nominating portals for deletion for a week or so, until we get through the current batch of a thousand-plus, with the possible exception of any recent (since April 2018) creations by members of the portal platoon other than TTH. However, I will be raising a few issues about portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm holding off on new noms unless I find something irresistible but I am trying to use Category:All portals to build out a list of all the company/product portals not already up for deletion. We have good precedent on companies including the biggest names. Many are created by other Portal people and will not be swept up in a TTH mass nom. Any help bundling would be appreciated. Also found another bird one so bundled. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions About Portal Review

Single Navbox

How do I recognize a portal that is based on a single navbox? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Taratill123456

Who is Taratill123456? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

They have found a hole in WP:ACPERM.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes

Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

Kingturtle

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I could use a bit of help with Gwadar

Goodday, I am a relatively minor contributor to Wikipedia and do not usually really bother with this kind of stuff. In short, I do not really know what to do, and you are the first administrator I came across, so I assume you can help me. There is this page Gwadar that is been getting a lot of editing in wich the spellings Gwadar, Gowadar and Gawadar are used interchangeably. From what I read up on Gwadar is the correct English spelling, but I don;t want to devolve into edit wars. What should I do if these edits keep occuring? Zombles (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 1,426 portals for deletion

Hi BrownHairedGirl, are the above portals only those created by The Transhumanist? I created 4 during the same time but they appear not to be included as they're not tagged. However, although I created them using the automated facility, I'm willing to maintain them manually; in fact, I am already doing that for Portal:Card games and can do so for the 3 Austrian states. To be honest, the main hurdle is working out how the auto-features work and how, in some cases, to override or supplement them. Bermicourt (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt

Yes, the selection process for WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox is as set out in some detail on that page, and the nominated portals are listed on that page. The list is a subset of the portals created by TTH, and all the nominated portals were tagged within a few hours of nomination. No portals created by any other editor are included.

I remain unpersuaded that any of these automated portals is useful, especially when they are simply a restyling of a single navbox, as with each of the 1,390 pages at that MFD.

In the case of Portal:Card games, it is built on two navboxes, so it would have been excluded from that MFD even if it was a TTH creation. But since both of those are transcluded at the bottom of the head article Card games, it seems to me that the portal adds no value. In most respects it is a deficient version of the head article.

As is the case with nearly every portal, viewers agree with that assessment. The 60/day average pageviews for Portal:Card games is only 5 views per day, versus 758 views per day for the head article. It astonishes me that some editors have put so much effort in creating and defending pages when the stats have shown consistently for years that viewers clearly do not want. Obviously, it's up to how you spend your donated time and energy, but I do think it's a pity that your evident talents are being deployed on navigational aids which viewers shun and and which a large chunk of the editorial community would happily WP:TNT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a portal that stays in its initial automated state may not add much value other than possibly pulling information together that may be scattered around.

I have added a limited degree of automation on otherwise manual portals e.g. to rotate images or 'articles of the month', but I choose the images and write the article 'tasters'. I'm not a fan of e.g. automatically importing the lede or every photo from the main article.

Portal:Card games is IMHO a valid topic, but is far from finished. As a card player myself, I want to develop it into the sort of tool I'd want to use if I came to Wikipedia cold. Part of the reason that hasn't yet happened, ironically, is that I can't see how to undo some of the automation and was also nervous about the reaction of portal zealots if I did. And I don't like importing navboxes. That's not how I build a portal; I select topics and group them by area and alphabetically, providing way more coverage in a more attractive way than a dumb navbox.

Your point about viewings is important. However, rather than giving up on them, I'd prefer to raise the profile of portals. One reason for the low views is that they never appear when searching. That's not smart. When I type in "Canada", I'd like to see the main article, but also "Portal:Canada" as a close second. Whether it's flagged at the top of the main article or in the search box or in some other way, I don't mind. But I think it's something we should experiment with. If we did, I think we'd get a lot more hits. Or you'd be proven right lol! At least we'd know.

Don't worry, I don't spend most of my time on portals. My forte is translation and that's where I try to add value. :) Bermicourt (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bermicourt, I tried that raise-the-profile thing; in fact I have probably done more of it that any other editor. By adding portal links to the templates which create a swathe of by-year categories, I created several hundred thousand new links to portals. Yet even the most heavily-linked portals still had abysmally low viewing figures.

That's why I supported WP:ENDPORTALS. When it was launched, I studied the effect of what I and others had done, and found that promotion had almost no effect; views usually remain about 1/200th of the head article's views, and arising them to 1/50th is rare, top league stuff. I don't think that reasons are hard to explain:

1. Wikipedia pages are so heavily interlinked that even a modestly well-written head article on a topic is of itself a portal. This isn't like the mid-1990s web, when web pages were mostly plain text with a few links at the top and the bottom; rich interlinking is now the norm, and portals are redundant.
2. Search. As web analysts such as Jakob Nielsen noted as early as 1998, good search killed navigation, because users found it much easier to search than to navigate a website's menu structures. That's why search suddenly became de rigeur on web sites, and why the major web portals such as Yahoo fell off a cliff. Readers simply don't need portals any more; they are like road atlases in the era of satnav. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Child actors by medium has been nominated for discussion

Category:Child actors by medium, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Mount Juliet, Tennessee has been nominated for discussion

Category:WikiProject Mount Juliet, Tennessee, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Heck of a good idea

Category:Redirected portals with existing subpages thanks. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Tks, Legacypac. There will be several more categories in that set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Somewhere there is a listing of all portal space pages. The ones that are orphaned subpages jump out on it. There are scores there. Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I know, this is based on some quarry queries, which produced enormous datasets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi folks, could you please explain what a 'redirected portal' is? Bermicourt (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bermicourt, a 'redirected portal' is a portal page which is a WP:Redirect to another portal title.

e.g. Portal:Death metal is redirected to Portal:Heavy metal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, BHG, that makes sense. Bermicourt (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

juvenile trolling collapsed

You mean, better redirect than delete? Agree! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC) @Gerda Arendt, please resist the juvenile temptation to put words in my mouth. AFAIK, I have not created any of the redirects, and five seconds checking would show you that this is a tracking category. It is part of a part of a wider process of tracking the history of old-style manual portals, as set out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Portals#Identifying_old-style_portals, which arises from yet another discussion at WP:AN (permalink). If you don't have anything constructive to say, try just saying nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC) I put no words in your mouth, I asked. I was wrong, thank you for clarifying, and for amusing me by "juvenile temptation". Nothing to say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC) No, @Gerda Arendt, you clearly attributed an opinion to me which I neither expressed nor inferred. If it was merely a question, you wouldn't have followed it with I agree. Now get lost (i.e stay off my talk page) until you can behave like an adult. --11:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sortkeys with slash

I noticed Category:2016 in Texas is listing Category:2016 disestablishments in Texas‎ and Category:2016 establishments in Texas under a slash. It's caused by the sortkey /Disestablishments in {{DisestcatUSstate/core}} and /Establishments in {{EstcatUSstate/core}}. Why a slash? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, it's convention which I invented for (dis)establishment categories, now implemented via various templates on over 50,000 such cats.

I wanted a single character sort which could group establishments and disestablishments together, rather than having jumbled up with the rest of the year's listing of assorted topics. So I looked for one which was a) not already widely used, and b) came before the numbers in the ASCII character set. Slash fitted both those criteria.

Do you think it's a bad idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

PS its benefits are clearer if you looked at a more heavily-populated category, such Category:2016 in the United States, Category:2016 in the United Kingdom or even Category:2016 in Spain. In each case, it would be confusing to have the (dis)estabs sorted under D or E. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer sorting under D and E. I doubt they are important categories to readers and I don't see a strong reason to sort at the start or together. D and E are close anyway so they would usually be consecutive (with an E heading between them). By the way, I got two notifications about [21] because I was linked in both edit and edit summary. One of them is sufficient. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, They will be at the very top only in lightly-populated categories such as Category:2016 in Texas. In Category:2016 in the United States and Category:2016 in the United Kingdom they are well down the list, but before the numerically and alphabetically-sported pages. That was what I was aiming for.

We can disagree on their importance, which depends on what readers are looking for, but since they are so closely related it seems to me to be unhelpful not to keep them together.

Sorry about the double-ping. I didn't know the software was that dumb, and will watch out for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussions about portals

Do you happen to have a list of all the currently open discussions about portals (excluding individual MfDs)? I'm thinking of the ones in places like AN, VPP, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf. No. I have given up following most of them. Too much drama, too much obstructionism, too little problem-solving.

The last straw for me was WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal_deletion_at_MfD_and_G6_tagging_and_deletion_of_portal_subpages. It's essentially a data colection issue which belonged at WT:WPPORT, where I opened a discussion at WT:WikiProject Portals#Identifying_old-style_portals. Shamefully, @NorthAmerica1000 who opened the AN discussion, didn't even comment at the thread where the data which they wanted is being collected. I am now building tracking categories for the issues she raised. What on earth is the point of raising an issue at the drama board if you aren't even interested in the solution?

It would be a fairly simple 20-minute job for any of you portal defenders to build a list at WP:WPPORT if you wanted to, and trivial exercise to maintain it. Just as it would have been fairly simple for you all to build some methods for analysing the existing crop of portals ... but so far as I can see, the only person who has published any such analysis is me, with the analysis on which I built Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox, and the tracking categories I have created at Category:Portal pages tracking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Nb. I noticed I was pinged here. Actually, I have initiated discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals, it was just after the above was posted. I edit on my own time: it's important to be organized before posting, and matters should not necessarily always be rushed. I already know you're against the post at AN, however, others there had no problem with it at all, and two users there thanked me for the heads up. I'm working on other matters, and won't be responding further at this thread. As a closing note, please at least consider toning down on the "us versus them" stances (e.g. above: "shamefully... (et al.), "you portal defenders", etc.) and try to understand that Wikipedia consists of many diverse individuals that have many diverse viewpoints. Pinging Thryduulf, because they have also posted here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:User armn-5

A tag has been placed on Category:User armn-5 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia meetups in Dayton

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia meetups in Dayton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)