User talk:Vermont

This is Vermont's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

If you add anything here, I am pinged in an IRC channel in which a bot posts all edits to my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as possible. If you want to contact me more directly, you can email vermont@vtwp.org.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Person1993's comment

Sir, i'm speaking the truth.....be mad...because I won't give a fuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Person1993 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#AWB task (eom)

Portals tasks requests: presented in the newsletter below...

Portals WikiProject update #020, 12 Oct 2018

Whew, a lot has been happening.

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

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

Newest portals

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

MfDs

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

Two portals were deleted.

One resolved as "no consensus".

Sixteen resolved as "keep".

Links to the archived discussions are provided below:

Many thanks to those who participated in the discussions.

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

Creation criteria

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

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

Linking to the new portals

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

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

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

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

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

The conversion effort: news sections

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

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

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

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

Design development

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

But, what about development of new new design features?

We have a wish department.

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

Cascade effect

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

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

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

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

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

Looking into the future: the quantum portal?

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Keep up the good work on portals. They are improving daily. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 04:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map of Poland

You wrote "there's already a density-related map, and also that doesn't have any labeling on it or a source". Where, i didn't see?LandRussia (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LandRussia: Actually, it seems I was wrong. The map I saw was the fertility rate map. Anyways, if you have a density-related map and data that actually have labels and a verifiable source, then add it. Otherwise, keep it off the article. The image you recently added isn't good enough. Vermont (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, an you help me. A lot of people ask me the questions and the charges. I can't answer for everybody, it's dificult. I don't understand what a problem with map of UK. They wrote like "Remove meaningless chart". I don't understand. About information - i took it from wikipedia. How can i indicate the sourceб if it's wikipedia. Wikipedia don't show, where took itLandRussia (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LandRussia, the map you added stated it was information as of 2017, which is impossible as there is no 2017 census. The current map is okay. Your source for information should never be Wikipedia, as Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Rather, you can get the image from Wikimedia Commons, and find a source to support it (not Wikipedia). Anyways you're probably going to end up blocked since you violated WP:3RR, so I strongly recommend you don't re-add any maps that have been reverted. Vermont (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can i disscus only with you about Poland and UK. I will change all problem, but i should understand. I don't understand the messages like "Remove meaningless chart". I made a lot of maps for different wikipedias - russian, romanian. And i didn't have problem 09:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

But it's information frome every district. You want to say in wikipedia information about of population of every district is incorrect? So what about when i open any district in UK and information about population on 2017. What is it?LandRussia (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the UK one is incorrect; I just know that it isn't from 2017, which you claim. The Poland one has no markings on it (it says >70 in some areas. >70 what?), and you didn't specify what its source is. Please do not re-add any maps. Vermont (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why you think it isn't from 2017. You can see density any part and compare with map. I don't pecify what its source is, becuse i finded the man, with who i can have talk. >70 what? pep / km2 of course. You want to say it's first time, when you see map without information inside?LandRussia (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LandRussia, the UK one isn't from 2017 because there was no government survey/census in 2017. There was a 2017 population estimate, but that isn't what is stated. Vermont (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Vermont. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject 2010 US Census

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject 2010 US Census. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Hammond

Hi Vermont

I wasn't sure how I broke BLP rules by putting the Sackler lecture controversy onto this webpage? It was fully cited, I thought. Was the problem that the level of citation was still insufficient? I can provide plenty more. What level of evidence would you like to see? Also I see similar edits to Leonardo Lopez Lujan.

The Sackler philanthropy is attracting increasing concern. I can understand your wish to avoid personal bias and I am happy to take advice on how to make this more neutral. But I think the Sackler issue is something that should be flagged on the pages of those who are supporting the Sackler lecture series.

Bazzil1 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bazzil1, the controversy isn't mentioned in the sources. Wikipedia isn't a place to voice your concerns about a person, or bring about complaints or allegations. Being a BLP, or about BLP's (in the case of the article about the town), controversial and possibly defamatory information must be cited very well, and is sometimes kept off the article even then (for example, WP:BLPCRIME). Please do not re-add the information without secondary, reliable sources that say and support every claim you make in the article. Vermont (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay will do, thanks for quick response and guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.54.101 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vermont I am sorry to reactivate this again, but I do think this has ended up too far in favour of the pages subject. I have taken on board what you have said about BLP wikis, I understand why Wikipedia has to err on the side of caution. But equally they should not just be places for personal marketing and self promotion, controlled by the person who shouts the loudest. My final entry just recorded that fact that there is a prestigious series of lectures endowed by the Sacklers in honor of Norman Hammond at both Boston University and Cambridge University. These are flagship lectures in their respective departments. It is incontestible that these lectures take place. They are all over Youtube. It is a statement of fact. Therefore I think it is legitimate that this neutral statement of fact should remain on Norman Hammond's Wiki page, even if he seems very determined to remove any mention of them. Thanks again for your forebearance. 205.239.98.30 (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifism in Germany

Hello Vermont, all the claims made in the article are supported by the sources referenced. I can't remeber what was said about the original research and essay-like writing, is that what I need to improve? Declan Stack (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Stack, it's less what you need to improve and more what your class needs to improve. I checked by clicking on a few random users in your class page, and there are many problems that should have been addressed by the instructor prior to sending y'all out to write. After a more thorough read of your content in Pacifism in Germany, I'm actually quite pleased by it. Although it only uses 4 sources (it should have many more, since it's such a broad concept, to encompass views from different historians and authors as all historians are inherently affected by biases, and that must be accounted for by including many different historians' writings and sources to contribute to the encyclopedic text), it's well written and seems to me to be generally accurate, albeit needing more sources. It does need copyediting and a bit of rewording for tone and tense, as one must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not use words like "recently" and other words that refer to the present time, as it should transcend time. For example, you wrote "In more recent times Germany has consolidated its economic and political power over Europe, making the impact of their foreign policy significant." This does need rewording to not say "In more recent times...", perhaps you could replace it with "From 1970s (or whatever time it is, idk I didn't read those books) onward, Germany has consolidated..." Although with this specific sentence I would probably remove it entirely, as it's very vague. Your content does need copyediting for encyclopedic value and to ensure it's not original research, but from an averagely-thorough read it seems to be good. Vermont (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portals WikiProject update #021, 24 Oct 2018

Portals have passed the 4,000 mark.

More new portals...

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

List of new portals

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

What's next?

There is still lots to do...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counter Vanalism Training

Could you train me in Counter Vandalism, I see you have your name on the Counter Vandalism page. Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont:

Sure! I'll make a page for you tonight or tomorrow. Vermont (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the crap typing. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]