User talk:Vermont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Adotchar)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Person1993's comment[edit]

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#AWB task (eom)[edit]

Portals tasks requests: presented in the newsletter below...[edit]

Simple English Wikipedia[edit]

Sir , I do not understand why you have blocked my account by mistake on Simple English Wikipedia , Please rectify.Surinder Patel (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Surinder Patel, I have unblocked your account, but the article can not be recreated. Vermont (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thing is, he's not a politician. He works for political parties, but he's never been elected to office. No worries. I just wanted to ensure you knew about the sockpuppet investigation here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Hammersoft Thanks for the clarification, and thank you for making sure I was aware of who he is. Vermont (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

AWB task request: please help with the backlog[edit]


If you have AWB laying around, please dust it off and crank it up! ;)

We have a growing backlog!

There are now 3,683 portals. Of those, 2,370 are of the new design.

Many of the new portals are orphaned or near orphaned, and need links pointing to them:

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

To make a list of corresponding templates, you can use AWB's make list feature to make a list of the pages in Category:Single-page portals. Then you copy that list to a sandbox, and replace \nPortal: with ]]\n* [[Template:, using WP:wikEd. That will give you a list of templates to work on. Then you set skip in AWB to skip the ones that already have the portal link.

To make a list of corresponding root articles, make a list of portal links, and then remove "Portal:" from the links.

To make a list of category links to process, make sure you use a leading colon (:) in the category links, like this: [[:Category:Blue Öyster Cult]].

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

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   20:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Perche[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Perche. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #019, 22 Sept 2018[edit]

Portals progress report[edit]

Don't blink. You might miss something.

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

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

The WikiProject page has been thoroughly revised[edit]

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

Orphaned portals need a home...[edit]

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

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

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


This is the main list of portals.

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

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

Customized Portal Rating system is now in place[edit]

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

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

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

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

Improving the new portals[edit]

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

Embellishing embedded search strings[edit]

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

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

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

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

Expanding the slideshow contents[edit]

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

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

More exciting things are to come...[edit]

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

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

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

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

Keep up the great work everyone.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say![edit]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

American Theatre of Actors founded by James Jennings[edit]

Thank you for the AfD discussion. I'm thinking of writing an article on the American Theatre of Actors, founded by James Jennings. Here are some sources I was thinking of using: [1] [2] [3] [4]

James Jennings founded the ATA over 50 years ago. A search of Wikipedia for "American Theatre of Actors" turns up 22 articles mentioning ATA. A search of Wikipedia for "American Theatre for Actors" turns up another 5! I found the erroneous name when my initial search didn't turn up Urinetown, which was mentioned in the first source.

ATA has at least two aspects. It is an "alternative" (I think that means not for profit) theater company. It also rents out theatre space (similar to St. Luke's Theatre and the Davenport Theatre). Originally, I was going to write ATA as an Off-Broadway theatre (see Urinetown#Productions), but I'm intrigued by the theatre company aspect. Perhaps All Things Broadway is where ATA was 50 years ago.

While I disagree with your position on All Things Broadway, I valued the fact that you searched and found additional sources and that you engaged with me rather than swooping in at the last moment. I checked the AfD discussion before I went out to dinner last night. By the time I came back from the theatre, there had been a lot of discussion and All Things Broadway was gone.

The best way to improve our next AfD discussion is to give you a heads-up. I took about ten minutes to find the four sources, searching for "American Theatre of Actors" and quitting after I located the four. If you find others, could you post the URL's here?

If you think it is strange I'm reaching out, I really enjoyed our AfD conversation. Thank you. Vyeh (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Vyeh, after about 6 minutes of poking around on Google it seems to be borderline notable. Unfortunately, I found that the few hours I had spent (I only really have about 3-4 hours a day I have time to edit) researching and commenting on the AfD for All Things Broadway has detracted time that would have otherwise been spent in useful work on the Simple English Wikipedia, where I am an Administrator. This is why I haven’t done much content editing on this wiki since my RfA in June, save for NPP/AfC. Although I won’t be able to devote much time to it, I’ll add the article to my watchlist when you make it and see if I can improve it. I will say further that I am glad you reached out to me. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Vermont I appreciate the time you spent on the AfD. I learned a lot about notability. I appreciate any time you can give. I'll let you know here when I create the article. Vyeh (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Vermont Barkeep49 found "New York theater named after stage and TV actor John Cullum". In searching for another newspaper source, I found [5]. About a third of the way, the review states:

In its former home Off Broadway, the American Theater of Actors, a warehouse-like room on the second floor of a midtown building with 135 seats on risers, I found Urinetown audacious and exhilarating, riotously and intelligently arch. And my intention was to assess how well the show has accommodated its step up in physical dimensions (at 635 seats, the Henry Miller is far bigger, though far from Broadway big) and also to assess the visibility that its notoriety and success have engendered.

There is a discussion comparing the ATA production to the Broadway production.
I'm waiting to hear from Barkeep49 about whether the two sources prove notability before I start writing. Vyeh (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Vyeh, thank you for the update. These sources are in no way in-depth, and aren’t significantly covering the subject. It’s helpful that it receives a mention in a NYT article, but this may not help notability. I’ll do a bit of digging tonight and try to find sources. Vermont (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 in aviation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 in aviation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #020, 12 Oct 2018[edit]

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[edit]

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


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:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Air France
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alexander Korda
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:August Derleth
  4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Average White Band
  5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bee-eaters
  6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ben E. King
  7. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benny Goodman
  8. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bill Bryson
  9. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Billy Idol
  10. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Billy Ocean
  11. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bob Hope
  12. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bobbie Rosenfeld Award
  13. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Body piercing
  14. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Canton, Michigan
  15. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Compostela Group of Universities
  16. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Diplo
  17. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Diversity of fish
  18. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pebble Beach
  19. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Peter, Paul and Mary

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

  1. Link (portal button) from corresponding category pages.  Done
  2. Link from See also section on corresponding root articles. check Partially implemented
  3. Link from bottom of corresponding templates. check Partially implemented
  4. Link for each portal on Portal:Contents/Portals. check 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[edit]

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:

<!-- This portal was created using subst:Basic portal start page -->

Design development[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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...[edit]

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

The map of Poland[edit]

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)

@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

───────────────────────── 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)

You've got mail[edit]

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.