User talk:Andrewa/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019

Previous issue:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

This issue:

Single-page portals: 4,562

Total portals: 5,578

The collection of portals has shrunk

All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
7. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
8. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
9. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
10. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
11. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
12. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
13. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
14. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
15. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
16. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
17. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
18. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
19. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
20. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
21. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
22. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
23. Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)

WikiProject Quantum portals

This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).

It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.

Hiatus on mass creation of Portals

At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.

The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 months

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.

Until next issue...

Keep on keepin' on.    — The Transhumanist   09:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Patrick A. Moore vs Greenpeace

Hi, Andrew.

Just in case you aren't aware, your contribution on the Patrick Moore (consultant) (sic!) page is a bit troublesome.

"If it's sources that we regard as reliable versus Greenpeace, we have a dilemma." To me, an otusider, it means that you are wholeheartedly on Greenpeace side. Here you voiced a concern, that multiple reliable unrelated sources cast serious doubt on integrity of current Greenpeace steering commitee, and you would like that not to happen.

The very next para: "If we could find reliable secondary sources that state he's not a founder, that would mean we could say that sources vary, and cite both." - seriously, you still consider your approach to be NPOV? When something you do not like (being exposed lying) happens to something (Greenpeace) you want to be promoted as "good" on WP, you start looking for excuses that would look - at least superficially - grounded.

Do you like Greenpeace so much, that you are ready to give up on your journalistic integrity to back their lies up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.11.143.125 (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution.

Have a look at the Patrick Moore page on my personal website. You might also like sex lies and Nuclear Power.

MAD magazine once defined a liberal as someone who tries to see the other guys point of view while being mugged. I love it! Perhaps I have erred in this direction in my contributions here. I certainly do not wish to spare Greenpeace the consequences of their lies. Just the opposite.

But here is not the place to push my POV. Or at least not directly. As I have said at Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant), I have faith that if Wikipedia sticks to our ideals, this will help the truth to prevail. And if that truth is not consistent my POV, I'm happy to change it (my POV that is). See wp:creed for more on this.

But thanks again for your contribution. I suggest you create a user account. That will make your contributions even more valuable. Best. Andrewa (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Behavioural issues at Talk Patrick Moore (environmentalist)

A number of issues have been raised that belong on user talk pages rather than on the article talk page. This is a better place for them. Andrewa (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruption

This is probably the main one.

Baseless allegations of disruption are themselves of course disruptive. It's also good to bear in mind that unintentional disruption is still disruption.

There have been many accusations of disruption on my part... most recently for example that I am using the Chewbacca defense. Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made a request to discuss this edit on the appropriate user talk page. I sadly suspect that more will follow. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

And they have replied there. I've said what I wanted to say, and you're fully capable of reading it where I said it, as are all the other editors involved in the discussions. If you would prefer to respond to it on your talk page, please feel free to paste it over there. Most unsatisfactory IMO. Andrewa (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Working for consensus

You might like to read his essay of mine and try its method.

Particularly, to this post. It's a bit of a rant, but the relevant clause is It's as if your goal at this point is to force a no consensus close.

I want to deny that emphatically. I would far prefer a consensus close, and I'm trying to work towards one.

But I mean a proper consensus close.

• One in which the arguments are considered on their merits, logically.
• One preceded by a discussion in which other editors feel safe contributing.

The repeated personal attacks make this a most unsafe forum. Consensus cannot be claimed just because I'm the only one left with the guts to stand up for Wikipedia policy.

And I see the word unacceptable used a great deal. This term is a favourite of some in other forums too of course, and generally means that they're not prepared to consider any other viewpoint, just as here. We need to step back from that mindset. The eventual decision is likely to be unacceptable to some, and particularly to some of those with strong POVs.

As I've said before, we can't hope for a perfect solution that pleases everyone. But we can work towards one that is best for Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Competence

I've been referred to wp:competence, which is an excellent essay in my opinion. But it cuts both ways.

In particular, there have been many non-specific claims that my logic is generally faulty. I don't think such personal attacks belong anywhere in Wikipedia, but if we must have them, here is a place for them. Andrewa (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The question of competence appears to come from the claims that I am making false statements, and that these are either deliberate and hence disruptive or alternatively they indicate that I don't have clue and should therefore be ignored.

I admit to sometimes making false statements. Everyone that I've met sometimes does... My one-time mentor Vic Dudman once said in the middle of a second-year Logic lecture, looking back at what he'd written on the blackboard... "That's not true. That's not bloody true. And I've gone and published that. I wish I wouldn't publish things that aren't true." See wp:creed#wrong.

And I did for example falsely state that the US Senate had described Moore's PhD as "in Ecology". I was corrected; In fact it was Moore who said that in testimony to the US Senate. I'm tempted to say sworn testimony but I don't know the US technicalities... the point there is just that he was risking criminal sanctions if he lied. So it's a relevant point, but my statement was still false. And I've admitted that, and that's how discussion should work.

And there have been many other false statements by others... the statement that the Institute of Resource Ecology has never existed seems to be false, for example. But that doesn't justify ignoring everything else that the contributor says. We are all human. Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

New sections

As long as we're discussing such things, this edit raises some questions. (And the edit summary raises completely different ones, rather strangely I thought, that were better answered on the article talk page and I did.)

Safrolic, are there any specific new headings that you thought made the discussion less clear rather than more? It is always my intention to promote clarity.

But I have, in deference to this request, refrained from raising new subsections on the two new possible article titles that have been raised (one of them explicitly by another editor, the other seemed to me to be implicitly but clearly suggested by the discussion). I think it would be good if another editor did so... but I just like lots of sections and subsections, I admit that, and not everyone does. Andrewa (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Safrolic makes a good point: Re: cluttering the discussion, this requested move discussion is now approx 57kb. The votes total about 17kb. The rest of it, all sections started by you, now total just over 40kb. I also don't envy the closer. [1]

Exactly. Had I inserted my comments in the !votes section, and had others replied as they did, it would now be about 57kb. Because I have endeavoured to keep the survey focussed by putting comments likely to attract further discussion in separate sections, it is now about a third that size. And I think that's a good thing. Andrewa (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No reply from Safrolic. I'm not going to ping them again! Just to save others the need to follow the above link (but you can to check me if you like), the edit text was Please stop making new sections and put the stick down. This has been addressed several times. The reference to stick is I guess is to wp:stick but they didn't link to it. The edit summary was Moore saying something about himself simply isn't a reliable source for anything besides "Moore says", regardless of where he said it. The point the summary makes is quite true, but that's not the place to make it.

Make what you can of it. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why they matter

You wouldn't think it was necessary to say this...

See wp:5P4... Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 5,846,962 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss. (my emphasis)

And of course wp:NPA: Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together. (my emphasis)

But my main worry is, they make it harder to assess consensus. Editors who might join in on the side of the attacked party are discouraged from doing so. Consensus shouldn't be decided by such means. Andrewa (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019

Back to the drawing board

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

• Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
• The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
• They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

• Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
• The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
• Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.

Curation

A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.

Traffic

An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of development

Quantum portals?

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue...    — The Transhumanist   00:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cloud (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Google Cloud (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I value these messages! But in this case, I think the link is correct. Andrewa (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Even so, note WP:INTDABLINK. bd2412 T 10:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

IMO this case is covered and authorised by WP:FURTHERDAB, the following paragraph. And if not, I'd be old-fashioned and plead reader benefit! Andrewa (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It is, but WP:FURTHERDAB still must conform to WP:INTDABLINK. One is about what you can link, the other is about how to link to it. bd2412 T 03:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Climate change denial

The purpose of the talk pages is to discuss improvements to the related articles. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. Even the reference desk is not for speculation. We don't have a reliable source talking about 'double skeptic'.

However I'll have a go at your question as best I can and as I see it. Patrick Moore is a scientist and he has gone out of his way to deny the science. The thing you pointed at seemed to be somebody without the background just saying that it was probably something to worry about. I saw no evidence they had expertise in science and there's lots of people like that who think the business isn't 'proven'. That type of thinking is particularly common in America where they distrust experts and take the idea of everyone being equal as meaning they are as good as any scientist - even though they know they are useless at baseball for instance because that is easy to check. If they put themselves out as somebody with the expertise and that it wasn't proven then they would be deniers. The basic science is pretty straightforward, the problem is the timescale since there's factors like the ocean absorbing heat that is a huge buffer, but there's been enough study done now to have a reasonable picture of what's happening. However if someone in the general public thinks the science isn't proven but is willing to accept they might be wrong and accept there is a possible risk I can't really say that is anything but a fairly reasonable position. Dmcq (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that The purpose of the talk pages is to discuss improvements to the related articles. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. Even the reference desk is not for speculation, and I'm disappointed that you felt the need to point that out.

And of course we don't have a reliable source talking about double skeptic by that name... As I said quite clearly, as far as I know this is a term I have invented. But what I'm looking for is a reliable source that critiques the view that I am describing by that term.

And you haven't answered that question or even attempted to do so, instead you've made up your own question and answered it with your own POV. Perhaps instead of lecturing me on the purpose of Wikipedia you should follow the advice yourself? The purpose of all talk pages is to improve the encyclopedia, including this one.

So while I'm glad you find my POV a fairly reasonable position, that's quite irrelevant. If on the other hand you have a reliable source that makes the same evaluation, that would be very welcome however... both on-topic for this discussion and interesting in its own right. And exactly what that source calls this view would be most interesting of all.

And even more interested in the claim that If they put themselves out as somebody with the expertise and that it wasn't proven then they would be deniers. I'm assuming you mean and not otherwise, is that correct? But do you have a source for this? Our article doesn't seem to relate the term denier to any level (actual or claimed) of expertise, just to the viewpoint... regardless of the qualifications of those who hold it. So if that's true, a significant rewrite of the article would be indicated. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Take the case of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley for instance, somebody with no expertise but who puts themselves out as a know all. He doesn't admit he could be wrong. He is undoubtedly a denier, lots of reliable sources say that. And in general the qualification as far as Wikipedia is concerned is that reliable sources say so. In general the difference between an actual skeptic and a denier is a willingness to consider the evidence or to act on the weight of evidence even if one questions it. As to deniers thee clue is in the word - they deny, and they do things like forbid people to take any account of the possibility of being wrong. That sort of thing is described at denialism. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting... I would say that anyone who thinks that Moore has no more credibility than Christopher Monckton is themselves in denial, by your definition. And I'd agree.

And I'd have to agree that Monckton is a denier by any sensible definition. But you seem to be saying that, if he didn't make these other false claims, that his denial of climate change wouldn't then be denial. That makes no sense to me at all. Have I misunderstood?

And there is evidence of denial along these lines in the Wikipedia discussion. There was a claim for example that the Institute of Resource Ecology does not exist and never has [2] which has not been substantiated despite a request for evidence. Evidence has however been offered that it did exist, and remains unanswered.

And the most interesting thing is, people seem to think they can get away with such tactics, and with personal attacks and other low-level disruption, and they seem to be right. But that also encourages me. Consensus is obviously going to allow this low-level POV pushing for the moment, which is not good. But the tactics used do seem to indicate that those involved at least suspect that they have no better case to put. I have faith that the truth will out, and I'm happy to be proved wrong about what that truth may be. Andrewa (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I've tried as best I can to communicate with you but it just seems to end up in misunderstandings. So I think I'l just say goodbye. Cheers, Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I have also tried. You make some interesting points but I feel the same way as you evidently, that the other is not listening. But thank you for trying. Andrewa (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The spelling Should be of DUTT High School not Datta High School.

The school name is "Dutt High School".From the beginning of the school The students and teachers using the name as "Dutt High School" not as "Datta High School".I know there are a sure name which is "Datta".But this is a school name.The students and the teacher write the name as "Dutt high school" so this is the correct spelling.For surity you can cheack the official websites of this school which are dutt.edu.bd and dutthighschool.edu.bd. Tonmoy 07:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here, Tonmoypaul.71. I hope we can resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.

As has been said before, we do not necessarily follow the spelling that primary sources such as the students and teacher or the official websites use. See wp:correct and wp:official names for some explanation of this policy, and of course wp:AT for the official policy.

I see that you raised this as a technical request which Anthony Appleyard converted to a formal Requested Move, [3] but that Winged Blades of Godric then closed the RM using template:atop. [4]

So I am pinging them both hoping that they may comment here. Andrewa (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Primary topics

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#PROPOSAL: rename PRIMARYTOPIC to MOSTSOUGHTTOPIC may be within your area of interest. Narky Blert (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

"Nice to look at, hey, these are all very pleasant company"
... you were recipient no. 1949 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

... and Psalm 150 is my topic of the day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda Arendt, one of my faves, see http://alderspace.pbworks.com/w/page/1700834/psalm%20150 Andrewa (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:New York (overview)

Hello, Andrewa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "New York".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Interstellarity T 🌟 14:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon to start editing.

Edit Cards

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releases

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

1. Section editing
   • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
   • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
2. Loading overlay
   • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projects

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

• Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
• Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
• Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
• Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking ahead

• Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
• Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning more

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How to drop something

The next time there is a topic of discussion that you would like to drop, here is what you should write in order to drop it:

Hope this helps. --JBL (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. User talk pages are of course the place for such communication, and are an important part of collaboration.

I'm guessing you mean that you found this edit unhelpful. Toad02 has thanked me for it, so there is some variety of views on it.

It's not actually something I would like to drop, but I think it's best for Wikipedia that I do. I do take the comments that imply I've been pushing my own POV on Wikipedia seriously. That is not my intention... My intention is purely to make Wikipedia the best possible encyclopedia. I have faith that where my opinions are correct, this will itself promote them, and where they are not, I don't wish to promote them at all. And this discipline is one of the joys of working with Wikipedia, see wp:creed#wrong.

Of course these opinions of mine do currently include that Wikipedia is probably being taken for a ride by Greenpeace on this occasion, and that if so both Wikipedia and Greenpeace will be the poorer for that in the long run. And I am concerned for the good of both organisations. But I do try very hard not to promote these POVs in any inappropriate way, as I'm also convinced that to do so just itself damages Wikipedia.

For my part of course I found your unilaterally banning me from your talk page [5] [6] problematic. I would gladly support and abide by a properly discussed TBAN or IBAN tightly scoped to just prevent me from posting on your talk page, providing that an alternative is provided so that I can raise issues of your own behaviour without violating Wikipedia policies and procedures. Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing soccerway discussion

this one here. Please drop the stick. I'm not the first to say this. You're just beating the dead horse and no one who hasn't listened will start listening because of this continuation. Let's move on please. --SuperJew (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree that we should move on.

Disagree that it's a dead horse, as one other has suggested. [7]

But I have said my bit. I have tried to help, and the result has eventually been a good one in the relevant RM. I hope that, despite the refusal of all but one contributor to acknowledge the policy, those others will in fact have read it and will make some effort to comply (or alternatively, to get it changed).

But it's possible that, had I not stepped in, it would have been closed as move. I will be very tempted if this happens again to step back and see. On the other hand, to fail to call attention to the policy might be pointy.

I am hoping the discussion will soon move to archive. I've said my bit, and if others still wish to add to their arguments I have no particular desire for the last word. But again on the other hand, if I'm again accused of things that I did not do, such as !voting oppose in the face of secondary sources (I didn't) and claiming that a whole article is a primary source (I didn't do that either) I may well respond to such misunderstandings in order to set the record straight. Best. Andrewa (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 125#Soccerway etc. Andrewa (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of General of the Armed Forces

The article General of the Armed Forces has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Already existing as General of the Army (United States)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GELongstreet (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Primary Topic (again)

Another one for your Chamber of Horrors: Word. I've just been through the 1500-odd links-in; removed only the most egregious overlinks (e.g. English word); fixed links intended for Microsoft Word (several), Word (computer architecture) (several), Lyrics, Logos (Christianity), three songs, a publisher and a record label; and {{dn}} tagged a couple I hadn't a clue about. Sigh. Narky Blert (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(I came across the problem because User:DPL bot had picked up a single bad link to the DAB page excel, which was intended for Microsoft Excel.) Narky Blert (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed! Raised at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Word. [8]

Feel free to raise any new ones you wish to propose, or comment on any existing ones, at that talk page or User talk:Andrewa/P T test cases. This might even get promoted to that later page by me in due course. Thinking about that.

There's been lots of relevant discussion at wt:DAB recently as well. Andrewa (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mixed indents

I often see editors "star" a comment in a way that seems counterproductive to me, and contrary to the spirit of wp:mixed indents. It's in some ways similar to scare quotes and shouting IMO. It's misuse of styling to make a point, in this case to gain prominence for the point being made.

wp:mixed indents is part of Help:Talk pages which refers to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and is referred to by that guideline. So I guess it's Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines that is the authoritative page, but it seems to also lend some authority to the help page. wp:shouting is part of the guideline and discourages what seem to me to be similar practices.

MOS:INDENTMIX is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and discourages switching from bullet to colon, but not the other way around.

Examples of what I'm calling scare stars are here, here and the second of the two edits here.

It's quite common. So maybe I'm concerned about nothing, in that many other editors (some of whom have my greatest respect) do it regularly. Or maybe it's just never been discussed.

There is certainly a time to use bullet points on talk pages. But ISTM that this time is when you're giving a list and make it a bullet list. That's helpful. But a list of only one point shouldn't be a bullet list. It's not a list at all. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is a fourth example and possibly the best to date. I have raised it on their talk page. [9]

A possible new phrase or even section heading for some guideline: Do not use pointy bullets.

Technically, the colon : is also supposed to be used for list elements rater than indenting. But its use for indenting and stringing in talk pages is explicitly (if perhaps sometimes grudgingly) supported in many places, for example wp:THREAD.

As is the use of the asterisk for some specific discussions such as RMs. But in the case of an RM the !votes do form a bullet list, and that helps the closer. The first person to !vote is just starting this list. It's a structured discussion, and the bullets are part of this structure.

I suppose another way of looking at the bullet in an RM is that it draws attention to the !votes, again making closing easier as a result. I think that actually amounts to exactly the same thing. Andrewa (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Here are another two examples: [10] [11], the second however is forced by the first in terms of MOS:INDENTMIX. Andrewa (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply from IIO Just makes it easier to see in a RfC type discussion. [12] Yes, that's exactly what I suspected. But is that to be encouraged? Andrewa (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes that certainly should be encouraged. In a discussion canvassing opinions, Where each person has a say and some have a giant say and some a pithy say a bullet is a sensible and visually useful leveller. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize when invited to reply here that this was a User Talk page. Andrew, one can see here how indenting below a mass of text is often less clear. And here there are so far only 2 discussants. When there are a dozen the bullet is beneficial. IMHO. Of course we don't have to legislate everything on Talk Pages. Again IMHO. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting... and as documented above, you're not the only one to be doing this. And as also documented above, in replying to a bullet point, the recommendation is to go one bullet deeper, to avoid accessibility issues.

So, it's a one-way trip. Once we start bulleting, we must continue to do so.

So, why use : at all? Why not just have all bullets from the start? That seems to be the inevitable result if this catches on... nobody wants their own contributions to be less prominent, after all.

Food for thought? In ictu oculi, I'd appreciate any other comments. Andrewa (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Another example, this time by SmokeyJoe, another highly skilled and experienced contributor. In view of no further response from IIO, I think I'll raise this at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines.

But before I do that, I'll give SmokeyJoe a chance to reply here.

The intention seems to be just to make the post stand out. But is it really a good way of doing that? Andrewa (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am a big fan of a single asterisk per post, and really dislike multiple asterisks for multiple paragraphs for the one post.

The second paragraph doesn't deserve the asterisk visual cue.
I know I can use <br/> coding for the same effect, but it is not so nice in the edit window.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the <br/> coding produces a different line spacing. The <br/> coding appear to serve as a line feed, whereas an edit window new line and colon produces a new paragraph with an additional half line spacing before.

The <p> coding can also be used, but occasionally people boiisterously object to a have to close the code with the </p> code. For me, I nave never seen the effect of a missing </p>, so I am not sure.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The <p></p> coding looks redundant to <br/>. One asterisk per post, indentation level observed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Articles_that_exist_and_could_exist, if I didn't use the asterisk, it would look, to my eyes for sure, as if my post were a run-on of Station1's. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

To my eyes, the above just looks a mess. Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Mess amending here. Does it look any better? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a less obvious mess, but it's actually worse, because you've changed what I was replying to in a way that changes the sense of my reply. Now unfixable IMO. Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is excessive to asterisk multple running posts by the same person, unless they are completely different topics, and in that case some bolding might be a better idea? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The asterisks do little if it is just me repeatedly posting at the same level, but if others also post interspersed at the same level, and if they don't have dramatic signatures, this it is hard to see where the poster ID changes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It does look better, actually, a little bit. But this looks even better.

And I'm not quite sure whether or not what we now have complies with MOS:INDENTMIX. Do you think it does? Have I offended it myself? I confess I do not know how to best reply to your semi-bulleted posts.

And I confess I don't see any problem seeing where the poster ID changes. I didn't even have a problem in the old days when we were allowed to intersperse comments in long posts, with the indenting making the poster ID clear (I thought). But now that has been effectively banned, what is the problem?

And you've now made this edit of mine nonsensical by subsequently changing what I was replying to. What a mess! Andrewa (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I altered my post to explain better a change for the record. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for trying [13] but it doesn't restore the mess to which I was referring, does it? Andrewa (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there are good reasons to use bullets in posts, but not one per paragraph. Rarely someone says something, but I’ve never seen a good reason to change. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I still do not see what any good reason might be. It makes the paragraph more prominent, and so other comments by people who don't abuse the bullet are less prominent. That's bad IMO. It makes replying problematical. That's bad too IMO. What's good? Andrewa (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Raised at wt:Talk page guidelines#Pointy bullets. [14] Andrewa (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Studies in Swing

I don't know if you are still active, so I'm sending you a message here. If you are, do you have any ideas about what to do with this article you created? Thanks.
–Vmavanti (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Good question, Vmavanti. It obviously does need work, as it is it is blatant OR by myself in my younger days here, based on the record labels on my copies of the four 78s in question. I have since learned better I hope. Even so I'm disappointed that it hasn't developed into a proper article, or at least a good stub.

Probably the best thing is to stubify it, assuming we can find sources to justify even a good stub. That then preserves the history and it can be expanded some day without needing to reinvent the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

What does stubify mean? I would like to propose it for deletion.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Stubify means remove unsourced material (or otherwise challengeable material) to the point that it's a stub. If you think it would improve Wikipedia to delete it, then by all means propose for deletion, and thanks for the heads-up. Andrewa (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you've been reasonable. Like an adult. I don't see that often on Wikipedia.
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I must say, likewise. Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

PTOPIC, again

Some of the arguments at Talk:Rangpur, Bangladesh/Archive 1#Requested move 1 October 2019 might depress you. (I only found that discussion because User:DPL bot includes WP:RM and WP:MERGE proposals in Disambiguation pages with links.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been watching it, see User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Rangpur. But thanks for the heads-up.

Yes, very interesting arguments. Of course if we just deprecate P T, we would dispense with all of this, for no downside that I can see. Andrewa (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Regal trade mark.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Regal trade mark.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It has been replaced by a better version at commons. Yes, it should be deleted. Andrewa (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted as F5, although it could also have been F7(c) in hindsight... the uploader of the better version seems to know US copyright law better than I did, and my attempt could also probably have been uploaded to Commons, but there's no point now. Mine was very low-res, deliberately.

Anyway, there seemed no point in forcing another admin to do the homework I've already done, so I've cleaned it up. Andrewa (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)