User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2018/December

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Portals WikiProject update #019, 22 Sept 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portals progress report

Don't blink. You might miss something.

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

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

The WikiProject page has been thoroughly revised

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

Orphaned portals need a home...

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

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

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

Portal:Contents/Portals

This is the main list of portals.

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

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

Customized Portal Rating system is now in place

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

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

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

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

Improving the new portals

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

Embellishing embedded search strings

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

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

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

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

Expanding the slideshow contents

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

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

More exciting things are to come...

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

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

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

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

Keep up the great work everyone.

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 07:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah you've opened it, Nevermind then

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

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

Please stop reverting airport articles

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

Portals WikiProject update #020, 12 Oct 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Whew, a lot has been happening.

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

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

Newest portals

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

MfDs

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

Two portals were deleted.

One resolved as "no consensus".

Sixteen resolved as "keep".

Links to the archived discussions are provided below:

Many thanks to those who participated in the discussions.

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

Creation criteria

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

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

Linking to the new portals

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

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

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

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

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

The conversion effort: news sections

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

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

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

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

Design development

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

But, what about development of new new design features?

We have a wish department.

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

Cascade effect

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

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

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

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

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

Looking into the future: the quantum portal?

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Keep up the good work on portals. They are improving daily. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 04:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #021, 24 Oct 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portals have passed the 4,000 mark.

More new portals...

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

List of new portals

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

What's next?

There is still lots to do...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sofia Airport

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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