Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Tasks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discussions about WikiProject tasks

AWB team please tackle maintenance run on intro sections

 Task complete.

Important: please read this whole section before getting started.

@Checkingfax, Dan Koehl, Emir of Wikipedia, Evad37, Iazyges, Mhhossein, Nick Moyes, Robertgombos, Samee, Vermont, Dreamy Jazz, User, Ɱ, مصعب, JLJ001, and AfroThundr3007730:

I've called all of our AWB users here, because it is time to start applying AWB to the task of cleaning up the set of portals.

What we want to do here is obsolete the intro subpage of each portal, except for those portals listed under "Specific maintainers" on the WikiProject page. Those need to be handled more delicately, preferably by those who regularly maintain them. We're primarily interested in the vast majority of portals that have no regular maintainers. Most of those have been abandoned, and so we are going to automate them.

By "obsolete the subpage", I mean handle the intro entirely on the base portal page. Currently, most portals transclude an intro subpage that has a manually copied and pasted excerpt in there. Most of those haven't been updated in years, and have drifted somewhat from the text in the lead of the corresponding root article, resulting in a content-fork which is in many cases out of date or erroneous. We're going to replace that subpage transclusion with a selective transclusion of the live lead of the relevant root article directly on the portal base page, thus skipping the intro subpage.

The way to do that is with the {{Transclude lead excerpt}} template.

Note that some portals have already been upgraded in this regard, and so you will want to skip those.

After the intros have been automated, the intro subpages for those portals need to be tagged for speedy deletion (routine maintenance).

We want to leave the formatting on each portal intact. Almost all intros are included in a full-width section box at the top of the portal.

This discussion thread is for collaborating and coordinating. Work together, solve problems, ask and answer each other questions, and so on. Some may wish to discuss approaches, while others may start picking away at the task immediately. Beginners may want to watch this time around. When you run into obstacles, please talk them out here.

Don't be afraid to jump in and try something, as all mistakes are fixable.

Before starting, be sure to read the relevant discussion threads above and at /Archive 4#Discussions about selective transclusion in intros

Good luck, and have fun. Work together. Communicate.    — The Transhumanist   22:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it! Robertgombos (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

If we were to use AWB to delete the '/Intro' pages, could we not directly tag them with G6, as the influx of speedy deletions cannot be handled easily by admins, as they have to delete each page individually. I would propose that editors who want to delete each '/Intro' page place it in this list or another suitable list. I, however, know that this cannot be easily done with AWB. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: We could run through all '/Intro' pages with AWB, replace the introduction with {{Transclude lead excerpt}} and then use something like the 'False Positives' Button to collate a list, where users can manually come through to: a) possibly check to see if the transclusion was appropriate and b) possibly move the new introduction to the main page (and delete the remaining redundant '/Intro' page). Dreamy Jazz (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

An AWB-friendly option is to tag the unwanted /Intro pages with {{G6temp}} and create that template by pasting from {{db-g6}}. Then ask a friendly admin to delete the portal pages that link to {{G6temp}} as they would with G6 itself. Certes (talk) (Later edit: there is already a tag for this.) 22:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We could do that (currently the admin Ansh666 has been very helpful deleting the pages on my list). However we would want to ensure that the introduction is actually on the main page before deletion. Is there a way we could move content to the main page using AWB first? Dreamy Jazz (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about tagging the intro subpages for deletion until the intro sections on the portal base pages have been upgraded. Then you could use WP:SearchSuite and the insource parameter to create a list of all the portals that use {{Transclude lead excerpt}} and thus no longer need their intro base page.    — The Transhumanist   22:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. That sounds like a good idea. The idea of a list would allow a admin to to a D-Batch (with Twinkle) on the intro pages that are no longer needed. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

But bear in mind that some more complicated portals may use the intro page more than once (such as Portal:Africa), so we would need to ensure that the intro page is only deleted after the transclusion is placed on all of the pages (not just the main portal page). Dreamy Jazz (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that we don't want to apply transclusion in the intro pages, as those pages are going bye bye. Use {{Transclude lead excerpt}} directly on each portal's base page.    — The Transhumanist   22:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(The Transhumanist's comment) The only problem with that is that we are left with a lot of intro subpages that we don't know if they are redundant or not (but I presume we could attempt to use 'What Links Here'). Unless we wanted to mark all the old intro pages as historical, it could get problematic if accidental deletions are carried out that are not noticed. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

On that note, there is already a tag for marking the page for G6 without putting it in the category and it is at User:JLJ001/tag User:Dreamy Jazz/tag. Note: This does not however place the page in any category, it is just a tag used to say what is going to happen with that page. An editor would manually add the page to a list or category for deletion. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Concerning automated maintenance exclusions

• The Transhumanist, this is a response to your note on my talk page [1], which incidentally does not link here but rather to the non-existent Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#AWB team please tackle maintenance run on intro sections. But am assuming this is the right place to respond instead....

a. You stated in your note: "So far, I've instructed the AWB'ers working on this task to not include the portals listed under the Specific Maintainers section in our project members list on the WikiProject page." I see no such instructions here. Where are they?

b. You further stated "But in case there are other portals besides these that are sensitive, perhaps you can help.". I would say that you should exclude for now all portals in Category:Featured portals and you should not make any changes without notifying the WikiProject whose banner appear of the portal talk page. And you should do this on the project's talk page, not simply on the portal talk page.

c. I have now formally listed myself as the Portal:Opera maintainer and I have reverted all the changes made to the portal yesterday. Amongst other things, our intro section has rotating images of famous opera houses as illustrations which had been eliminated when the "AWB team" changed Portal:Opera/Intro in addition to the main portal page.

d. The unwelcome and (in this case) inappropriate changes started within minutes of your "heads up" and in the middle of the night in the UK where I live, despite you stating in your note The reason I'm contacting you, is because you expressed concern over carte blanche automation of all portals". I am not happy. Especially after the "assurances" I received here when I raised serious concerns about this project and its perceived "mandate". It turns out those reassurances were completely empty. I will go into this issue in more detail below later today.

Voceditenore (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Thank you for joining us. We definitely need editors who see things from various viewpoints, to point out potential pitfalls, which is why I notified you. We don't want to run blindfolded over a cliff. Sorry about the typo in the provided link; I'm glad you found the intended destination. In answer to your queries:

a. In the second paragraph at the top of this section: "What we want to do here is obsolete the intro subpage of each portal, except for those portals listed under "Specific maintainers" on the WikiProject page. Those need to be handled more delicately, preferably by those who regularly maintain them."

b. Keep in mind that time is of the essence. If we delay too long, we run the risk of another RfC proposal to delete. Also, if the task becomes too tedious and time-consuming due to walking on eggshells, we run the risk of losing our editing team out of sheer boredom or frustration. Avoiding the (176) featured portals, until their maintainers and attendant WikiProjects can be notified is reasonable. As for the rest of the portals without known maintainers, it is unreasonable to have to seek approval to work on those, as the vast majority of them have been abandoned or neglected. WikiProjects will be contacted as time allows, which is something we wish to do as part of our ongoing recruiting efforts as well. In the meantime, as the only major content we are actively replacing across the set of portals at this time are intro excerpts, reverting where necessary is a relatively simple straight-forward process. This will be our test case. Also, inspections of the subpages prior to migrating their functions could help to avoid overriding special features such as rotating pics. Thank you for pointing that out. As most of the intro subpages contain rather dated simple static excerpts, spotting anything more elaborate should be rather easy.

c. Thank you for joining the WikiProject. Your experience in portal development will be a great asset.

d. You were called in to provide reality checks, and we all appreciate your willingness to point things out. That edits are made isn't a problem as they can be reverted. So, there is no need to become distressed over changes that can be reversed. You can be happy, as we are we are willing to work with you, and we have the manpower and willingness to undue or otherwise solve any problems that we create. That's part of the beauty of a wiki, and part of the learning process. We are motivated to get things done quickly, but we also desire quality, and we don't believe there has to be a trade-off. The technology can be improved and adjusted as we go. Keep in mind that the assurances you received are backed up by a phase-by-phase development strategy. The main phase we are working on now is intro sections. Work across the set on other content sections such as Selected article, Selected picture, News, Did you know, and so on, will come later. So, while our effort is focused, so can be your concern. This serves as damage containment, and an opportunity to work out any differences we have in approach. By the time we move on to other content sections, our methods will be improved due to working together.

e. Note that work is also proceeding across the set on Associated Wikimedia (non-content) sections. Since this is based on a template {{Wikimedia for portals}}, that can be improved further as desired, and adjusted via parameters, we were bold and moved forward with it without fanfare. Let us know if you have any ideas on improving the standard Associated Wikimedia section.

I hope my answers have helped alleviate any worries you may have. We look forward to your further feedback. Thank you. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   11:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response The Transhumanist. I'm only partially re-assured by your comments, however. Despite saying that the assurances I had previously received "are backed up by a phase-by-phase development strategy", the first phase of this barrelled ahead and damaged Portal:Opera's presentation without any regard for what had been said before, despite it being a Featured Portal and apparently solely on the basis that I had not listed myself as the portal's maintainer on your project's page. Yes, I was able to revert those changes, but why should I have do that extra work? It took me a while to find out why despite reverting the change to the main portal page, the rotating images had completely disappeared. I am much more re-assured by JLJ001's quick response and practical solution of flagging articles which are either Featured Portals and/or have a named maintainer.

I understand and largely share your concern about the (probably 100s) of sub-standard/abandoned portals and the need to make some fairly rapid progress to avoid another RfC proposal to delete them all—good and bad. And yes, "walking on egg-shells" can potentially slow you down a bit, but the danger of becoming a walled garden operating in virtual isolation by not actively reaching out to WikiProjects about what this project is doing is the opposite side of that coin. As the Romans used to say festina lente. Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: We are working on a template to tag portals with that will prevent, among other things, accidental unwanted automated edits. Once we get it refined, we can ensure AWB activity doesn't touch portals marked with a flag such as wpport-autoedit=n or similar. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 16:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: More likely over a thousand. Walled gardens are another issue entirely, and one which you need not worry, as communications and recruiting are top priorities here. I've sent out hundreds of invitations so far, and posted thousands of notices, in the face of adversity, and it's only a matter of time before we can figure out 1) @Certes: how to make a list of all the WikiProjects with banners on the portal talk pages. The prospect of contacting them manually one-by-one is the only thing slowing us down there. 2) @Evad37: How to make a list of all the major contributors from the contributions of portals (the main problem being that most of the contributions to portals have taken place on subpages rather than base pages). Contributors will be easier to spot on the portals which are being converted to the new one-page design concept. To put your mind further at ease, transparency is also something we practice diligently: discussion archives are sorted by subject for ease of discovery, and to keep up with and monitor developments and intentions, you can find our Newsletter archive here. Also showing how seriously we take communications here, we also have a section on this talk page, for #Discussions about WikiProject communications. To top things off, we have a healthy team spirit. Please keep in mind that you were invited here specifically because of your concerns. We're all working together to achieve a worthy goal, and I hope you have discovered that the team is ready and willing to address all concerns conscientiously as they arise — and more certainly will, as we plunge forward into the unknown. I hope your are impressed. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   19:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Here is a list relating projects to portals. Some of the first few and last few entries look like rubbish but I think the rest is sound. There is a download button on the right. Certes (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest that all AWB runs exclude pages with {{Featured portal}} tagged. I also suggest adding {{nobots}} to all maintained portals which don't want automated maintenance. @Voceditenore: All portals and portal subpages should be tagged with {{Maintained portal flag}}, and AWB + bots should be set not to automate pages marked as such, it also gives a visual topicon indicator which should make it easier for us to see which portals are not to be redone. Some portals also have a non-standard setup which stops them being automatically maintained, these should probably be identified. JLJ001 (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I've waffled vaguely about classifying portals before, but the time has come to mark each one clearly as "manually maintained; do not change", "revived portal; convert to standard format" and "other; edit with care". We're carrying out some good work, but there are pages on which it should not be done. (Later edit: see § New Markers.) Certes (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

When using that template on subpages it should be contained, tag subpages with <noinclude>{{Maintained portal flag}}</noinclude> so that the flag doesn't accidently transclude. I will make another one for the handle with care flag. JLJ001 (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC).

Thank you for that JLJ001. I am now in the process of flagging all the Portal:Opera sub-pages. Very laborious, but it appears there's no other way to avoid these unconstructive and still ill-thought out (in my view) changes. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone can assist, with AWB, if you so desire.    — The Transhumanist   11:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I did it with JWB. JLJ001 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

{{Maintained portal flag}} and {{Non-standard portal flag}} have been nominated for deletion. Certes (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

See here for discussion. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 13:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

We should use flags

I would suggest that AWB or other automated editing be restricted to only portals which are flagged for automation – apart from an initial run to add the flags, along with a talk page message explaining what the flag does and what to change it to in order to avoid future AWB/automated edits. (i.e. make it easy to both opt-in and opt-out.) - Evad37 [talk] 12:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

{{nobots}} appears to render a couple of lines of whitespace, or maybe I'm using it wrong. Cesdeva ^(talk) 14:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

{{nobots}} evaluates to the empty string, but if you add nobots on a new line of its own then you're adding line breaks around the template. Certes (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think nobots only works if directly in the source code of the page in question, I don't think it transcludes. But just in case it does, beware that it should not be used where any bot updated sections are used. JLJ001 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This was implemented in #New Markers. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 13:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

AWB task: Add a missing "Associated Wikimedia" section

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals § Add a missing Associated Wikimedia section

 Task complete.

The following portals need to be checked for an Associated Wikimedia section, and if they don't have one, have one added.

Here's the the template code for geographical portals: {{Wikimedia for portals | species=no | voy=yes}} This goes inside whatever box formatting is used on the portal for its sections.

That was in error. "voy=yes" results in "yes" being the search string at the Wikivoyage site. The correct code is {{Wikimedia for portals | species=no}}. This has now been applied throughout.

Completed List

Portal:Elbe-Elster  Done Portal:Elbe-Weser Triangle  Done Portal:Elbe Sandstone Mountains  Done Portal:Erie  Done Portal:Europe  Done (no change needed) Portal:Franconia  Done Portal:Galicia  Done Portal:Georgia (country)  Done Portal:Greece  Done Portal:Harz Mountains  Done Portal:Hertfordshire  Done Portal:Hesse  Done Portal:Hong Kong  Done Portal:Hungary  Done Portal:Ireland  Done Portal:Japan  Done Portal:Kent  Done Portal:Latin America  Done Portal:Lebanon  Done Portal:Libya  Done Portal:Lower Saxony  Done Portal:Lusatia  Done Portal:Lüneburg Heath  Done Portal:Macedonia (Greece)  Done Portal:Malaysia  Done Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern  Done Portal:Mexico  Done (no change needed) Portal:Middle East  Done Portal:Miskolc  Done Portal:Montenegro  Done (no change needed) Portal:Mountains  Done Portal:Myanmar  Done Portal:Nebraska  Done Portal:Nepal  Done Portal:New Hampshire  Done (no change needed) Portal:New Zealand  Done (no change needed) Portal:Nishapur  Done Portal:North Palatine Uplands  Done Portal:Northern Territory  Done (no change needed) Portal:Oceania  Done (no change needed) Portal:Ontario  Done Portal:Ore Mountains  Done Portal:Palatine Forest  Done Portal:Papua New Guinea  Done Portal:Paris  Done Portal:Peak District  Done Portal:Poland  Done (no change needed) Portal:Pomerania  Done Portal:Republic of Macedonia  Done Portal:Rhineland-Palatinate  Done Portal:Rhône-Alpes  Done Portal:Rhön  Done Portal:SAARC  Done Portal:Saarland  Done Portal:Saxony  Done Portal:Saxony-Anhalt  Done Portal:Schleswig-Holstein  Done Portal:Seattle  Done Portal:Sialkot  Done Portal:Silesia  Done Portal:Singapore  Done Portal:Slovakia  Done Portal:South Korea  Done Portal:Syria  Done Portal:Tasmania  Done Portal:Tennessee  Done Portal:The Gambia  Done Portal:Thuringia  Done Portal:Tirana  Done Portal:Toronto  Done (updated) Portal:Tyrol  Done Portal:United Kingdom  Done Portal:Virginia  Done Portal:Washington, D.C.  Done Portal:Westerwald  Done

 Done as of several days ago. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

AWB task: Template:Portal talk placement

 Task complete.

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals § AWB task

 – — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 02:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm set up to do this tomorrow unless anyone wants to jump in today. I've done Portal_talk:1920s as an example: is that what's required? What counts as a second talk page box? Certes (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep.    — The Transhumanist   01:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this only on the basepage or all subpages? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 01:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The talk pages of the portal base pages only. No sense in doing the subpages, as most of them may be gone relatively soon.    — The Transhumanist   02:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Page lists

There are 93 portal basepages using {{talkheader}} (which should be removed), and presumably missing {{portal talk}} (which needs to be added). — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 02:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There are 230 portal subpages which use {{talkheader}}, which should be removed. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 02:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There are 879 portal basepages that don't have {{portal talk}} and should be added. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 03:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And finally, there are 638 portal basepages that already have {{portal talk}} and so won't be listed here. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 03:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Progress

@The Transhumanist: I've done portals beginning with A or digits. I'll pause here in case there's any feedback. I see some portal talk pages have explicit archive boxes, which {{Portal talk}} duplicates. We should probably either remove those or add |noarchive=yes to those templates: any preference? Certes (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed all the duplicate archive boxes I could find. Where the existing box did something clever, I've kept it and used |noarchive=yes|search=no. Where the box in {{Portal talk}} will suffice, I've removed the old box. Certes (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with this, I've done similar on regular talk pages when the addition of {{talk header}} would suffice and an archive box would be redundant. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 14:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@AfroThundr3007730: Do we really want to remove {{Talk header}} from subpages? They are talk pages, and we're not replacing that header by anything. Many of those pages may get deleted in the revamp anyway. Certes (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If their fate is to be eventually deleted, then removing them is probably unnecessary. If they will be sticking around (there are plenty of pages that aren't going anywhere, they should eventually be replaced with portal talk. That should probably wait until we've purged 90% of the subpages though. I thought I'd list them for reference anyway. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 14:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Certes and The Transhumanist: I completed the 800-page list above (it is 100% correct now). However, there are still incorrect pages like Portal talk:Animals (duplicating {{portal talk}}). wumbolo ^^^ 09:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done only the Animals portal talk had both {{portal talk}} and {{portaltalk}}. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Well done! Sorry, Animals was my error. Thanks for fixing. Certes (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! But we will probably never know whether any portal talk has {{portal talk}} twice. wumbolo ^^^ 09:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Found and fixed two more. I think I found them all (carefully avoiding pages which correctly transclude both {{Portal talk}} and {{Portal talk:Some subpage}}). Certes (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Just ran a check through all portal talk pages, it seems now the {{portal talk}} tag is added to all of them. Robertgombos (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the information in this template is also in {{WikiProject Portals}}. Are there use cases where only on would be appropriate, or would it make sense to combine them? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The {{portal talk}} template is meant to replace the functionality of {{talkheader}} for portal pages, while {{WP Portals}} is meant as a WikiProject banner. Some of the duplicate language in the former should probably be suppressed though. I imagine we shouldn't tag every single subpage with {{WP Portals}}, just basepages and important subpages. Honestly I think minor subpages shouldn't have their own talkpages, and they should redirect to the parent talk page for centralized discussion, like the documentation talk pages of our templates do. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 14:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Certes and Pbsouthwood: I've commented out a line in {{portal talk}} to make it less like an ad and focus more on being a talk header. @The Transhumanist: please see above. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 14:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that in most if not necessarily all cases, a single talk page for a portal would be enough, and more would generally be too many. I was also thinking of the class and importance parameters of {{WikiProject Portals}} and whether they are still meaningful, if they ever were. How would one establish importance? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Importance is definitely something we'll want to start tagging portals with in the future. I'd probably mark all top-level portals in Portal:Contents/Portals as high importance, or maybe we should consider the importance of the main article as well. That way we can ensure the higher importance (and probably higher traffic) portals get prioritized during maintenance. This would also allow people to watchlist only the high priority ones, if they wanted to. At the moment, they're all marked as unknown importance (relevant: Category:Portals pages by importance).

As far as class, We haven't used that really in a while for actual portals, but it is being used for categorizing everything else under the scope of this WikiProject (see Category:Portals pages by class, so that probably should stay as well. If the featured portals process ever gets restarted, we can tag current featured portals] as FA class. Or we could tag them now anyway, since retiring the FP process doesn't undo the existing featured portals. Actually, I think I'll tag those in a bit. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 15:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done All 175 current Featured Portals will now populate Category:FA-Class Portal pages. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 16:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about WikiProject communications

Fixing article alerts

Resolved

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Article alerts § Re: Old Featured Portal Nominations

@The Transhumanist: Featured Portal nominations are one of the workflows that AAlertBot watches for when generating article alerts. If you're wondering why those old Featured Portal nominations keep appearing, it's because their talk pages still have the {{FPOC}} template. Those three portals are actually the only ones using that template. Perhaps we should remove it? This would probably be best since they are no longer candidates, as all three nominations failed. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 01:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Evad37: Thank you, AfroThundr for tracking this down. Yes, removing those would ensure that they don't appear again, even if we start up featured portals again. Evad37 came up with another solution as well (removing the featured portal workflow). See User_talk:Evad37#You_are_invited_to_join.... Thanks to both of you, for a complete solution.    — The Transhumanist   04:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Evad37...

@The Transhumanist: This edit[2] should fix the article alerts problem, by telling the bot only to care about deletion and misc (i.e. requested move, rfc) alerts – per Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing#Choosing workflows - Evad37 [talk] 01:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you guys, it works great!    — The Transhumanist   04:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Meta: Size of this Talk Page / Archiving

This page has passed 250k in a little over a month. We should start thinking about how to keep it manageable and accessible for everyone, including those with less beefy devices. I would suggest auto-archiving, except we've reorganized the topics into subsections and lowercase sigmabot III won't play nice with this layout. Perhaps we should break this page into several subpages covering broad topic areas similar to what is happening with 2nd level headings already (except maybe less granular). Then if any of those subpages gets too big, they can be auto-archived. Editors may still be able to ask a question on the main talk page, but then it can be triaged and moved as appropriate, unless it concerns this WikiProject directly. @The Transhumanist: Thoughts? — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 17:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think that would work. What we are doing is working out guidelines and useful things, it would make more sense to move these discussions to pages for the emerging guidelines or help pages as appropriate to avoid getting bogged down in all this information in one place. JLJ001 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, some of these threads could be offloaded to their relevant talk pages, but having them in a central location is also useful to keep track of them. I like the subpages idea because it would allow a setup similar to WP:VP, which would make the high conversation volume manageable and organized, yet still easily accessible. If necessary, the conversations could be cross-linked to their relevant talk pages as well. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of doing something like WP:VP, that works well. JLJ001 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@AfroThundr3007730 and JLJ001: I'm in the process of sorting the threads, by subject. The archive page is also sorted by subject. Our work falls into subprojects (not subWikiProjects), and it is useful to track the progress in each by having all relevant threads together. I'm about to post a slew of new threads, and so I don't mind archiving by hand, for now. If you don't mind, that is.    — The Transhumanist   20:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, what's the archive policy gonna be? The primary reason I suggest the subpage route, is that way a bot could do it and you don't have to manually manage the topics, e.g.

1. Demoting section headers (H2 -> H3)
2. Sorting by subject area
3. Manually archiving old topics
4. Tracking thread age / source and destination page size
5. Keeping everything correctly formatted

If you defined 5 or 6 topic subpages to host the threads, you'd only need to move them once, off the main page to the relevant subpage. Auto-archiving could then be setup for each of the subpages without human intervention. If designed correctly, this could make it easier to find older discussions. Just a few thoughts on this. It may become moot if this project ever slows down and the talk page becomes much less busy. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 20:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Archiving  Done for now.    — The Transhumanist   20:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Can message archiving bots archive by subject? See /Archive 4.    — The Transhumanist   20:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware, although I wonder how much work it would be for the bot authors to add that functionality. Probably couldn't hurt to ask. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 21:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We should add a notice about the archiving criteria though. A variant of {{Auto archiving notice}}, so something like:

Or if that's to distracting, you could make it smaller (by swapping text with smalltext, image with smallimage, and add |small=yes).

@The Transhumanist: Thoughts? — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 23:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That works for now, but the sooner we find a replacement for me, the better. :)    — The Transhumanist   01:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Archiving going forward

@The Transhumanist and JLJ001: We're going to have to find a balance between talk page size (for which I recommend 150k as a hard upper limit) and thread age (where I'd recommend 14 days as a max) during future archiving runs. There are a lot of threads here that should stick around for a while, yet we can't keep them all here due to growing page size. This was also one of my rationales for subpages (a la WP:VP style), which would have allowed topic-based organization and still allowed for auto-archiving. In any case, if we want to continue to do this manually, the above numbers should be kept in mind. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 20:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree, It's getting harder to find the right thread. JLJ001 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Meta: RfC Section?

Resolved

• @The Transhumanist: - A section for RfC's perhaps? JLJ001 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I second this, since there seems to be no shortage of them. :) — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 21:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@JLJ001 and AfroThundr3007730: Good idea.  Done    — The Transhumanist   21:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Good job. It all looks much tidier now. JLJ001 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll also suggest the RfC section not be as aggressively archived, since they hold some historical significance. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 22:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We need a list of all the WikiProjects corresponding to portals

@Certes, Robertgombos, Voceditenore, and Dreamy Jazz:

After compiling a list of portals from the entries on Portal:Contents/Portals and its talk page (using the list maker of AWB), I used search/replace (in wp:wikEd to convert the list to WikiProject names, then pulled out the blue links using the list maker of AWB. To make the list complete, we need a way to gather all the WikiProject names from Portal talk pages.    — The Transhumanist   21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a list here. Certes (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Waw, nice Certes! Robertgombos (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

How do we make a list of all significant contributors to portals?

@AfroThundr3007730, Certes, Dan Koehl, Evad37, JLJ001, and Voceditenore:

Most activity on portals has taken place on portal subpages. How do we get the user names of the contributors to those (minus bots and vandal reverters, etc.). And then, how do we contact only those contributors who have edited Wikipedia within the past 2 months?    — The Transhumanist   21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not an expert on SQL but how about a query that orders contributors based on their overall number of edits to the portal namespace, cut this off at a certain point. Then query for a list of people who edited in the last two months. Then use a program to find people who are on both lists? JLJ001 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We may want to hold off the mass subpage deletion until this has been done. (There are also attribution issues to consider.) Certes (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• @The Transhumanist:  Done at User:JLJ001/sandbox/3. Well sort of, thats a list of the top 500 editor to portal space in 2018. complied with this. JLJ001 (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Listing for 2017: User:JLJ001/sandbox/4. JLJ001 (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• This quarry tool is fascinating, theres 135,197 portal pages, and 13,435 redirects. In portal talk there's 33,874 pages and 2,904 redirects. [3] JLJ001 (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• I am also pretty sure it's inaccurate when counting most edited pages, User:JLJ001/sandbox/5. JLJ001 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Admin offer of assistance

Primefac posted this on my talk page:

There was mention that there are a large number of uncontroversial subpages in the portal space that might need deleting, but not enough admins to go around(?). Don't know how much you both know about the admin toolset on Twinkle, but there's a d-batch option that lets an admin delete a list of bluelinks with one click, so if yall are finding yourselves not wanting to individually G6 a few thousand pages, just make a list and drop me a note. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@Primefac: We have recently been made aware of d-batch (see the threads above in this section). There are over 140,000 subpages that will likely eventually need deleting. It is good to know we have someone we can go to as needed. This will be a great help. Thank you. In the meantime, if you find yourself with some spare time and interest in how progress on portal development and upgrading is going, please look over this talk page. Your input on the various issues we are working on would be most appreciated. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   20:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm an admin too and happy to help. WaggersTALK 20:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Me three. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Meta: Limit markup in section headers

This is mostly a nit/complaint: Can we try to limit the use of markup (links, templates, code blocks) in the section titles? It's wreaking havoc with section linking, which is essential when conversations are scattered all over our pages in several namespaces. Prodigious use of {{anchor}} has helped to mitigate this, but that's a mitigation, not a solution. Nobody wants to be sent a link to a 200k talkpage and just get dropped at the top of the page. </soapbox> — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 01:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Meta: Discussion tools

When handling so many discussions regarding the large number of different projects and tasks on our plate, it can be difficult to keep track of conversation status and other details.

To that effect, these guys could be helpful:

• Template:Resolved/See_also
• Template:Done/See_also

Cheers. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 02:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Meta: Archiving Completed Tasks

@The Transhumanist, Cesdeva, and Evad37: Since they exist on the main page and the talk page, I propose we create a subpage "Archived Tasks" where tasks can live once completed. Then we can remove them from the main page and this talk page. What do you guys think? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 04:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Perhaps instead we should create a sub-page called 'Tasks', and then archive that? That way, moving forward, the main talk page archives would retain parity with the main discussion. There was a suggestion a while back that we do something similar to the Village Pump. At the time, I had a play with the VP header template to see how it could work for us. Once I find where I stuck it, I'll post a diff. Cesdeva ^(talk) 06:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-worked it a bit. diff. Cesdeva ^(talk) 08:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It would also be nice if we could use level-2 headings for discussions, so that the New section link just works as-is – either through multiple subpages like Cesdeva suggests, or by upgrading the topic-dividing sections to =Level-1= headings. - Evad37 [talk] 09:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

To fix the new topic issue, I promoted all headings on this page up a level. Now I wonder how well sigmabot can play with level 1 headings... It might be a good idea still to split these into subpages, which could then be transcluded to the base talk page for those who want to browse all topics at once, kinda like WP:VP (all) does. @Evad37: I like your talk header, so I forked it to my sandbox for further tweaks. I think we need a few more topic pages, and also add integrated links like {{Village pump}} does. @The Transhumanist and Cesdeva: What do y'all think about this? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 17:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

For the VP-like header to work for mobile, it'll need to be floated. That's easily done, just add 'float=left' to all buttons, including the containing one. But until TemplateStyles arrives, it would float for all users. It shouldn't present an issue, but worth bearing in mind if it does. Also the draft header currently transcludes the sandbox, as i trialled something specifically for that header. If the header idea gets the go ahead, i'll add the feature to the main template. I'm all for subpages but i'm happy with whatever. Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about cleanup of WP:SOCK aftermath

Problematic edits that JLJ001 made

I have noticed that with their edits, it has caused problems on pages that start with a wikitable, due to not having a return before the wikitable. Would it be possible for someone to run through with AWB to fix any problems left? It is on the portal pages where they added {{Portal description}} and a wikitable was used on the first line. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: I fixed Portal:Cameroon. I can't find any other examples, so I'm probably searching for the wrong thing. Can you give me a link to another faulty portal? Certes (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Certes:

I am creating a list of those which I have already fixed (in my edit log):

• Portal:Archaeology
• Portal:Assyrians
• Portal:Asian Americans
• Portal:Arkansas
• Portal:Architecture
• Portal:Antarctica
• Portal:Ancient Near East

However, these are only pages that I have found and fixed (so only portals starting with an A). Dreamy Jazz (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

My search would have caught the bad version of those. It looks as if the rest are ok, though we'll have to keep an eye out in case anyone reverts the template addition because of who did it. Certes (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this somewhere around E-F and started adding carriage returns, the run was alphabetical and in the later part of the run I only edited portals with the hidden comments from box portal skeleton. Therefore the run was incomplete, I was going to finish this but didn't get the opportunity. I would suggest checking those up to ~G and doing a run to check for missing short desc tags. Additionally some portals may need custom tags (because of the wording). :: Editing as 109.147.115.71 (talk) -- The late JLJ001 ([off-wiki link redacted]) 18:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Should I request undeletion for JlJ001's portals

@The Transhumanist: Should I place a request for undeletion on JLJ001's portals? I would be willing to ensure that they are up to standard. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz and The Transhumanist: I've already asked the responsible admin about restoring the pages he deleted I'm still awaiting a response. You can see the convo on his talk page: Ansh666. Honestly, automatic deletion of pages created by a sock should only be possible for pages for which that account is the sole editor. Once others have edited, it becomes a community resource, and several of the templates and pages they deleted had fairly heavy collaboration. I feel this activity went beyond what WP:SOCKSTRIKE was designed for: reverting damage to the encyclopedia. This may in fact have made things worse by removing pages we needed for portal maintenance. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 13:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@AfroThundr3007730: I had to request for undeletion a few days back when I accidentally marked a main portal page for deletion (and it was deleted). You can go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to find where to submit a report. I know that this type of speedy deletion can be undone. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@AfroThundr3007730: I can file the request if you want? Dreamy Jazz (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

JLJ001 Pages from deletion log

I went back through the log, and here's everything they deleted. We'll want to resurrect pretty much everything in the template namespace. This is probably not complete, I saw several tags in my watchlist for templates they didn't delete because they were in use (transcluded). We should trim this list down and add the other ones that survived. This way we can keep an eye on all of the pages he created that we want to keep. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 14:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@AfroThundr3007730: I have filed a request for undeletion on all of these pages listed below. See this. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was busy trying to make sure I hadn't missed anything (probably did anyway). Now we wait. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 14:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Full deletion log

Extended content

2018-05-31T08:41:40 DoRD (talk | contribs) deleted page User:JLJ001/sandbox/JWB.js/load.js (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) (thank) 2018-05-31T08:40:51 DoRD (talk | contribs) deleted page User:JLJ001/sandbox/JWB.js (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:30 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:United Kingdom/Related portals (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:30 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:WikiProject Berkshire/Layout (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:30 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Suffolk (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:30 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Suffolk WikiPortal/Showcase (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:30 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:United Kingdom/Related portals plain (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Contents/Portals (new) (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Suffolk WikiPortal/Discussions (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Suffolk WikiPortal (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Profanity (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Portal selected quote layout (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Suffolk/Members (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Suffolk WikiPortal/Layout (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Suffolk WikiPortal/Categories (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Suffolk WikiPortal/to do (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Non-standard portal flag (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Sark (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Plymouth (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Dead simple portal (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Norfolk/box-header (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Portal flag talk (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Norfolk (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Bedfordshire (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Norfolk/box-footer (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Portal subpage status (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Header navigation for integral editor portal (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Dead simple portal/box-header (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Dead simple portal/box-footer (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:45:29 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Berkshire/Showcase (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:43:18 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Modern Portal/Voyage box (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:42:45 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Modern portal/Selected quote (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:41:20 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Modern portal/box-header (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:41:09 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Modern portal/box-footer (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:40:54 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Modern portal/Selected article (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:40:23 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template talk:Modern portal/doc (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:40:19 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Modern portal/doc (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:40:03 Ansh666 (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Current events/2018 May 31/vandalism (G3: Vandalism (Twinkle)) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:39:51 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template talk:Modern portal (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:39:45 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Modern portal (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:35:03 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template talk:Content layout header (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:34:58 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Content layout header (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:34:35 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Content layout footer (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:33:50 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Morocco Mall Aquarium (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:30:19 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:United Kingdom/Layout (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:28:57 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Styles import/doc (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:28:41 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Styles import (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:27:53 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Start div (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:26:52 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template talk:Portal button 3 (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:26:43 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Portal button 3 (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:25:21 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Integral editor portal (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:24:42 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:End div/doc (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:24:26 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:End div (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:24:05 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:El Gouna Aquarium (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:23:02 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Cricket/Featured cricketer (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:22:25 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Index/Main/Method (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:22:10 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Index/Main/People and self (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:21:53 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Index/Main/Geography and places (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:21:41 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Index/Main/Complete (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:21:12 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal talk:Index (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:21:05 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:Index (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:19:39 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Blue line (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:16:35 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:JLJ001/sandbox/Selected article (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank) 2018-05-31T02:15:05 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page Portal:JLJ001/sandbox/Selected quote (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) in violation of ban or block) (thank)

What have we lost?

The deleting admin is unwilling to reinstate the pages, but does not intend to delete any more. Is there a friendly admin in the house who can look at what we have lost and evaluate what needs to be replaced? At this stage I think we're mainly interested in general infrastructure. We could review pages with more limited impact, such as Portal:Bedfordshire, as a later phase. Certes (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the problem really is quite widespread. Portal:Berkshire was another victim, but as this is a portal I kind of look after, it's now fixed. The chain of events is quite worrying though, it seems to go something like this:

1. JLJ01 made substantial changes to the portal and tagged subpages for speedy deletion
2. Those subpages were speedy deleted
3. JLJ01's edits were then reverted, anything he created was deleted, but (crucially) anything he had tagged for deletion was not restored - so the portal was left trying to use subpages that no longer existed. Result: a very broken mess.

So it isn't just about undeleting some things that JLJ01 created, but possibly also undeleting some things he had tagged for deletion. Because of course those edits have been deleted, finding what had been deleted on his request is not going to be easy. WaggersTALK 10:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

We have several admins on the project. Perhaps Cactus.man or Pbsouthwood can let us know what's missing, so we can decide whether to request reinstatement. Certes (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I will have a look. This sounds like it may be quite complicated. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So far I have not found anything useful. Will do some research on the tools. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If anyone finds template calls to deleted templates, please list them here and I will undelete if they were uncontroversially deleted. Ping me for quicker response, but I will be away Sunday. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of the redlink portal pages listed above are single edit pages by JLJ001, others may be OK to undelete , but not worth doing it unless they are used somewhere. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding templates, I looked at JLJ01's deleted contributions and found the following templates that he edited that are still deleted:

• Template:Portal summary
• Template:Portal flag
• Template:Integral editor portal
• Template:Header navigation for integral editor portal
• Template:Start div
• Template:End div
• Template:Blue line
• Template:Portal button 3
• Template:Content layout header
• Template:Content layout footer
• Template:Norfolk/box-header
• Template:Norfolk/box-footer
• Template:Portal lead title

If any of them are of particular interest, I or any admin could undelete them or look more closely at the deleted contents. --RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

List of redlinks from Portal: to Template:

A long list (mostly unrelated to recent deletions)

Redlinked template Portal page Template:Afghanistan_Related_City_Portals Portal:Kandahar Template:Afghanistan_Related_City_Portals Portal:Kandahar/Related_portals Template:Alaska_selected_picture Portal:Alaska/Selected_picture_candidates Template:AlienCOTMvoter Portal:Alien/Vote Template:AlienSA Portal:Alien/Vote Template:AlienSL Portal:Alien/Vote Template:AlienSP Portal:Alien/Vote Template:Aliencandidate Portal:Alien/Vote Template:Aomori_Bay_Bridge Portal:Tōhoku/Selected_article/2 Template:Archaeology/Things_you_can_do Portal:Archaeology/Things_you_can_do Template:BC_article Portal:British_Columbia/Nominate/Highlighted_article Template:BC_picture Portal:British_Columbia/Nominate/Highlighted_picture Template:Benutzer:BLueFiSH.as/MyBooks Portal:Berlin/Berlin_Literature Template:Benutzer:ONAR/Bibliothek Portal:Berlin/Berlin_Literature Template:Bharatiingale Portal:Bharatiingale/sandbox Template:Bosnians Portal:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/Bosnian_Template Template:Bucharest_metro_stations Portal:Romania/New_article_announcements Template:Bucharest_sectors Portal:Romania/New_article_announcements Template:Christadelphiantopics Portal:Christadelphian Template:Christadelphiantopics Portal:Christadelphian/Topics Template:Coatbridge_Wikipedia_address_book Portal:Coatbridge Template:Coatbridge_Wikipedia_address_book Portal:Coatbridge/Contribute Template:Conservatism_SQ Portal:Conservatism/Selected_quote Template:Contra Portal:Calvinism/Article_Archive/Suggestions Template:Contra Portal:Calvinism/Bio_Archive/Suggestions Template:Countries_and_territories_of_South_Asia Portal:Bangladesh/Indices Template:Countries_and_territories_of_South_Asia Portal:Bangladesh/Ties Template:Current_Hyderabad,_India_Collaboration Portal:Hyderabad/Collaboration Template:Current_events/Newsbrowsebar Portal:Current_events/Newsbrowsebar Template:Current_events/Newsbrowsebar/doc Portal:Current_events/Newsbrowsebar/doc Template:Cycling_portal_selected Portal:Cycling/Selected_article Template:EmoSA Portal:Emo/Vote Template:EmoSL Portal:Emo/Vote Template:EmoSP Portal:Emo/Vote Template:FA Portal:Featured_content/Pages Template:FPC Portal:Gujarat/Selected_picture_candidates Template:Independent_sound_serials Portal:Serials Template:Independent_sound_serials Portal:Serials/Topics Template:IndianChristianitytopics Portal:Christianity_in_India Template:IndianChristianitytopics Portal:Christianity_in_India/Topics Template:Infobox_Bucharest_Bus Portal:Romania/New_article_announcements Template:Infobox_Bucharest_Tram Portal:Romania/New_article_announcements Template:Infobox_Bucharest_Trolleybus Portal:Romania/New_article_announcements Template:Infobox_Bucharest_sectors Portal:Romania/New_article_announcements Template:Infobox_PNG_Minesite Portal:Papua_New_Guinea Template:Infobox_PNG_Minesite Portal:Papua_New_Guinea/Things_you_can_do Template:Infobox_Romania_Communes Portal:Romania/New_article_announcements Template:Infobox_apskritis Portal:Lithuania/Topic_news Template:Infobox_fracture Portal:Trauma_and_orthopaedics/Tasks_&_Resources Template:Infobox_fracture Portal:Trauma_and_orthopaedics/Tools Template:Infobox_savivaldybe Portal:Lithuania/Topic_news Template:Karachi_Cantonment_railway_station_style Portal:Railways_in_Pakistan Template:Karachi_Cantonment_railway_station_style Portal:Railways_in_Pakistan/Selected_station Template:Karachi_Cantonment_railway_station_style Portal:Railways_in_Pakistan/Selected_station/1 Template:La_Liga_teams_map_2006-07 Portal:Caribbean/Map Template:La_Liga_teams_map_2006-07 Portal:Punjab/Map Template:La_Liga_teams_map_2007-08 Portal:Caribbean/Map Template:La_Liga_teams_map_2007-08 Portal:Punjab/Map Template:La_Liga_teams_map_2008-09 Portal:Caribbean/Map Template:La_Liga_teams_map_2008-09 Portal:Punjab/Map Template:Localurl: Portal:Liberia Template:Localurl: Portal:Madagascar Template:Localurl: Portal:Malawi Template:Localurl: Portal:Mali Template:Localurl: Portal:Mauritania Template:Localurl: Portal:Mauritius Template:Localurl: Portal:Namibia Template:Localurl: Portal:Niger Template:Localurl: Portal:Rwanda Template:Localurl: Portal:Sudan Template:Localurl: Portal:Tamil_Nadu Template:Localurl: Portal:Togo Template:Localurl: Portal:Uganda Template:Localurl: Portal:Uttar_Pradesh Template:Location_map_Israel_jerusalem Portal:Israel/New_article_announcements/2008 Template:Mongol_people Portal:Mongolia/Templates Template:Nagorno-Karabakh-stub Portal:Azerbaijan/Azerbaijan-related_Wikipedia_notice_board Template:National_rugby_team Portal:Rugby Template:National_rugby_team Portal:Rugby/Things_you_can_do Template:Nautical_PODHydrofoil_old.jpg Portal:Nautical/April/04/Selected_picture Template:Navbox_Israeli_railways Portal:Israel/New_article_announcements/2008 Template:Navigationsleiste_Stadtteile_von_Norden_(East_Frisia) Portal:East_Frisia/Index Template:Neighbourhoods_of_kandahar Portal:Kandahar Template:Neighbourhoods_of_kandahar Portal:Kandahar/Kandahar_Topics Template:NeutralVote Portal:Calvinism/Article_Archive/Suggestions Template:NeutralVote Portal:Calvinism/Bio_Archive/Suggestions Template:OV_1855 Portal:Elbe_Sandstone_Mountains/Maintenance Template:OV_1855 Portal:Elbe_Sandstone_Mountains/Maintenance/Links Template:PBB/HP1BP3 Portal:Gene_Wiki/Discussion Template:PD-AzGov Portal:Azerbaijan/Azerbaijan-related_Wikipedia_notice_board Template:PGUJSPC Portal:Gujarat/Selected_picture_candidates Template:PHPSPC Portal:Himachal_Pradesh/Selected_picture_candidates Template:PKOLSPC Portal:Kolkata/Selected_picture_candidates Template:PKOLSPpages Portal:Kolkata/Selected_picture_candidates Template:POSAC Portal:Odisha/POSAC-instructions Template:POSAC Portal:Odisha/Selected_article_candidates Template:POSPC Portal:Odisha/Selected_picture_candidates Template:POTD/2005-02-26 Portal:1930s Template:POTD/2006-11-17 Portal:1930s Template:Phpsac Portal:Himachal_Pradesh/Selected_article_candidates Template:Piimsac Portal:Indian_independence_movement/Selected_article_candidates Template:Pkolsac-instructions Portal:Kolkata/Selected_article_candidates Template:Possible_Hyderabad_Collaboration Portal:Hyderabad/Collaboration Template:Post-hardcoreCOTMvoter Portal:Emo/Vote Template:PunkCOTMvoter Portal:Punk_rock/Vote Template:PunkSA Portal:Punk_rock/Vote Template:PunkSL Portal:Punk_rock/Vote Template:PunkSP Portal:Punk_rock/Vote Template:Pwbsac Portal:Punjab/Selected_article_candidates Template:Pwbsac Portal:West_Bengal/Selected_article_candidates Template:SP_Seoul Portal:Seoul/Selected_picture Template:Sasanian_Empire_topics Portal:Sasanian_Empire/Topics Template:Slovenia_Squad_2009_EuroBasket Portal:Slovenia/New_article_announcements Template:StarWarsSA Portal:Star_Wars/Vote Template:StarWarsSL Portal:Star_Wars/Vote Template:StarWarsSP Portal:Star_Wars/Vote Template:Timeline_of_Dissolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire Portal:Military_history_of_the_Ottoman_Empire Template:Timeline_of_Dissolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire Portal:Military_history_of_the_Ottoman_Empire/Selected_chronology Template:Timeline_of_Dissolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire Portal:Military_history_of_the_Ottoman_Empire/Selected_chronology/5 Template:Ukrainian Portal:Ukraine/New_article_announcements/Archive_2006_4 Template:User_German_football Portal:Germany/New_article_announcements/March_2006 Template:WPFILM_Announcements/Bangladeshi_cinema Portal:Dhallywood Template:WPFILM_Announcements/Bangladeshi_cinema Portal:Dhallywood/Things_you_can_do Template:WPMILHIST_Announcements/Australian_military_history Portal:Royal_Australian_Navy/Things_you_can_do Template:Washington_&_Jefferson_College/Selected_article/1 Portal:Washington_&_Jefferson_College/Nominate/Selected_article Template:Zerkalo_Nedeli Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related_Wikipedia_notice_board/Archive_2

RfC Announcements

RfC on new portal guidelines

Link: Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines#RfC on new portal guidelines
Cheers, Cesdeva ^(talk) 12:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Closed

 – RfC was withdrawn by JLJ001 on 08:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on new Portal:Contents/Portals layout

See RfC at: Portal talk:Contents/Portals#RFC on layout update.
JLJ001 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Closed

 – RfC was withdrawn by JLJ001 on 14:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on new Portal:Contents Layout

Please head over to Portal_talk:Contents#RfC_on_a_new_layout. where design input on a new version of Portal:Contents has been requested.

This is the "Contents" link on the sidebar, therefore of community wide importance, I have been told it should go on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. @The Transhumanist: for help on how that's done.

 Closed

 – RfC was withdrawn by Cesdeva ^(talk) on 15:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Closed RfC as proposer is indef blocked, the discussion is stale and a discernable consensus was never going to happen. Cesdeva ^(talk) 15:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on adopting MoS/Portals as a MoS guideline

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Portals#RfC: Adopt as a MoS guideline . - Evad37 [talk] 03:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Closed

 – RfC was withdrawn by Evad37 talk on 02:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments on the draft guideline would still be appreciated - Evad37 [talk] 11:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about portal namespace organization

Should we delete all redundant Portal Introduction pages?

I want to get a consensus on whether after migrating the information from a /Intro page to the portal main page, the /Intro page should be marked as Historical or should the page be deleted under {{Db-g6}}? I have been marking for G6 speedy deletion, but others are marking the pages as historical. Should I continue marking for deletion? Dreamy Jazz (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Whenever the content was not absolutely identical to the article it should be marked as historical, just in case the person who made the portal comes back and complains their custom portal intro was deleted. But in most cases they are simple content forks and should be tagged {{Db-g6}}. JLJ001 (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been tagging with {{Portal subpage status}} myself in some cases. JLJ001 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for Portal page deletions

See also: User_talk:Dreamy Jazz/Archive 1 § Suggestion_for_Portal_page_deletions

Hi there, thanks for cleaning these out. It might be easier if you maintain a list of checked pages that can be deleted at once with Twinkle's batch delete, especially since nobody is going to see them. That way, you don't have to tag every one of them, and whoever deletes them won't have to click through to every page either. Thanks for your work, ansh666 01:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Ok. Would I do this by creating a MfD or create something different that allows me to say they are all tagged under Db-g6? Thanks Dreamy Jazz (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No, MfD's not necessary, just a user subpage or something linking to all the pages that are to be deleted. Once you're done or get to a certain break point (say, you've gone through all the portals that start with the letter C), you can just let me or another admin know, or post at AN asking someone to deal with it (and if anyone questions it, point them to my comments here; I've seen enough of your tags to say that you don't really make mistakes). Of course, if this sounds too messy or complicated, the normal way of just tagging all the pages works perfectly fine. Thanks, ansh666 08:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I have created the page (see here) and will notify an admin when I reach enough subpages. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz. Thanks for the message, I will probably add some more to your list because it is convenient idea. JLJ001 (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks. ansh666 21:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: I have 190 subpages that are up for deletion (I have also double checked them), could you run D-Batch on them? Dreamy Jazz (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Got em! ansh666 20:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Categorization of New portals

Where do I find out more about categorising new portals, I have been making new ones but don't have a clue how the categorisation of portals works. Portals like Portal:Suffolk & Portal:Plymouth may be fairly easy to place, but where do I put Portal:Profanity? JLJ001 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe somewhere under "Society and social sciences", or perhaps "Culture and the arts / Culture / Language"? — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 18:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure really, because it's supposed to go with the Freedom of speech portal, which is under "Law portals" and "Society portals". JLJ001 (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Would it be valid to list it in multiple sections then? I'm not sure if that is allowed or not, but it may make sense in some cases. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 18:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sections is fine.    — The Transhumanist   01:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Assessments

The project banner {{WikiProject Portals}} can be used to assess portal quality and importance. If we can decide what quality and importance mean in terms of portals, then (once assessments have been done) we could use the auto-populated categories to prioritise work on higher-importance and/or low-quality portals with. Note that custom classes can be defined for the quality assessments, or we could just assess importance and not quality. - Evad37 [talk] 11:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. This should be fairly straight forward. Cesdeva ^(talk) 11:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and I already built the missing categories so the tagging can proceed. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 15:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, those tagging/assessing portals (or other pages) may like to install my Rater script (which can be used from the pages themselves as well as their talk pages) - Evad37 [talk] 17:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Dude, this thing is the bees knees. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Rater +1 would recommend. JLJ001 (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Assessments page

I've started a first-draft of Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Assessment to offer some guidance on class and importance assessments. Feedback, particularly on the proposed importance criteria, would be appreciated. Once we're agreed on what the criteria should be, we can then start working through the backlog of Category:Unknown-importance Portal pages. - Evad37 [talk] 09:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The importance criteria looks excellent. Especially the addition of a 'bottom' level; I think thats definitely necessary. Cesdeva ^(talk) 12:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

New featured portals process

• At some point all the portals will be updated and generally fixed. Are there plans to setup a new "featured portal" or "good portal" process? JLJ001 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That would make sense. Once we're done overhauling everything we should restart the FP process. Not sure if anybody is thinking about that yet — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 15:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I came across Wikipedia:Portal peer review as well. It clearly hasn't been used for years but was some kind of review/improvement process. JLJ001 (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Can't find original talk from 10 years about transllusion....that is now happending and portals can keep up. There was a talk about making the status of an FA portal being determined by what it transcluded....as in FA portals would transclude leads only FA and GA articles (perhaps A Class now a days) . Thus the portal status is determined by its content not by design. Also do we need both GA and FA classes vs just FA (featured) portals? --Moxy (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussing this now is premature, as we don't know what portals are becoming. The revamp is still underway. Once a new design or designs have solidified, and we know what a quality portal is under the new paradigm, then it will be worthwhile to discuss the concept of featured portals. Until then, it would be awkward to set quality standards, as design features keep changing due to the revamp effort.    — The Transhumanist   20:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Future MoS guidelines for Portals

There is ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Portals.    — The Transhumanist   21:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about new portals or specific portals

On random editors starting new Portals

User:The Transhumanist,

you wrote:

@SmokeyJoe and Paulmcdonald: Approval, by whom? As with other departments, such a page would be facilitated by a few regulars, and so bias always sets in. One was set up, sort of, with dismal results. They denied approval to an editor who wanted to create the cannabis portal, so I advised him to create it anyways. The department also turned into a bottleneck and created a hoop-jumping exercise. Many editors decided not to create any portals because of it. I mentioned "sort of", because it was suggestive only. We can't censor Wikipedia, but we can delete material that doesn't follow Wikipedia content policies. Because of the way the department was portrayed, people were under the impression that approval was required, but it wasn't. The only requirement for creating a page on Wikipedia is clicking the "edit" or "create" tab. The same thing applies to draft space and WP:AfC: they're optional. "Wasn't approved" is not a valid argument at the deletion departments. Wikipedia has developed into the wonderful resource that it is, because people are allowed to take the initiative - it is the core defining principal of the Wiki model and what makes it work. We don't wish to dowse the creative spark. Also, you sometimes don't know if something is going to work until you try it. If a portal proves to be inviable, it can be deleted. I like the deletion system, because it has a good cross-section of involved editors. An approval department is more like a hidden cabal (closed forum). Who do you invite to the discussions? With deletions, that's obvious: the creator and major contributors. But, with a page that hasn't been created yet, you don't know who the major contributors would be. The current system works fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. — The Transhumanist 22:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Some good important points. The WikiProject Council is not very active, I would call it haphazard. Requiring approval there might just be a net non-positive bottleneck until a random anybody says "yes". Portals would be the same.

"Approval" is probably too strong a word. It begs "approval by who", suggests there is a committee, bureaucracy, yes TT, probably hopeless.

What I generally favour in many things is that a "second pair of eyes" be involved, minimally and sufficiently, in starting up any new little bureaucratic process. This includes RfCs, WikiProjects, Portals. The "second pair of eyes" is not intended to be an explicit supporter or author, but a check of sanity, technicalities. Someone proposes something (or in practice starts something), and then a second experienced Wikipedian in good standing says "yes, go ahead". Disputes, if experienced Wikipedians in good standing disagree, can go through WP:DR, or even MfD if the thing created is completely a bad idea. This would mean that someone like you can give immediate approval to anyone else, but you can't so easily stop a pair of Wikipedians proceeding with an ill-advised bad idea.

An even softer idea would be to write into instructions something like this:

• If you start, or are thinking of starting a new Portal, start a new thread stating this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals (this page)".
• For WikiProjects: "If you start, or are thinking of starting a new WikiProject, post a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals".

It would then be up to the watchers of these pages to choose to offer advice.

> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

It is my opinion, having seen them come to MfD for years, that there are plenty of ill-advised WikiProjects and Portals, and their existence adds disrepute to the rest.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And that's why we clean them up. The main problem has been an inactive WikiProject. Keep it going strong, and you'll have the editors you need to monitor and maintain the whole system.

I like your idea of reporting new portals. There could be a section for them to be listed on the WikiProject page. That way, their development could be monitored for quality and even joined by editors who wish to make them better. Finding them is a little tricky, but can be done comparing lists using AWB's list compare feature.    — The Transhumanist   00:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest: A list of portals, a sortable table, columns including Portal name, Parent portal (often occurs), date started, first author, current activity level.

"Current activity level"? It would be great if this were auto-reported. What would it measure? Last manual edit? Last auto-whatever? Number of page views in the last 30 days?

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We tried that. Editors would edit it once, and then that entry would never be updated again. It became horribly out-of-date. And, it was redundant with Portal:Contents/Portals. List tools make it easier to track portals. SearchSuite can list all the base pages, and then you can use AWB to compare with an earlier version to find all the new ones.    — The Transhumanist   01:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That's how I think it should work. Filled in once at the start, some fields auto-updating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My memory was fuzzy on this issue, so I went looking around to refresh my recall...

Portals approval department: rejected by the community

SmokeyJoe wrote: I don’t believe that Portals or WikiProjects should be allowed to be created unilaterally, without approval. For WikiProjects, there is an approval process somewhere under Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. I think a Portal creation board should exist. Does it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It took me awhile to recall the history on this, for portals. There was an approval department at Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals, but it got rejected by the community at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals, at my request. Some guy created the Portal:Cannabis, while I created the Portal:Thinking, both of which were nominated for deletion; Cannabis for having been previously rejected (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis), and Thinking for not going through the approval process at all (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Thinking). I was appalled that a page could be deleted before it was even created, so I nominated the process itself for deletion. It was marked "historical" and "rejected by the community".    — The Transhumanist   01:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"I don’t believe that Portals or WikiProjects should be allowed to be created unilaterally, without approval." Backing back a but from that. Reporting would be OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Keeping track of what portals we have, so we can look at them, would be good.    — The Transhumanist   02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

On German Wiki, unless a portal topic falls under the various categories of 'relevance' (see for a translation), the creator has to garner support first. I think they have to have 3 'overseers' (i.e. maintainers) and a majority of 10 'supporters' on the approvals page i.e. 12 'support' votes and 2 'oppose' votes gets it through the process but 12 and 3 fails. I'm not saying we should clone that, but it's a less formal approach than a 'Portal Creation Board' and more in line with other Wiki processes and we might want to think about something similar. Otherwise we'll have portals for everything and it's already a challenge to manage them all. Bermicourt (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

If we can make them automatically dynamically self-updating, it won't take many editors to maintain them.    — The Transhumanist   04:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

For those interested on this discussion, I also initiated a related discussion here. In my opinion we need some minimum relevance/notability criteria or approval process. A portal on a narrow topic (like an individual person, or a specific video game, or a specific movie) - where the main article itself is not yet a featured aricle - should be discouraged and the editors should be encouraged to focus on improving the core article first. Arman ^(Talk) 10:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think creating a set of guidelines would be good. For example, a portal should be about a broad enough topic to have at least 50 (or maybe 100) or so articles that could be included in the portal. If it doesn't have that many, it's not really worth the effort to create the portal as just visiting the main topic would likely give you enough information and/or links to relevant related articles.

I reject any notion of requiring approval to create one. That's just a layer of bureaucracy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of guidelines and translated German Wiki's guidelines to see what they said. They've kept a lid on portals by requiring evidence that the portal will be maintained (which it will need if it's more than a showcase page and is being used e.g. to support WikiProjects) and strong support from around a dozen editors. So it's not an approval committee, but does reduce the likelihood of someone creating a half-finished portal on a non-notable topic area, which seems to have happened on English Wikipedia. Bermicourt (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Portal:Right-wing populism

You might want to check Portal:Right-wing populism periodically as someone seems to want to whitewash it into a propaganda portal. 86.134.164.162 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Broter has been reverting OP without explanation. The IP has presented a reason that there could be an WP:RS-based case for, even if they also made an addition that would require talk page discussion and sources to add. However, that's not all.

After Ansh666 removed a quotes section, Broter restored it without discussion, without removing any of the quotes. The quote section is, by and large, Islamophobic, an behavioral problem on Broter's part that has been brought to administrator attention before. Some of the highlights:

• "We have to stop pretending that Islam is merely a religion—it is primarily a totalitarian ideology that aims to conquer the West."
• "Islam is the problem."
• A cherry-picked hadith with Broter's personal emphasis on the words "I have been made victorious with terror." Nothing to do with modern politics, just sheer Islamophobia. In fact, it's enough that I'm going to open an ANI thread to request he be topic banned from Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What's your opinion?

Moved from User talk:The Transhumanist § What's your opinion?

They keep reverting, never providing any rationales. They think they own the page and just positive, no negative. 86.134.164.162 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think maybe they need to be reminded of WP:OWN and friends. Perhaps this is a discussion for the WP:VP? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 06:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Result of ANI thread

For any interested parties, the user Broter was blocked indefinently for a few reasons. The ANI discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#User:Broter_continues_to_push_an_Islamophobic_POV_--_time_for_a_topic_ban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 22:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)