Voceditenore (talk | contribs) m →Prestigious award: fmt |
→Primary topic etc: cmt |
||
Line 376: | Line 376: | ||
:::As you say, a page move is often covered by a redirect, except where there is a change of P T (whether to a new one or to decide that there isn't one) which is probably the most common exception - it may even be the only exception. Yes, another good point that should get a mention. Thinking about that one! Long term, that may even be an argument for avoiding P T, as we currently have many RMs that fit that category, and as you say these disadvantage readers. It would be good to avoid them. |
:::As you say, a page move is often covered by a redirect, except where there is a change of P T (whether to a new one or to decide that there isn't one) which is probably the most common exception - it may even be the only exception. Yes, another good point that should get a mention. Thinking about that one! Long term, that may even be an argument for avoiding P T, as we currently have many RMs that fit that category, and as you say these disadvantage readers. It would be good to avoid them. |
||
:::Agree with your ''personal gut feeling'' of course, or at least with its consequences, and if you can produce empirical evidence that's something to consider. But my personal gut feeling is that it will just muddy the waters. We have compelling arguments that P T deserves a rethink, and it seems to me that any objective rethink would ditch P T. It's just a hangover from the early days. But it's also a principle into which a great many editors have invested a great deal of time, which makes it a difficult sell. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa#top|talk]]) 20:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
:::Agree with your ''personal gut feeling'' of course, or at least with its consequences, and if you can produce empirical evidence that's something to consider. But my personal gut feeling is that it will just muddy the waters. We have compelling arguments that P T deserves a rethink, and it seems to me that any objective rethink would ditch P T. It's just a hangover from the early days. But it's also a principle into which a great many editors have invested a great deal of time, which makes it a difficult sell. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa#top|talk]]) 20:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::With regards to the last point, I don't think scrapping PT is viable. Moving the goalposts substantially to would make the current battlefield cases non-issues, sure. But not outright scrapping. That will affect many vital articles, like those on every major academic subject and every country. Due to the extreme importance of those subjects, they are also likely to have the most incoming links and those links would be trashed. |
|||
::::IMO its natural that WP developed PT. In general, the most important subjects of the name were the first ones to have had the article created. Those became PT by default, not by conscious editorial decision-making. The PT rules are a codification of the that, and a way to address those anomalies where the wrong subject is at the base name. Trying to eradicate PT might solve the current issues, but would make matters worse for much more important articles.--[[User:Nilfanion|Nilf]][[commons:User:Nilfanion|anion]] ([[User talk:Nilfanion|talk]]) 18:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==Hello!== |
==Hello!== |
Revision as of 18:16, 10 June 2018
G'day! This is Andrew Alder's user talk page, you knew that. Welcome!
If you're tempted to go below the top three levels, you might like to read User:Andrewa/How not to rant first
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a9/Andrewa_thumbnail.jpg/100px-Andrewa_thumbnail.jpg)
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
|
List of current IPL team rosters listed at Redirects for discussion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/40px-Information.svg.png)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of current IPL team rosters. Since you had some involvement with the List of current IPL team rosters redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).
As I noticed you on the talk page, please check this out and let me know what you think.
2012 Yale University systematic review and Harmonization
A Yale University review published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology analyzing CO2 life cycle assessment emissions from nuclear power determined that.[1]
"The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies."
It went on to note that for the most common category of reactors, the Light water reactor:
"Harmonization decreased the median estimate for all LWR technology categories so that the medians of BWRs, PWRs, and all LWRs are similar, at approximately 12 g CO2-eq/kWh"
The study noted that differences between emissions scenarios were:
"The electric system was dominated by nuclear (or renewables) and a system dominated by coal can result in a fairly large ranging (from 4 to 22 g CO2-eq/kWh) compared to (30 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh), respectively."
The study predicted that depending on a number of variables, including how carbon intensive the electricity supply was in the future, and the quality of Uranium ore:
"median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050."
- ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation
Merger Proposal
You've got mail
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Road Case/Flight case merge
Agreed. I think that someone looking for encyclopaedic information on this topic would not differentiate between a flight or road case and would want all the information available in one article. Indeed, it would make Wikipedia more concise to merge. A visitor may not know there's any difference anyway, and not look for the other article at all.
What is the procedure for getting a merge to happen once it's been flagged on a talk page?Black Stripe (talk) 14 July 2013.
Cuban missile crisis or Cuban Missile Crisis
There is currently another vote taking place on the talk page of Cuban missile crisis whether to recapitalize the name or keep it in lowercase. You participated in the 2012 vote, and may want to voice an opinion or comment on this one. I'm writing this to the voters from 2012 who may not know about this vote. Randy Kryn 19:04 13 January, 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Andrewa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.
WikiProject Portals update, 11 May 2018
We've grown to 73 members, and morale is high. Thank you for joining. Here is some news, and some tasks...
The RfC will be closed soon...
2018-05-11: preparations are being made to close the RfC. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals.
When there, be sure to notice the consultation link.
We're trying to get a prototypical single-page portal developed in time to show the RfC closers before they make their final decision. You can help. It's Portal:Humanism. So far, we've applied selective transclusion (automation) to excerpts, and have made the following sections without subpages: intro, selected article, selected biography, categories, related portals, wikiprojects, things to do, and wikimedia. Eight down, 4 to go, plus 2 formatting subpages (not sure we can migrate those). Automating every section, would also be nice.
Main objectives
Our main objectives currently, are:
- Replace static excerpts with selective transclusions, so that the excerpts always stay fresh (that is, match the source content). We are now doing this on the portal base page as much as possible, to reduce the number of subpages that are needed. See #2...
- Migrate the functions of subpages to the portal base pages. There are around 150,000 subpages in portal space. We aim to make these obsolete by using templates and other calls from the portal base pages.
- Improve portal design to make portals self-update. Semi-dynamic sections update from a static list, as used in {{Transclude random excerpt}}. Fully-dynamic sections would update from a list maintained elsewhere on Wikipedia, like a category. We haven't found a way to do this yet, other than to create a bot (which we will probably need to do).
Maintenance pass #1: Upgrading the intro section
The intro section of many portals transcludes an "Intro" subpage that has an excerpt in it.
We're replacing that with a selective transclusion directly in the intro section, bypassing the subpage. Though, there's a little more to it...
For instructions, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Transclude intro excerpt directly on the portal base page.
Please skip Portal:American Civil War, as that is specifically being maintained by hand.
Maintenance pass #2: Obsoleting the Wikimedia subpages
One of the sections on many portals links to sister projects on the subject. This needlessly takes a subpage. The subpage can be made obsolete by using the template {{Wikimedia for portals}} directly on the portal base page.
This has been done for several hundred portals so far.
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Obsolete a Wikimedia subpage for instructions.
Maintenance pass #3: calling the category tree from the portal base page
Certes figured out how...
{{subst:Text|<category|tree>}}{{subst:PAGENAME}}{{subst:Text|</categorytree>}}
For more information, see the thread Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Rendering PAGENAME inside categorytree tag doesn't work (it does now).
More to come...
In the meantime, see ya around the portals! — The Transhumanist 15:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
![Notice](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Groove (drumming) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Appears to be mainly a list of unsourced examples. Drum grooves are covered in "Grooves (music)", so the need for a separate page is minimal.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MightyWarrior (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Portals WikiProject update, 25 May 2018
We have grown to 79 members.
Please provide a warm welcome to our latest additions, Wpgbrown, Cactus.man, JLJ001, and Wumbolo.
A lot is going on, much of it on the WikiProject's talk page, so be sure to go there and join in on any of the many discussions taking place there.
Elsewhere around the portal project, or related to portals, the following is happening...
New news template ready for testing
Evad37 has created a new template, with supporting lua module, to handle news in portals...
{{Transclude selected current events}} is ready to be tested in some actual portals. Let Evad37 know if you need help with the search patterns.
Noyster commented that "This is the best portal innovation since sliced bread!"
See the relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Alternative to Wikinews.
Thank you, Evad.
Coming soon: Automatic article alerts (but there is a glitch)
Our WikiProject is now subscribed to the bot that makes automatic article alerts, but the subpage where they are posted has not been added to our WikiProject page yet because of a weird problem...
Featured portal nominations from two years ago keep popping up on there.
Please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Article alerts to see if you can figure out how to fix this.
Once that is remedied, it will be posted on our WikiProject page.
Thank you.
Note that, this will only track base pages, because to track the rest, we'd have to create over 140,000 talk pages for the subpages, and that just isn't worthwhile (as we're trying to remove the subpages anyways). Therefore, any alerts for subpages will still need to be posted manually.
New portal, still needs work
- Portal:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, courtesy of Mozart834428196. See also, the discussion.
Drafting a new portals guideline
Your input/editing is welcome on the draft-in-progress of a new guideline for portals.
See or work on the draft at User:Cesdeva/sandbox11.
See also the discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines#RfC on new portal guidelines
RfC on new TOC layout for main portal list
There is a proposal to change the look of the table of contents at Portal:Contents/Portals.
See: Portal talk:Contents/Portals#RFC on layout update.
Deletion discussion survivors
Thank you to those who have participated in portal deletion discussions. There are still some editors out there who despise portals, and this comes across in their argumentation style. Wow. Such negativity. But, there is some good news...
- Portal:Quidditch survived its 2nd deletion nomination
- Portal:Prehistory of Antarctica did the same
Current deletion discussions are posted on our WikiProject page.
Portal space clean up
While portal detractors are trying to get rid of portals via MfD, we have deleted many of them via speedy deletion (per {{Db-p1}} or {{Db-p2}}). Essentially, they were bare skeletons, with maybe a little meat on them. The plus here is that speedy deletion is without prejudice to re-creating the portals. They can easily be restarted from scratch without getting approval, or be undeleted by request by someone willing to work on them. We have kept track of these, for when someone wants to rebuild them. They are listed at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet.
We are also removing subpages, the functions of which have been migrated to portal base pages. To see which ones have been removed, look for the redlinks in our watchlist.
There is also an MfD concerning some of these at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Redundant subpages of the Cornwall portal.
For subpages that need to be deleted, you can conveniently place this speedy deletion template at the top of each of them:
{{Db-g6|rationale=of subpage clean up – this subpage's function has been migrated to the portal base page and is no longer needed}}
Then an admin will come along and delete them.
Please help list the unlisted portals!
There are still 100 existing portals not yet presented on the main portal list at Portal:Contents/Portals. There were 400, so we've come a long way. Thank you! But we are not done yet...
Please list a couple of them. Every little bit helps. If each member of this project listed one more, it would almost all be done. Many hands make light work.
The list of missings, and instructions, are to be found at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet.
I hope to see you there!
Wrapping up
These developments make up just the tip of the iceberg. I'll have more to report in the next update, soon. — The Transhumanist 00:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Whoa, I missed one...
There's an article about the Portals WikiProject in the new issue of Signpost:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-05-24/WikiProject report
Enjoy.
P.S.: We now have 80 members. Evad37 just joined! — The Transhumanist 01:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Portals WikiProject update #007, 31 May 2018
We have grown to 89 members.
This is the seventh issue of this newsletter. For previous issues, see our newsletter archive.
Welcome
A warm welcome to our nearly one dozen new members...
Our new members include:
- Evad37
- Checkingfax
- Grey Wanderer
- Voceditenore
- TestPAKISTAN
- Godsy
- Greatedits1
- Charlesdrakew
- Ww2censor
- Simon Burchell
- TheGridExe
Be sure to say "hi" and welcome them to the team.
The portal set has shrunk
There were 1515 portals, but now we have 1475, because we speedy deleted a bunch of incompleted portals that had been sitting around for ages, that were empty shells or had very little content. Because they were speedied, they can be rebuilt from scratch without acquiring approval from WP:DRV.
Maintenance runs on the portals set have begun
This is what we have been gearing up for: upgrading the portals en masse, using AWB.
More than half of the Associated Wikimedia sections have been converted to no longer use a subpage. This chore will probably be completed over the next week or two. Many thanks to the WikiGnome Squad, who have added an Associated Wikimedia section to the many geography-related portals that lacked one. The rest of the subjects await. :)
The next maintenance drive will be on the intro sections. Notices have gone out to the WikiProjects for which one or more portals fall within their subject scope. Once enough time has elapsed for them to respond (1 week), AWB processing of intro sections will begin.
Thank you, you
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your part in the RfC. I went back and reread much of it. I believe your enthusiasm played a major part in turning the tide on there. I'm proud of all of you.
Why reread that mess, you ask?
To harvest ideas, and to keep the problems that need to be fixed firmly in mind. But, also to keep in touch. See below...
Thank yous all around
I've contacted all of the other opposers of the RfC proposal to delete portals, to thank them for their support, and to assure them that their decision was not made in vain. I updated them on our activities, provided the link to the interviews about this project in the Signpost, pointed out our newsletter archive so they can keep up-to-date with what we are doing, and I invited them all to come and have a look-see at our operations (on our talk page).
Sockpuppet, and reverting his work
It so happened that one of our members was a sockpuppet: JLJ001. According to the admin who blocked him, he was a particularly tricky long term abuser. This is a weird situation, since the user was quite helpful. He will be missed.
This has been somewhat disruptive, because admins are doing routine deletions of the pages (portals, templates, etc.) he created, and reversion of his edits (I don't know if they will be reverting all of them). Please bear with them, as they are only doing what is best in the long run.
The following pages have been deleted by the admins so far, that I know of:
- Portal:Plymouth
- Portal:Bedfordshire
- Portal:Suffolk
- Portal:Norfolk
- User:JLJ001/tag
- Template:Non-standard portal flag
- Template:Portal flag
Automation so far, section by section...
- Intro – {{Transclude lead excerpt}}
- Selected article – {{Transclude random excerpt}}
- In the news – {{Transclude selected current events}}
- Associated Wikimedia –
{{Wikimedia for portals|species=no|voy=no}}
- Categories –
{{#tag:categorytree|{{PAGENAME}}}}
Automatic article alerts is up and running
Automatic article alerts are now featured on the project page.
Some super out-of-date entries kept showing up on there, so posting it on the Project page was delayed. Thanks to Evad37 and AfroThundr for providing solutions on this one. Evad37 adjusted the workflow settings per Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing#Choosing workflows, to make sure only the appropriate page types show up. AfroThundr removed the tags from the old entries that caused them to keep showing up in the article alerts.
Other things that could use some automation
Noyster pointed out that it would be nice to automate the updating of the portals section at the Community bulletin board.
Another major component of the portal system is the main list of portals, at Portal:Contents/Portals. How would we go about automating the updating of that?
Please post your ideas on the WikiProject's talk page. Thank you.
Deletion discussion survivors
Keep in mind that we have already speedy deleted almost all of the nearly empty portals, which can be rebuilt without approval whenever it is convenient to do so. Other portals should be completed if at all possible rather than delete them through MfD (which requires approval from Deletion review to rebuild).
- Portal:Juanes – see the discussion
(Current deletion discussions are posted on our WikiProject page).
Portals needing repair
Wrapping up
There's still more, but it will have to wait until next issue.
Until then, see ya around the project. — The Transhumanist 12:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Primary topic etc
A couple comments, not sure which of your many essays these relate to (could you consolidate them)?
I think you have been dismissive of the potential benefits to PT, which are certainly credible and there are two basic scenarios where a reader will benefit from appropriate PT selection:
- When they use their search tool in a fashion that takes them right to the page. That can be due to a design limitation, or how the reader uses their search engine. WP's internal search does that if they type a word and hit enter. External tools can behave in a similar fashion, taking them dumbly to http://en.wikipedia.org/<term>.
- When following a link from outside WP. If we convert a base name from a PT to a dab, we cannot expect the external site to correct its links, and any readers using those incoming links will be hindered.
I can also think of way to get empirical data instead of just guessing: Move a high-traffic dab from the basename to (disambiguation). Police the internal links as usual, ensuring links to the dab point to it directly at (disambiguation). The portion of traffic that still goes to the base name is the portion of traffic that might benefit from a PT. eg If there are zero internal links to Mercury, all the traffic for Mercury has followed an external link or used a non-optimal search method. This can be compared to the traffic for Mercury (disambiguation). If Plymouth is moved to Plymouth, Devon, then keeping the dab at Plymouth (disambiguation) would provide very good test data. I think more testing of the various theories would be good, instead of trying to guess reader intentions (such guesses are normally just extrapolations from our own expectations)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest, Nilfanion! These are Well thought out and relevant comments, and I find them very helpful.
- There are only three essays that are relevant that I can see:
- User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic is obsolete, and should be only used to understand the other essays, and I think this is explicitly enough stated already.
- User:Andrewa/Why primary topic is to be avoided is relevant to some of the points above, and is IMO the page and talk page you want.
- User:Andrewa/negative benefit is in theory more general, but more recent and probably clearer. There may be scope to copy some of its material to Why primary topic is to be avoided. Some of the points you make are relevant there too.
- There may be scope for consolidation of the last two. But for the moment I'm more inclined to develop both in parallel. There may be some duplication of effort on my part but I think it's the lesser effort.
- I think you have been dismissive of the potential benefits to PT, which are certainly credible: I don't mean to be dismissive. But I do think a rethink is indicated.
- When they use their search tool in a fashion that takes them right to the page... Example? I'm very interested in this if it's true! In the scenarios I have considered, it is at best neither a plus nor a minus.
- When following a link from outside WP... True. But that's problem with any page move. It's not just links from non-Wikipedia web pages such as my linklog and offwikipedia essays, it's also browser bookmarks, cached pages, the wayback machine and similar, links in edit summaries, references in printed and ebook scholarly works... and more. But we don't normally consider that at all as a factor in RM discussions, instead we take the long term view, move if necessary to the best title regardless, and use hatnotes and redirects.
- I think more testing of the various theories would be good, instead of trying to guess reader intentions (such guesses are normally just extrapolations from our own expectations)... Interested in any such input, but I think you are now the one being dismissive. My analysis is not trying to guess reader intentions. Instead, I am trying to consider all of the possibilities. This is a valid analytical technique, common in mathematics and logic. Yes, it takes some imagination, and I thank you for your efforts to find gaps. As I said, that's helpful. But I think these particular gaps are already covered. Andrewa (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- One example where a search will take them right to the page: Log out of your account fully, and using Wikipedia's default search type in "Venus" and hit enter. Don't pause for the drop down, just type it in and go. That's faster isn't it?
- With regards to page moves, generally the new and improved title has a redirect from the older title - and therefore has no negative impact to link followers. PT is one of the few cases where we deliberately break links to what is an suitable title (if not optimal). When else would we actually suppress the redirect? We don't factor that in, but we should have an awareness of that at least. Its a good reason to justify the status quo unless there is a solid consensus for change.
- My personal gut feeling is that the group that PT tries to protect is actually very small, and therefore we could do whatever the heck we wanted and its unlikely to significantly detract from reader experience. PT is therefore not worth the amount of editor time spent debating it (I'm not proposing this, but we could even use the Wikidata codes as article titles, and with the correct redirects, nothing would break). But I think we can obtain the data to confirm that, as opposed to going on gut feeling.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK, granted that this particular example will give a reader benefit. Good catch! I think it's an unusual situation, but that is as you say guesswork. It's a good point and should be mentioned in my essay(s) and will be.
- As you say, a page move is often covered by a redirect, except where there is a change of P T (whether to a new one or to decide that there isn't one) which is probably the most common exception - it may even be the only exception. Yes, another good point that should get a mention. Thinking about that one! Long term, that may even be an argument for avoiding P T, as we currently have many RMs that fit that category, and as you say these disadvantage readers. It would be good to avoid them.
- Agree with your personal gut feeling of course, or at least with its consequences, and if you can produce empirical evidence that's something to consider. But my personal gut feeling is that it will just muddy the waters. We have compelling arguments that P T deserves a rethink, and it seems to me that any objective rethink would ditch P T. It's just a hangover from the early days. But it's also a principle into which a great many editors have invested a great deal of time, which makes it a difficult sell. Andrewa (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- With regards to the last point, I don't think scrapping PT is viable. Moving the goalposts substantially to would make the current battlefield cases non-issues, sure. But not outright scrapping. That will affect many vital articles, like those on every major academic subject and every country. Due to the extreme importance of those subjects, they are also likely to have the most incoming links and those links would be trashed.
- IMO its natural that WP developed PT. In general, the most important subjects of the name were the first ones to have had the article created. Those became PT by default, not by conscious editorial decision-making. The PT rules are a codification of the that, and a way to address those anomalies where the wrong subject is at the base name. Trying to eradicate PT might solve the current issues, but would make matters worse for much more important articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello!
Hi Andrew! I am here to ask a favor--if you are too busy, feel free to say so, I won't be offended. The suggest-bot sent me an article that I have been working on and I think it's pretty close to as good as I can make it but it always pays to have another set of eyes look for mistakes and flaws, so I am here to ask for your help. I wanted to ask if you would be willing to read it and tell me if you see anything that particularly needs changing--anything at all--I would be grateful. I have tried to remove the questionable references from the previous edition but I left a couple I was unsure about--the wayback machine is one--what the heck is that anyway? I could really use the insight of someone with more expertise writing on Wikipedia. Oh--and I wanted to tell you, I just left the other article. I decided I had too much of a sense of ownership and it was on me not to stay and fight, so I left them to do whatever they felt needed doing. I even took it off my watch page. So I moved on to Biblical criticism and would truly appreciate your input. And thank you Andrew--for everything. You have been awesomely amazingly great--whether you help with this article or not. I hope you will always consider me a friend. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- YAY! You are so awesome! Thank you. I saw you added a source--very cool. Any other comments? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Lots that could be done!
- I was wondering whether any other sister projects are relevant... if so we could use template:Sister project links instead of just Wikisource. But Wiktionary doesn't have a definition of Biblical criticism (we could add one); That's just a matter of setting that parameter to "N". Wikisource seems to be the main one.
- The lead needs work. It's too long for one paragraph, in my opinion.
- And probably much more.
- I see you're already a member of WikiProject Bible (hence WPBi as WPB is already WikiProject beer). Good stuff. I have been meaning for ages to set up a work group within WPBi to fill in the gaps of articles on People in the Bible. Even ones who get only one mention could be redirects to an article namespace page such as List of minor characters in the Old Testament for example. You may be the prod that finally gets that going! (In all my spare (;-> time.) Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The lead sentence or the entire paragraph needs work? I wrote the first half of the paragraph, including the lead sentence, which I used to replace part of what the original author had. The second half of the lead paragraph is the original author's, but it seemed appropriate as a summary, so I kept it. The lead sentence is a little long. I originally had a semicolon dividing it, then removed that because I was unsure if it was properly "Wiki" style to have a semicolon in the first sentence. Is it? I can't find a policy on it. The lead sentence has the identifying characteristics of the topic in it, and with the rest of the paragraph, summarizes the extensive body of material--I thought. What would you suggest in its place? If you can explain to me what needs doing--and if you could explain why--it would really help me learn from this and perhaps not repeat my error--whatever it is. I really need to learn from these experiences. Anyway, I appreciate you taking a look and will be grateful for any suggestions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Andrew, I don't even know what a sister project is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oh--and my lead sentence is a definition--is that not good? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. I went and attempted some changes. Since I wasn't sure if it was the sentence or the paragraph--I did both. My adjustments may not address anything you were concerned about at all! But it's a little tighter. The lead is still a definition--it could be used for Wiktionary probably--maybe--sort of... or not. Tell me if you think it's an improvement or not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- See the template to which I linked, or wp:sister projects. The most important for our purposes are probably Wikimedia commons and Wikisource, followed by Wiktionary and Wikiquote . Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- uhmmm--okay--but I am unsure from a once over reading that page exactly what I should put where, so how about you and I say we have a rough consensus for it--and you go ahead and do it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- So--if you could explain it to me more succinctly than the page, I would be happy to do as you have suggested. I don't really understand it--but I'll do it... :-) just because you think it's a good idea. Also, how can I get the quality reassessed? It's a start quality right now and I think that is no longer accurate. I asked on the page about assessment, but nothing seems to happen much there. Also--how does one go about alphabetizing the reference list? I have seen that in a couple of articles and thought it might be really helpful to finding things later. What is your opinion of use order vs. alphabetical order? Or do you have one? Andrew am I imposing on you with all my questions and not-knowingness? If I am just say you don't have time and I will go away--no hard feelings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Aaarrgh! I don't know if I can or not--I didn't bother to take note since I didn't think there was anything unusual in it. I will go look. I'm thinking it's something I've seen recently so that would mean some critical method--or one of the hundred people in the article!! I'll look! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay so that turned out to be really easy. Here's one Documentary hypothesis. And this one Textual criticism and this one Source criticism. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
More questions! Are you tired of me yet? How--(and why I suppose)--does one put a WikiBible portal on an article--or whatever one does with it?!? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No, not even remotely tired of you... to quote Judge Bernstein on the last page of The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (a recommended read) explaining to Tom why he'll act for him for free: I like your idea of simple justice. The sort I deal with is often far too complex. Similarly, I spend much of my time as an admin dealing with people whose egos seem to matter much more to them than the fundamental goal of Wikipedia. It's necessary, but this is SO much better.
Not sure I understand the question about "WikiBible portal". I guess you mean Portal:Bible, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay good--if you ever change your mind just say. I guess I mean Portal:Bible I don't really know what I mean! But I am hoping for some of those other links you were talking about to other places and back again--sort of like traveling. It seems cool... :-) Thank you Andrew. If all admins were like you Wiki would be a better place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Portals WikiProject update #008, 7 June 2018
The WikiProject now has 92 participants, including 16 admins.
Welcome
A warm welcome to the newest members of the team:
Be sure to say hi.
Congrats
Pbsouthwood has just gotten through the grueling RfA process to become a Wikipedia administrator. Be sure to congratulate him.
The reason he went for it was: "For some time I expect to be busy with subpage deletion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals as mentioned above. The amount of work is expected to keep me busy for some time. I am primarly a content creator and contributor to policy discussions, but would be willing to consider other admin work on request, providing that I feel that my involvement would be appropriate and not too far outside my comfort zone."
New feature: Picture slideshow
Evad37 has figured out a way to let the user flip through pictures without purging the page. Purging is awkward because there is an intermediary confirmation screen that you have to click on "yes". In the new picture slideshow section, all you have to do is click on the >
to go to the next picture or <
to instantly show the previous feature. The feature also shuffles the pictures when the page is initiated, so that they are shown in a different order each time the user visits the page (or purges it).
It is featured in Portal:Sacramento, California. Check it out to the right.
Keep in mind that the feature is a beta version. Please share your comments on how to refine this feature, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Refining the Picture slideshow.
The one-page portal has been achieved
We now have a one-page portal design. It isn't fully automated, nor is it even fully semi-automated, as there are still some manually filled-in areas. But it no longer requires any subpages in portal space, and that is a huge improvement. For example, Portal:Sacramento, California utilizes the one-page design concept. While is employs heavy use of templates, it does not have any subpages of its own.
I commend you for your teamwork
This is the most cooperative team I've ever seen. With a strong spirit of working together to get an important job done. Kudos to you.
In conclusion...
There's more. A lot more. But it will have to wait until next issue, but you don't have to wait. See what's going on at the WikiProject's talk page. — The Transhumanist 01:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Advocate
Thank you for your idea of advocacy in Bach editing. How would you mediate in the stalled DYK nomination, which - whatever the state of the article is - will not proceed as long as the tag on top is on, which concerns only the two editors? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would first ask both to agree to a voluntary and temporary TBan on that article and its talk page. If one accepted and the other refused, take further action against the one refusing to make it a very specific CBan. Then tidy up the article and the DYK can go ahead. If neither agrees cross that bridge! But maybe you've done some of this already?
- The other thing is that we seem to be moving towards consensus on an IBan. That's not as useful in resolving this DYK, but it will help. Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am bit allergic against bans of whatever form ;) - How can the merge/split tag be solved when the two who disagree can't interact? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
first article
Andrew I just had my first article moved to main space! I am so thrilled! I am sharing the joy! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Prestigious award
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Old_Listerine_bottle.jpg/100px-Old_Listerine_bottle.jpg)
I hereby confer the Listerine Award on you and me. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)