A barnstar to appreciate your overall excellence when it comes to Wikipedia, even when dealing with articles of not more than 50 words, as with Juan de Quiroga y Apablaza (did I spell that right? haha) Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 08:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Rebestalic, I appreciate this very much. You have reminded me of a thing I'd forgot: how nice it feels to receive recognition and gestures of thanks such as this. Having remembered, thanks to you, I'll ensure that two more are sent out to others within 7 moons. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 has created a user script prototype, User:DannyS712/Cat links, that can pull members from a category, a functionality we've been after since the project's revamp last Spring. Now, it's a matter of applying this technique to scripts that will place the items where needed, such as in a section starter script and/or portal builder script.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
If you find any other portals that stand out, please send me the links so I can include them in the next issue. Thank you.
Conversion continues
There are about 1100 portals left in the old style, with subpages and static excerpts. As those are very labor intensive to maintain (because their maintenance is manual), all those except the ones with active maintainers (about 100) are slated for upgrade = approximately 1000. We started with 1500, and so over a quarter of them have been processed so far. That's good, but at this rate, conversion will take another 3 years. So, some automation (AWB?) is in order. We just need to keep at it, and push down on the gas pedal a bit harder.
You can find the old-style portals with an insource search of "box portal skeleton".
As you know, thousands of the new portals are orphans, that is, having no links to them from article space. For all practical purposes, that means they are not part of the encyclopedia yet, and readers will be unlikely to find them.
What is needed are links to these portals from the See also sections of the corresponding root articles.
Dreamy Jazz to the rescue...
Dreamy Jazz has created a bot to place the corresponding category link to the end of each portal (if it is missing), and place a link to each portal in the See also section of the corresponding root articles.
That bot, named User:Dreamy Jazz Bot, is currently in its trial period performing the above described edits!
To take a look at the edits it has made so far, see Special:Contributions/Dreamy_Jazz_Bot.
It shouldn't be long before the bot is processing the entire set of new portals.
Dreamy Jazz Bot has been approved and is now up and running.
What it does is places missing links to orphaned portals. It places a link in the See also section of the corresponding root article, and it puts one at the top of the corresponding category page.
We have thousands of new portals that have yet to be added to the encyclopedia proper, just waiting to go live.
When they do go live, over the coming days or weeks, due to Dreamy Jazz Bot, it will be like an explosion of new portals on the scene. We should expect an increase in awareness and interest in the portals project. Perhaps even new participants.
Get ready...
Get set...
Go!
Another sockpuppet infiltrator has been discovered
User:Emoteplump, a recent contributor to the portals project, was discovered to be a sockpuppet account of an indefinitely blocked user.
When that happens, admins endeavor to eradicate everything the editor contributed. This aftermath has left a wake of destruction throughout the portals department, again.
The following portals which have been speedy deleted, are in the process of being re-created. Please feel free to help to turn these blue again:
Hi! Your latest edit of Template:Talk archive adds the footnote right at the end of the archive page, where it's not useful and is potentially confusing. Did your previous version (using ref group=note) not put the footnote in the right place? I must admit that I'm not entirely convinced that the addition is necessary. —SMALLJIM 09:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Smalljim, for discussing your concerns with me regarding that edit.
The annotation depends oh page coding at the default level; it did not render at all using "ref group=note". I felt that its rendering, at the bottom of the page, was the expected location for footnotes? and was not, therefore, alarmed (in any way). I felt that its potential to engender confusion was offset by the confusion one might avoid if the same editor, instead, observed the closing of a discussion (while archived); having no indication that it is otherwise allowed. Especially in light of the "boldface" admonition, in the message box, that says: "Do not edit the contents of this page.".
I felt the edit was uncontroversial but respect the reservations you've raised. I will not be upset if you restore the status quo, and call for discussion. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I noticed the footnote while browsing one of my archived talk pages: a note at the bottom didn't seem to make any sense (see here) and it took me a while to work out where it came from. However, I don't feel strongly enough about this to start a discussion – the change doesn't migrate to other templates such as Template:AAN and I hardly ever look at my own archives, so if you don't want to self-revert I'm happy for this to remain as a pointer in case anyone else is concerned. Best wishes —SMALLJIM 10:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
RfC on using US or U.S.
Thank you for closing the discussion, however I cannot interpret your closing summary, as most of it seemed critical of my calling it in the first place and politely requesting an objective editor to close it, rather than explaining why no consensus was formed. I found much of your statements a personal attack on me, the initiating editor, when many editors participated with a roughly even split despite your statement there was an overall lack of attendance-- Whats new?(talk) 06:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize Whats new?' I never meant to attack, or insult you in any way. I had hoped to mitigate the potential for its seeming this way, in saying that all participants had acted in good faith. I certainly meant that you were included in that group.
Please allow me to ask a favor of you as I am super busy in real life, right this minute? I ask that you believe in my word, that I am not against you in any way, and believe that I will contact you again, as soon as I am available, to explain things more clearly, and hopefully find opportunities to collaborate with you on some future matters.
I apologize for not making it clear enough, that the failings I'd witnessed and been a part of were not failings of the people involved, but failings of the process (where we have allowed its demise unto near uselessness). If I may ask? in closing: Do you feel ok with letting people "bust their ass" in the hardest of hard ways — hard, even if it was already known, in no terms uncertain, that they could not prevail, or see profit in any way, for their ass bustin? With a mantra that says "don't say a thing; let em bust all the ass they want, and don't say anything at all"? Because I'm not ok with it.
I lament that it happened to you, and that your time and hard work was allowed to waste (and others, and mine); being thoroughly spent on endeavors for naught. And it was known, the whole while long, that it would have been much easier saying nothing at all.
Today, in exception, I've broken ranks and chosen the harder path, and said a few things instead. I believe there are things we need to fix, on Wikipedia, and they require that we talk, the one thing we don't do enough, or very well. Let's give that a fair shake, if you will, and let's come to a best understanding before feeling that the worst of things are all that possibly could be at bear; I assure you that I wish you only the best.--John Cline (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I also had some questions about this closure. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify what you meant when you said the RfC opens in a hopelessly malformed state. Do you mean to say the original question posed by Whats new? was not well-defined? I'm also interested in your statement that the request raised far more questions, in running its course, than ever could have been answered within its scope (as framed) and how that played into your decision to close the discussion. I agree that some arguments were out of scope of the RfC and contradicted or sought to overturn policies that were more established and wide-ranging than the one under immediate discussion (WP:NCTVUS), but I believe that in judging consensus it's appropriate to simply disregard such comments. Finally, could you explain what you mean when you say the discussion is closed with prejudice. Is this a technical Wikipedia term? I couldn't find mention of it in WP:CLOSE. I'm also not familiar with its legal meaning, but by my reading of Prejudice (legal term) it seems like you're saying no appeal is possible? So basically the decision/closing can't be challenged, and further discussions/RfCs on the same topic shouldn't be opened? Is that a thing? (Sorry for all the questions! I'm new to the RfC process) Colin M (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@John Cline: I appreciate your response, however it has left me more confused than before. You seem to be suggesting that your closing comments were not neutral, but rather influenced by your opinions on how policy should work. I don't necessarily disagree that no consensus was a reasonable close, but the reasoning given and close with prejudice because you didn't like the RfC from the beginning and had predetermined it could never meet an outcome, and further being critical for me requesting closure when the closing instructions specifically suggest requesting a neutral party close when there is no clear outcome. Closures are required to be neutral and policy-based. I don't feel that is what this was based on the entrirety of your statements. As Colin M says, there are outstanding questions more towards your comments, rather than decision. -- Whats new?(talk) 21:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Whats new?, I agree with you. I would strongly recommend submitting a close review or challenge, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, where the non-administrator close and the behaviour of the closer can be reviewed, and reversed is necessary. -- /Alex/21 05:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
John, you have just edited your closing statement to say that the RfC is closed “with aggrieve.” I am sorry, but I have no idea what that means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
To begin, my decision to qualify the closing "with prejudice" was poorly considered (on my part) and I chose to amend it to "with aggrieve". This is to say that it is closed with feelings of distressed sorrow, sufficient to constitute a grievance or grievances. The grievance intended is my belief, in accordance with closing instructions, that the RfC should have been closed by its initiator and the attached remedy was a suggestion that attention should be given to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure_procedure, in particular, where it says "Most discussions don't need closure at all."
The summary that followed was meant to support both the determination of a "no consensus" outcome, and the "with aggrieve" qualification along with its grievance attached.
In saying it raised questions that could not be answered within its scope and suggesting that it was malformed when published relate to the fact that it was not advertised as an RfC in either of the relevant categories, namely |policy (for changing the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) guideline at WP:NCTVUS) and |prop (for proposals with site-wide implications and ramifications). In particular, Wikipedia:Consensus says "Wikipedia has a standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines. Their stability and consistency are important to the community." and this closer believes that "standard of participation" was not met and further believes the failure in categorizing the RfC was a contributing factor.
I maintain my assertion that "More diligence is needed in this regard."
To the extent that confidence, in my level of experience to effect the close, or in the closure itself, does not exist, I agree that it should be challenged on appropriate grounds. I do not intend to vacate the closure and will defend it to the extent possible.
I am sorry for any misunderstandings where the closure gave rise, and for the unintended feelings of ill it appears to have engendered. It was not a decision easily reached, or given with nonchalance. It, nevertheless, does reflect the decision reached, and has been given; I intend to stand by it.
Please follow on with questions and comments that have not been addressed, wherever they remain, and I will further reply. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, I dispute your claims that the RfC was not advertised. Apart from the fact RfCs are automatically listed in various places for those editors who regularily participate or monitor RfCs, I published notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television (diff) and the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (diff).
Secondly, the close procedure states If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure which fits this RfC. There was no overwhelming result, with a roughly even split in terms of votes for support and opposition, and various tangents of debating points. Therefore, the issue can reasonably considered contentious and I made the request per the instructions. Your claim that I did not pay attention to the closing instructions is not true - you've just ignored the remainer of the first sentence of the closing instructions in my view, which are particularily apt in this case.
Thirdly, the phrase "with aggrieve" does not make sense - it is not correct English and has no logical meaning. As I said earlier, no consensus may be a fair outcome of the RfC, but it requires a comprehensable, neutral and reasonable justification, which I (and seemingly quite a few others) do not think you have provided. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I just don't see where consensus was all that unclear and only asked that you consider closing these likes yourself in the future. No censure was levied and the sky will not fall if you ignore my recommendations. While I do not acquiesce that the phrase "with aggrieve" is incorrect English, I do not intend to use it again, nor "with prejudice" or any other extraneous qualifier. I have already said that the decision to use it at all was poorly considered by me. Aside that, I hear your criticism and will likely adopt the bulk of it as good advice. I remain available should more be required. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Just a small comment: you've cited the line Most discussions don't need closure at all. from Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure_procedure a few times now, but I think your interpretation of it might be stretched. As I understand it, that page is talking about all discussions on talk pages across Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Closing_discussions § Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed even starts by saying Many informal discussions do not need closing (emphasis added). The fact that an editor used the WP:RFC process suggests that the discussion is likely to be more complex, contentious, or significant than an average discussion. Colin M (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not the only person who didn't understand the wording "with aggrieve." The phrase doesn't have an obvious meaning because "aggrieve" is not a noun. I think what you meant to say was "with grief" or (less overwrought) "with regret." (Whether the grief or regret were warranted is a separate question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Newyorkbrad. I agree that "aggrieve" is not a noun and that the phrase "with aggrieve" in isolation does not parse grammatically. Its usage in the sentence "It is closed with aggrieve.", however, does contain the object "it" which should allow for its use as a transitive verb. That does not mean that your suggestion to use "with regret" is not a better choice; I think it is. If I amend the close again, however (and I am close to choosing this option) I am going to drop the qualification all together. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Upon considering the above discussion, in its entirety, I have decided to amend my closing summary of the RfC on using US or U.S.; please allow some time (approximately one or two hours) for it to post. Since we are, in part, talking about determining consensus, I would be remiss in failing to recognize consensus here. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Done[1] By the way, I have been thoroughly shown that "It is closed with aggrieve." is grammatically incorrect; let he who has not erred in grammar cast the first stone. And do enjoy.--John Cline (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your engagement with myself and other editors on this matter, but I have posted some queries I still have regarding the closure at the Admin noticeboard in the hope of further clarity. Thanks, -- Whats new?(talk) 05:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you as well.--John Cline (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The Ref desks survived the proposal to shut them down
You might be familiar with the Ref desks, by their link on every new portal. They are a place you can go to ask volunteers almost any knowledge-related question, and have been a feature of Wikipedia since August of 2005 (or perhaps earlier). They were linked to from portals in an effort to improve their visibility, and to provide a bridge from the encyclopedia proper to project space (the Wikipedia community).
Well, somebody proposed that we get rid of them, and the community decided that that was not going to happen. Thank you for defending the Ref desks!
The cleanup after sockpuppet Emoteplump continues...
The wake of disruption left by Emoteplump and the admins who reverted many (but not all) of his/her edits is still undergoing cleanup. We could use all the help we can get on this task...
Almost all of the speedy deleted portals have been rebuilt from scratch.
Prior to 2018, for the previous 14 years, portal creation was at about 80 portals per year on average. We did over 3 times that in just the past 9 days. At this rate, we'll hit the 10,000 portal mark in 5 months. But, I'm sure we can do it sooner than that.
What's next for portal pages?
There are 5 drives for portal development:
Create new portals
Expand existing portals, such as with new sections like Recognized content
Convert or restart old-style portals into automated single-page portals
Link to new portals from the encyclopedia
Pageless portals
Let's take a closer look at these...
1: Creating new portals
Portal creation, for subjects that happen to have the necessary support structures already in place, is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.
Eventually, we are going to run out of navigation templates to base portals off of. Though there are still thousands to go. But, when they do run out, we'll need an easy way to create more. A nav footer creation script.
Meanwhile, other resources are being explored and developed, such as categories, and methods to harvest the links they contain.
2: Expanding existing portals
The portal collection is growing, not only by the addition of new portals, but by further developing the ones we already have, by...
Improving and/or adding search parameters to better power the Did you know and In the news sections.
Adding more selected content sections, like Selected biographies.
Adding and maintaining Recognized content sections, via JL-Bot.
Adding pictures to the image slideshow.
Adding panoramic pics.
Categorizing portals.
More features will be added as we dream them up and design them. So, don't be shy, make a wish.
3: Converting old portals
By far the hardest and most time-consuming task we have been working on is updating the old portals, the very reason we revamped this WikiProject in the first place.
There are two approaches here:
A) Restart a portal from scratch, using our automated tools. For basic no-frills portals, that works find. But, for more elaborate portals, as that tends to lose content and features, the following approach is being tried...
B) Upgrade a portal section by section, so little to nothing is lost in the process.
And a tool in the form of a script is under development for linking to portals at the time they are created, or shortly thereafter.
5...
See below...
New WikiProject for the post-saved-portal phase of operations...
Saved portals, are portals with a saved page.
What is the next stage in the evolutionary progression?
Quantum portals.
What are quantum portals?
Portals that come into existence when you click on the portal button, and which disappear when you leave the page.
Or, as Pbsouthwood put it:
...portals that exist only as a probability function (algorithm) until you collapse the wave form by observing through the portal button (run the script), and disappear again after use...
...'til next time, — The Transhumanist 10:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
UAA
Please note that administrators are volunteer editors just like you are, and can only do things when they can get to them. Your report was not even up for 24 hours, this is not an unreasonable amount of time. As I note under the report, the username is not so problematic that the user needs to be blocked without having edited. As stated on UAA, "This page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked", "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless the username is an egregious violation of policy." If the user has not edited, their name is almost always not so serious an issue that it needs to be blocked, unless it is a particularly vulgar name. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; I am seeing need for me to relax my former beliefs regarding enforcement of this policy; I'll implement that from here. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).