User talk:Polyamorph/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

New page reviewer granted

Hello Polyamorph. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Polyamorph, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Racism of the Grammy's

Hi. I just wanted to check on your speedy deletion nomination of Racism of the Grammy's - is it just the quotes in the article, or is there more that I'm missing? (Obviously there are other problems with that article.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ian. I checked using Earwig's Copyvio detector and there are blocks of text taken from at least two sources. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. We usually get reports on copyvios by students, but I didn't get one for this article, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. (I've gotten so used to the reports that I forget to check Earwig's tool.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

King George’s Cavalry

While I disagree with the redirect, I am thankful that you did not delete the page. thank you. Flylikeaseagull (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Italian submarine Velella

Can I ask you to read WP:SETINDEX (ships) and WikiProject Ships/Guidelines § Index pages. The index page is the primary article. I will revert your edit Lyndaship (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lyndaship it's the primary article if the other articles exist. But currently they don't. So why are you creating an index for non-existent pages. Where is the guideline that says that is a sensible thing to do? Polyamorph (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It's the way we do it! I see you have posted on the ships project page and I'm sure someone will explain it there better than me. There are previous examples in the archive. The creation of the index page enables anyone looking for a ship of that name to discover that there is more than one possibility and see the period that they existed to identify the right one. In Vellela's case they can get to the information which is removed from the redirect by clicking on the class link but even if the class link was red the index page should still be created. Leaving the redirect would result in someone being redirected to the wrong Velella if they were looking for the earlier sub. Lyndaship (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough Lyndaship, that makes sense. Sorry it's the first time I've come across it. In future I'll mark new ship index pages as patrolled. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_9pLNmTBAJyvZutv&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your warning

I've replied on my talk page. -Ssolbergj (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update, April 22, 2018

Thank you for joining the Portals WikiProject.

Here's our first project-wide update. I hope you enjoy it...

Reboot

The WikiProject reboot has been a success: the new re-envisioned project is up and running, with new members, ongoing discussions about automation, design, and upkeep; maintained task queques; and updates to members, like this, the very first one!

The RfC

As you know, there's a proposal to delete all portals. It started out looking pretty dismal for portals, with primarily posts supporting their demise. It turned out that the proposer didn't post a deletion notice on the very pages being nominated for deletion (a requirement for all deletion discussions). Once that was done, a flood of opposition came in and has apparently turned the tide.

RfCs generally run for 30 days. It started April 8th, and so it has about 14 more days to run its course.

The more work we can do during that time on the portals, the stronger the reasons for keeping them will be. And the more prepared we will be for any MfDs that follow the closing of the RfC.

AWB?

You may be wondering why we asked for AWB experience in the member-sign-up list.

We are gearing up to do maintenance runs on the entire set of portals, and the more people we have who can use AWB, the better.

But we're not quite ready to start this yet.

To be able to use AWB on the portals, we first need to know what the end result needs to be. Like on the news sections, do we comment out the out-of-date ones, or do we place the code to activate the newsbot on those pages? That would require an assessment of WikiNews and its news generating performance (areas covered, volume in each area), etc.

You can help us figure this out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Discussions about news sections.

Another area we're gearing up for, to do passes with AWB, are upgrades to the intro sections of portals. Many of these have static (copied/pasted) excerpts that go stale over time.

We're trying to figure out how to make self-updating excerpts to replace the existing static excerpts that are on many portals, and once this is done, AWB will be used to place the new code. See the discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Discussions about selective transclusion in intros.

"What can I do?"

There are 3 major areas of activity right now:

Update the main portal list at Portal:Contents/Portals

There are a few hundred existing portals that are missing from this list.

The list of missing entries, and instructions on what to do, can be found at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet.

We need everybody's help on this. It's a big chore for one persons. But, many hands make light work. Please help chip away at this chore as much as you can. A little each day, form all of us, will get this done pretty quick.

Familiarize yourself with the portal system

In addition to browsing the portals in the 2 lists mentioned in the section above, you should take a look at the portal name space itself and what is in it.

That can be done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Watchlist.

Join in on the discussions

There are discussions on many aspects of the WikiProject's operations, with more to come.

Such as about the purposes and functions of portals, design discussions, and so on.

There's even a automated design discussion over at Village Pump Technical, on selective transclusion.

I hope to see you on the talk page.

What's coming?

In addition to the automation efforts mentioned above, we will be looking into how to automate the selection and display of alternating excerpts, and alternating pictures, for the various portal sections.

Watch for these discussions on the Wikiproject's talk page.

Summing up...

Get ready, get set, go! — The Transhumanist 22:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: The main example given at the RfC of the problems of portals was Portal:Cricket. Therefore, it's the top priority portal to update. Please lend a hand. - TT

Proportion

See the talk page, Talk:Proportion. You undid my edit while I was replying. My reversions were not edit warring as reverting edits of blocked and banned users is exempted - see WP:NOT3RR.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please reply at the talk page Bbefore reverting my edits. Mikus has a valid point. You do not have the consensus that you think you do. Polyamorph (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

wxPerl

Hello, Polyamorph. In an effort to meet the notability, at least two secondary sources are added. They are not only verifiable and published books but also independent of the subject. If you think the article still fails to demonstrate the notability regardless of the references, I'd suggest to place {{notability}} tag rather than making a redirect. (Please see Oracle Template Library, for example) Please let me know if the sources are still inappropriate. I am not the original author of the article, but if you think the poor writing is the problem, then let me or others help to improve the article. Thank you. --Ykhwong (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ykhwong. The sources do not indicate significant coverage to satisy our general notability guidelines. Pointless adding a tag to an article that is not notable and previous edits to the page indicate general consensus for a redirect. You'll need to improve the article by providing sources that indicate significant coverage (the current ones do not). If you do that then another patroller will review the page. Polyamorph (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but still hard to understand when compared to the other IT-related articles such as Oracle Call Interface and Oracle Template Library. They have existed for a long like wxPerl. Unless you think that they meet the notability guideline, is it also a good idea to make a list like List of Oracle database components to make them redirects? Of course, there are more related components like Oracle RAC which is considered notable and can be linked from the list. --Ykhwong (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I haven't received any answer from you for days. I looked through Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline that suggests to place a {{notability}} tag and that is also an option that we can apply to the article. What do you think about this? --Ykhwong (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ykhwong. Your arguments seem to rely on Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Either find sources that indicate significant coverage or accept the redirect. Adding a notability template would not be constructive if there is no one willing to improve the article. But if you want to work on this article then I am not stopping you. Polyamorph (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Some task suggestions...

Dear Polyamorph,

Thank you for signing up as a WikiGnome at the WikiProject Portals.

Here are some task suggestions:

Add missing entries to Portal:Contents/Portals (instructions are on the its talk page)
Explore the portals of another language Wikipedia (e.g., Spanish, French, German, etc.), and post anything cool that you discover at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Exploring the portals of other Wikipedias. You can view them in English with Google Chrome or Chromium (web browser).
Inspect portals and add Category:Portals under construction to those that are incomplete

Portals are listed at Portal:Contents/Portals and on its talk page

Most incomplete portals have one or more empty sections that have nothing more than a red subpage link in the middle of them.

Have fun. — The Transhumanist 06:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject heads up, April 27, 2018

We now have 52 members, and more are joining daily.

New and easier way to handle excerpts

Attention portal maintainers!

There's a new template to improve existing and new portals, called {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

It is a lot easier to use than copying and pasting text from articles, as it displays the paragraphs you specify automatically for you.

It makes excerpts so that they are always current and never go stale or fork.

It is more powerful than it looks, because it has the Lua Module:Excerpt supporting it.

Be careful, as it is alpha software. Please notify the WikiProject talkpage of any problems you come across.

To give you a sense of the reaction this template is generating, here is an excerpt of a discussion thread from the WikiProject's talk page:

This new template is fantastic. I've added it to the intro sections of the portals on Australian cities (eg P:PER) and it works brilliantly. My compliments to its creators. It can probably also be used in other sections of many portals (eg "Selected article" and "Selected biography"), and, for that reason, will probably make the task of maintaining portals a great deal easier. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being so brave. Portal:Adelaide/Intro just got a lot simpler! Certes (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Kudos on a wonderful template. — The Transhumanist 03:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is amazing stuff. I'm going to get to work on using it on the selected content at most of these portals very soon. Waggers TALK 13:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The RfC

I wrote a comment in the the April 26 section of the RfC explaining what we are up to. I liked the excerpt above so much, that I went back to my RfC posting, and inserted it.

Please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals to your watchlist

Wish list

What's this? An old oil lamp. It's so dirty, I think I'll polish it...

*poof*

Whoa! Are you a WikiGenie? In that case, I get 3 wishes!

I wish...

...that Portal:Contents/Portals becomes up-to-date. (The missing entries are listed on the talk page, with instructions).
...the WikiProject to have Article Alerts. ({{WikiProject Portals}} templates have already been placed on all portal talk pages).
...that Portal:Cricket becomes a shining example of portal excellence. (It was the main example of a crappy and unmaintained portal at the RfC).

Please make my wishes come true. See you around the portals! — The Transhumanist 08:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Slavic spirits

Thank you for your interest shown for articles about Slavic spirits. I have been trying to sketch a way to put an order into all those small, badly written, and totally unsourced articles. I invite you to take part in the discussions which are unfolding here.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Vanessa Vanjie Mateo

I noticed that you marked that page as reviewed. I am new to NPP but had that as a borderline case between approve and AfD for lack of notability. Can you share what pushed you towards reviewed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The extensive coverage in reliable sources. Best Polyamorph (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Liberation (album), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Polyamorph (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Portals Overview, May 04, 2018

Thank you for being a member of the Portals WikiProject, and thank you for all the work you have all been doing on the portal namespace. To see the activity, check out the watchlist.

This is our 3rd issue, see previous issues at the Newsletter archive.

Top priority: Main list of portals needs updating

The top, and one of the most visible parts, of the portal system is Portal:Contents/Portals, which is intended to list all (completed) portals on Wikipedia.

About half of the missing existing portals have been added since this WikiProject's reboot (April 17th). Thank you to RockMagnetist, TriNitrobrick, Polyamorph, PratyushSinha101, Ganesha811, Bermicourt, Javert2113, Noyster, Ɱ, Lepricavark, XOR'easter, and Emir of Wikipedia, for working on this.

We are half-way to completion with this. We need everyone to chip in until it is done. Instructions, and the list of missing entries are at Portal talk:Contents/Portals#These are not listed yet.

I hope you'll join me there. ("Many hands make light work").

Thank you.

Membership

We're at 66 members, with more joining daily. We even have 6 WikiGnomes!

Special thanks

I have awarded Certes with a portals barnstar on his talk page for his work on the new excerpt templates that are revolutionizing the portal system (Template:Transclude lead excerpt & Template:Transclude random excerpt). If you'd like to show your appreciation, please feel free to stop by his talk page and add your signature to the barnstar itself.

Thank you Certes. You are enabling this WikiProject to get the right things done, fast.

By the way, the templates have already gone international. After being told about the templates, Mossab wrote:

Thanks You very much!. Those are fantastic and great templates! I transferred them to Arabic Wikipedia and they do a magic great job. I worked to improve portal anatomy here and i do every thing i can to improve it and i am very sad for the nomination for deletion of portals :(. I am glad to be member on WikiProject Portals and i added my name with pleasure. Kind regards

RFC

As you know, the (April 8th) proposal to delete all portals and the portal namespace inspired the reboot of this WikiProject. RfCs typically run for 30 days, which means there are 5 days left including today, before the RfC will be closed. The !votes are predominantly "oppose", but many editors have shared their disappointment with the portal system. We have our work cut out for us in correcting the problems of the portals to address their concerns. Complaints ranged from being out of date and lacking maintenance, to taking up the time of editors that they felt (due to low traffic) would be better spent improving articles.

Anti-WikiProject drama

This past week has been somewhat stressful for me, with more than a little conflict...

It culminated with my being reported at the Administrator's Noticeboard "for spamming and canvassing". This is the second time I've been reported there during the RfC; the first one was for posting notices of the deletion discussion (the RfC) at the top of all portal pages.

The accusations were 1) Posting notices of the deletion discussion (the RfC) at the top of all portal pages, 2) Adding an Article alerts section to the Portals WikiProject page, and 3) posting notices (invitations) about this WikiProject on user talk and portal talk pages.

None of which fall under the Wikipedia definitions of spamming or canvassing.

Thank you, Lionelt and Lepricavark, for coming to my rescue. I don't know how the discussion would have turned out if you had not spoken up.

The discussion was closed as "no action necessary".

After that, the person responsible posted their thoughts to my talk page. Here they are, with my response:

Congratulations, it appears your relentless targeted advertising of the RFC, your beating the RFC Supporters with a stick by posting countless times there, your dishonest insistence that Current Events was on the chopping block, and your obstruction of clean up efforts at MfD are paying dividends. Have fun playing with Portal space where no one will read your work. I'm sure someone will eventually clean up the mess when your interest wanes. Cheers. Legacypac

Thank you. I accept your congratulations on behalf of Wikiproject Portals and the portal-loving community – it was a team effort. In addition, I'd like to clarify some things about your claims above...

Each page nominated for deletion must have a notice at the top of its page, per the deletion guideline. Not to have one there, would be unfair to those who use such pages, and would constitute a secret deletion tribunal. We don't do things that way on Wikipedia.
As new facts became available (e.g., a motivated and thriving WikiProject to support the portals, new building blocks, etc.), it was appropriate to post the developments to the RfC, to support informed decision making.
Proposals are literal, not figurative. The proposal specified "all portals". All means all.
The fact is, the rebooted WikiProject is cleaning up the mess, rather rapidly. By updating and upgrading the portals, rather than getting rid of them.
I think I'll be hanging around for awhile, but the project is more than likely to achieve critical mass and may outlive us all, due in part to the development of tools to assist editors in building, upgrading, and maintaining portals that are fully dynamic and self-updating.

Portals are more fun to work with than ever. Thank you for your role in making this happen. You made us try even harder, and inspired us to pull together as a team. You'll have a warm place in our hearts, forever. The Transhumanist

Automatically refreshed excerpts

The main advancement we've made so far is applying selective transclusion Transclusion is template technology, showing a page on another page. Selective transclusion shows only part of that page. We use it to show excerpts that always match the source. The two templates we have so far, are Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Obsoleting subpages

Excerpts are migrating toward the base page of each portal, and where this is done, a subpage is no longer needed.

Template:Transclude lead excerpt will be able to be used to put the intro excerpt directly on the portal page, rather than on an intro subpage, once we adapt a portal design to accommodate this.

Template:Transclude random excerpt is currently being used on 1st-level subpages, and eliminates the need for 2nd-level subpages. (Many portals have 2 levels of subpages).

There are about 1500 portals, but there are around 148,000 subpages in portal space. Further discussions are needed to develop designs and components that do not require them.

It is my hope that the portal of the future will be a single page, or close to it, pulling in excerpts from specified dynamic sources (like category pages), filtered by ratings. This would obviate the need for subpages at all (except for maybe the header and footer subpages, which store a portal's settings). A more likely near-term solution would be subpages with a list maintained by a bot, or editors using semi-automatic tools.

New portals

Since the reboot, a new portal has been created:

Portal:Limited recognition

Please watchlist these pages

Some central pages in the portal system. The more eyes on them, the better.

Wrapping up...

There's more in the works, like a rating system, further redesigns, etc. Keep an eye on the discussions on the project's talk page. They should start showing up there soon.

Hope to see you there. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 06:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Lithopsian. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Brorfelde, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Lithopsian (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The redirect might cause confusion.

Samuel Harrison Thomson is not Frederick Clifton Thomson. What do you propose? --Gerwoman (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

OK Gerwoman, add a Proposed deletion tag to the redirect page with an explanation. Although as it's his brother then it the redirect may still serve some purpose. But deletion using {{PROD}} probably best solution? Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Polyamorph. Much better than blanking the page. --Gerwoman (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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 15:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Polyamorph, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 11:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Lead section created

I have now created the lead section for my article on Laurie Hislam

Artinstroud (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

585 AM bad, 600 AM good?

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/585 AM. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article go ahead. Polyamorph (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Polyamorph, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

BCash and Bcash

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Bcash --Malkavian (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Shetall Siingh

Thank you for reviewing the article (which I unreviewed earlier when the speedy was declined). May I please remind you though that reviewed articles must have categories, this is a NPP requirement.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you may remind me, thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm 1997kB. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Pratibha Tiwari, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ops, thought I have reviewed it during nomination. Please review back. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Camp Taloali, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing XY Female, Polyamorph.

Unfortunately Natureium has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

FYI, you marked this as reviewed, but it's not correct as an index article and has the wrong capitalization anyway. I fixed this one and XY female.

To reply, leave a comment on Natureium's talk page.

Natureium (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Polyamorph (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		You completed over 500 reviews during the June 2018 Backlog Drive! Awesome work! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere thank you! Polyamorph (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of African swine fever

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why did you do this? [1] --Sspeik (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything. I restored the redirect and relevant information at the target page where I feel it belongs. Polyamorph (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Are there any rules why it should be that way (symptoms and clinical features, which are, by the way, quite non-specific and hardly distinguishable from classical swine fever, described in an article about virus instead of an article about disease) or is that just your feeling? If that's just your feeling, is it okay to use revert tools for things like that? --Sspeik (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I am asking because I need to know whether I can actually work on the article about the disease or you will prevent any attempts to create that article with your reverts based on some kind of a rule or guideline that I do not know. If there is neither rule nor guideline, please restore the disease article the way I left it, so that my actions of restoring it are not considered an edit war or something. --Sspeik (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I won't revert the article back as I think it is better as it was. But that's just my opinion and I'm not particularly interested in getting into discussion about it. You could try the talk page of the article if you wish to gauge consensus on the matter. Polyamorph (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please list your arguments against the split at the talk page of the virus article. I have created a section of discussion with some of my arguments there. --Sspeik (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

My primary interest was not to "gauge consensus" but to create an article for the disease. Even though you are not interested in the topic, it is you who is currently the only person who objects that, so at this moment there is no one else to gauge consensus with. Unless you want me to stop and wait for a week to see nobody answering at the talk page instead of being productive right here right now, please make sure you show your arguments against the split there. --Sspeik (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no interest in this discussion. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

←

→