|
User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2019/August
Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019Previous issue:
This issue:
The collection of portals has shrunkAll Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019 Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:
Individual Nominations:
Related WikiProject: (Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results) WikiProject Quantum portalsThis 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). It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals. Hiatus on mass creation of PortalsAt WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals. The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 monthsSee Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals. Until next issue...Keep on keepin' on. — The Transhumanist 10:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) AdoptionI'm new to Wikipedia. I just joined yesterday and I want to know more about Wikipedia's features and all that. While I do know about how to use userboxes for example, I wanna know more. So, can you give me a tour around Wikipedia? If so, I would greatly appreciate that. Scrooosh (talk · contribs) 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey I'm new to wikipedia. I also joined yesterday. I was wondering if you would Adopt me so we can get better with wikipedia together. (talk) ReversionI note you reverted my edit last night on page First Glasgow with the reason given 'Rv unsourced', however I had included a citation to an online source. The only bit I can think of that was specifically unsourced was the list of routes and their colour-specific branding, however this was simply re-wording existing text on the article (I felt it read poorly and contained errors - it now remains on the article unsourced). Is that why the edit was reversed, or was the source I provided insufficient? I would appreciate an explanation so I can avoid making the same mistake again! FbiZinc (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Length of riversI recall you mentioning the length of the Rhine being given incorrectly for a time. I just came across Length which whilst being unsourced has a ring of truth. I expect there is some similar convention concerning winterbournes? Yours.SovalValtos (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019Back to the drawing boardImplementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design. Some of the reasons for the purge are:
Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases. In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted. Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:
These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG. However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal. See you at WT:POG. CurationA major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer. There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion. See you at WT:POG. TrafficAn observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get. And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals. The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are? And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)... Some potential future directions of developmentQuantum portals?An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself. Non-portal integrated componentsAnother approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible. What kind of features could this be done with? The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on. Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts). The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page. Where would that leave curated portals?Being curated. At least for the time being. New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface. But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them. Keep on keepin' onThe features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other. And who knows what else? No worries. Until next issue... — The Transhumanist 01:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC) PleasePlease Adopt me... My email is mydogisfaster@gmail.com and would like to learn the ropes of wikipedia. I am normally online at the weekends, but occasionally during the week. -Mydogisfast Adding Teahouse inviteOften I think adding a welcome to new users is the most important edit one can make. Sometimes I would like to go further and add an invite to the Teahouse. Hostbot seems to do it in an automated way. I use Twinkle but I have not seen it has an option to add it. Is there a quick way of doing it? YoursSovalValtos (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
ArrivaHi Charles, Thanks for letting me know that you'd deleted the addition of the Arriva Click I added. I'm new to this, as you can probably tell. I am a little confused though. My intention was to add to the travel services already provided within the Liverpool area. The Click is a service provided by the Company Arriva within the area. The company is already within the section. If advertising is not allowed, wouldn't Arriva, Mersey travel or even Liverpool Airport themselves need to be removed ? Or is it the fact it was a link ? Thanks AlanLooney (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Bordeaux airportHello..Why did you revert my edits when i had source provided ? Plus i had the seasonal ones separated as it s customary...Now the way you left it it's as if FR flies to all the destinations year round,which it doesnt so you're providing wrong info to the public.. Airthess3 (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Airthess3 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)That does not mean that you have the right to cancel valid information provided.By that standard then we should erase or revert all seasonal flights from all other companies too. And as long as tables keep being updated the public should have access to right sort of info Airthess3 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Airthess3 (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)you're cluttering together seasonal and year round destinations,plus you're leaving out new ones that should be added. Is there a point to this unreasonable action? You are of the opinion to erase them,not me..Have a look at other airports and tables before you go on insisting on this |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
