This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nihonjoe. 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.
I went there to block after deleting their spam article. Personally I would have issued a hard 2-point block because they obviously have no other purpose here and the article is clearly paid for or a salaried work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
No. I wasn't criticising, just pointing out because it the same kind of thing I sometimes miss myself and then realise its both a spam name and a spam article. The article has gone and we'll see if it pops up again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at a renaming request?
Hello,
Could you please have a look at this request? I've noticed that you can undestand japanese, and I haven't got the slightest idea of what the given reason means. Moreover, the contributions of this user (I don't want to notify him/her) are problematic. Thank you! Litlok (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the translation. Could you please handle the request (favorably or not), considering the fact that the account seems suspect? Litlok (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
And looking over the discussion again, I see no questions that you raised that were not answered by someone. Perhaps not with the answers you desired, but they were answered. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:JAPAN articles needing infobox human settlements and flagicons
Hi nihonjoe,
Can you please have a look at this discussion here:[1] about the use of flagicons in the infoboxes for human settlements. I thought that this was just an isolated issue where the editor confused the Kurihama Yokosuka for a person, but he seems to be making the same systematic changes across articles on human settlements. It would be unfortunate if either of us were systematically undertaking unnecessary work. Where can I go to get some clarification on this? Dr.khatmando (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Dr.khatmando (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Help with mobile-friendly Current Events project?
Hi! I've proposed a few changes to Portal:Current events that will make the layout work well on narrow-width displays.
As you have previously had involvement with the Current events page, I would appreciate your participation in the discussion, if it is convenient for you. Thank you for your time. — RossO (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
A while ago I tried to correct some of the information about the Roots of Knowledge stained-glass mural. You said that I couldn't change or include anything unless there was a source. I wish there was a way to use a direct human source because I am one of them. I was one of the head designers/artists and am now working at UVU as a consultant/specialist for the windows. The publications that were made were all done before the windows were actually done so there is a lot of misleading information there that we can't go back and change. There is a new article from codaworx. https://www.codaworx.com/awards/codaawards/2017/entries/roots-of-knowledge-utah-valley-university-58b07c2708dfb
The main things I was trying to change are the number of pieces of glass (actual number: 43,000+) and the "350 UVU students" that were involved. There were hundreds of students involved AFTER the windows were designed and finished. The way it's written in wikipedia (and unfortunately in some of the articles) makes it sound like they actually made the windows which is incorrect. What they did was do research for their honors class and write "encyclopedia-like" articles that potentially could be used in the Roots of Knowledge app and website. Their research was based on the designs that had already been done. There have also been student docents and interns working in the library giving tours and developing an education program for K-12 school field trips.
I can provide much more information if you'd be interested but I'm not sure what you'd be able to use since there isn't a whole lot of documentation out there yet.
I posted a message almost a month ago having to do with Roots of Knowledge. I would appreciate it if you would look it over and get back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikabola (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nikabola: I apologize for any delay in my reply. I have been crazy busy (as the note at the top of this page states). Let me correct a few apparent misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works. First of all, we do not use original research on Wikipedia. We can only use information that can be verified using reliable sources. Since the notability of the Roots of Knowledge exhibit has already been established, these can be primary sources or third party sources (though the latter are strongly preferred).
Second, if only erroneous information has been reported in those reliable sources, that's what will be included on Wikipedia. In order to correct it, you will need to get a third party (magazine, newspaper, etc.) to do a story on the incorrect information (or a story containing corrections of that incorrect information). Until and unless this corrected information is reported in a reliable source, we can not include it.
Third (and finally), Wikipedia will likely never be able to use original research as a source. Since it's an online encyclopedia with no editorial oversight (outside of the hundreds of thousands of editors themselves), there is no way to verify that, so your personal accounts and experiences can not be used to initiate changes. If you wrote and had published a book about the project, or were able to get a third party to report on it (as mentioned above), we are unable to change information sourced to reliable sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I understand what you're saying. We're working on getting a book out there that clarifies a lot of this stuff. It may be a few months or a year before it's published though.
You say there can be nothing done about changing information already published. I get that. What about intentionally leaving some of the errors out? What about contradictory sources? Have you looked at the Codaworx article I mentioned before? I think Codaworx has more credibility and authority than a local newspaper or fleeting news story. Especially since it's one of the few documents actually published AFTER the project was done and has concrete information instead of estimates and assumptions.
I'm just trying to do anything I can to prevent people from receiving misleading information. Most people will have forgotten those old articles if we can establish the real facts now.
@Nikabola: Hi, I'm a friend of Nihonjoe's and I might be able to answer your question sooner than he can. Replacing old article references with new ones is completely fine. As for leaving out information, there's no rule against it, although you should give a rationale in your edit summary for removing sourced information. Ideally, you would be able to replace the incorrect reference with a correct one. You can also use the roots of knowledge website as a source! If you work at UVU you might be able to get them to add the missing information to their roots of knowledge website, which you could then source on Wikipedia. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nikabola: Please reply in this section rather than creating new sections every time you post here. Just click the "Edit" link for this section to do so.
Regarding your comments, I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I have never said that already published information can't be changed. What I did say is that we would need other reliable sources to reference in order to change the information. As Rachel mentioned above (and I also mentioned this), the official website for the installation can be used for referencing this information. Regarding the reliability of the Codaworx site, all the information on that page was provided by the studio, which makes it no more or less reliable than a newspaper article or "fleeting news story" (as you called it). Your best bet (since you work there) is to get UVU to change the official site to include all of the correct information so we can use that as a source for correcting the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nikabola: I've updated it with some info from the Codaworx "article" (it's more of a press release, really). There really wasn't much in that "article", though, so the only major change was the number of pieces of glass. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
A year ago ...
Japan, Japan
... you were recipient no. 1470 of Precious, a prize of QAI!
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I Hate Running Backwards
Hello there, acording to the article's log, you deleted the page "I Hate Running Backwards" at 00:50, 8 August 2017. Since the name refers to an actual game, I wondered what that former article covered. Are you able to give me the original page contents, so I can look into expanding and recreate the article once appropriate? Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 19:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I've restored "When Scout, Scouting, Boy Scout, Girl Scout, Guide and Scouting-related award names, progression levels, age sections, other language equivalents (i.e. Second Class, Varsity Scout, Eagle Scout, Bronze Wolf) are used in articles in the context of the Scouting Movement, they are considered proper nouns and are always capitalized. Example: "a group of 50 Scouts", not "a group of 50 scouts". For usage in other contexts not related to the Scouting Movement, refer to the Manual of Style for guidance on capitalization. Do not capitalize event names unless the reference is to a specific event. Examples: "pinewood derby" and "national Scout jamboree"; but "Valley District Pinewood Derby" and "2010 National Scout Jamboree." " to the Scouting WPMOS. I appreciate your help with the pedantic editor, but the lack of this section is creating problems with another longterm pedantic editor. Sorry to undo your work.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, Nihonjoe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hello Nihonjoe, Congratulations with Happy Hollidays! I plan to gradually conduct a questioning to determine the best speculative fiction novels according to the wikipedians. I wanted, that you to think and gradually create (if you like the idea) a list (as long as possible, but not more than 50) of the best genre novels of different authors, regardless of the language of the works (it is desirable: 1 author - 1 novel, but not necessarily) personally read by you. The list can include all novels containing speculative fiction elements - science fiction, fantasy and fairy tales, horror & supernatural fiction, alternative-historical, etc. The place of the novel in the list should correspond to the quality of the work and your impression received from him. The first novel in the list will be scored at 50 points, the last - in 1 point. And when there are enough respondents to collect - we sum up the number of points and get a list of 100 best novels. I hope for your agreement and that you will get 50 or less less read novels and there will be time and desire.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I suggest in the case of consent the following example of the formalization of the list:
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
User group for Military Historians
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
Hi. The other day, you semiprotected MOS:ANIME citing disruptive editing, which I can only assume was referring to me (being the only involved user affected by semiprotection). This confuses me, because the timeline was:
I edited the page to improve it, explaining the changes in edit summaries
A user reverted my changes without comment
I posted to the editor’s talkpage about it
The editor neglected to respond (and still hasn’t, as of this writing)
I restored the changes
Another editor reverted with an edit summary giving no reasons, but requesting discussion without initiating it
I posted to his talkpage about it
The editor removed my messages with an edit summary saying, “Duly noted”
I restored the changes since he now seemed in agreement
The same editor again reverted with no explanation and another request for discussion
I can provide diffs to back this up, if needed. I’m surely biased toward myself, but the only WP:DE behavior I see there, behavior which disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia, is from the editors reverting for literally no reason, especially the final revert ignoring my prior attempts to discuss the matter. If you do feel I was guilty of DE while the other editors weren’t, please, please explain why. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
If it had been directed only at you, you would have been warned about it on your talk page. The protection was due to a pattern of disruptive reverting by multiple editors. Keep it on the talk page there. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, but how does semiprotection address that? Pretty sure I was the only non-autoconfirmed editor there. Feel free to relocate these comments if you wish, but I figured it best to just ask you directly. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
When I protected it, I didn't look to see which specific IPs were causing problems and edit warring. I just saw several edits by IPs and multiple regular editors reverting them. That indicates disagreement with whatever the IP(s) were doing. That there was only one IP involved at this time is largely irrelevant. Take your concerns to that talk page and work it out there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I would like to request unprotection of MOS:ANIME, in light of the above and the discussion at its talk page, so that I can implement uncontroversial copyedits. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
As long as you obtain clear consensus prior to making the edits, that's fine. Make sure you clearly define on the talk page what you want to do and get that consensus before making the edits. If an edit war starts up again, it will be protected again. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The committee has been in touch with Coffee in the past couple weeks, so your second point does not really stand. I understand my message may have been overstepping, but neither do I think one should be laughing around right after making another questionable block, when the context of past several weeks is taken into consideration. I thought that was grossly insensitive, in my opinion. If we were to raise the point that we are all human beings behind the screen, it has to take place mutually. I do understand where you are coming from, and I apologize if offense were taken. Alex Shih (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: The second point still stands, but you did already contact him, so you already took care of it appropriately. As for "laughing around", requiring someone to be totally serious in all interactions is a bit ridiculous. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: You realize that it's likely your post is going to be flung in Coffee's face every time they take a remotely unpopular/controversial admin action for the next couple months/years, right? --NeilNtalk to me23:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Of course he does, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. All my communications with ArbCom have been voluntary (mostly asking for advice). For Alex Shih (talk·contribs) to bring up private correspondence on-wiki, is a very, very troubling sign from an Arbitrator. Especially one so new to the committee, and especially when he is deliberately mischaracterizing the communications I've had. I am very stressed and disheartened by this entire situation, as I now feel like I have a sniper target on my back at all times forthwith. This type of behavior from ArbCom is not what I expected upon my return. *sigh* — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military spacecraft in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK)18:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a borderline case, and it might well end up at the "CCH" spelling (probably not this time, but it would if an interview somewhere shows her stating she wants it spelled that way). You seem to be proceeding on the assumption that a raw majority of usage in sources is sufficient. It is not. To accept an unusual stylization, we expect to see virtually no deviation from it in the RS. In this case, there's quite a lot of variation, and that's only from looking casually for under 5 minutes. It's about near-uniformity in sources indicating that the average reader would be confused if we didn't use a particular spelling, not about whether a raw count shows, e.g., a 90% majority that someone can try to use as a WP:WINNING declaration. It's not a vote. No one would be confused "C. C. H. Pounder". Quite a few would be by "Ipod" [how would you even pronounce that? "ippud"?]. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this still needed? I only just now checked the peramlink you mentioned in the description, and it looks you'd need the filter to use irlike (case insensitive) instead of rlike. However I would instead recommend contains_any(added_lines, "foo", "bar") since that won't unnecessarily use the regex engine. Finally, a lot of people are hit by "extendedconfirmed". Would "confirmed" work just as well, for performance sake? Regards — MusikAnimaltalk04:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Someone asks this every month or two. Yes, it's still needed. The vandal that does this is really random and sometimes goes a month or two without doing anything. I'm fine if you want to change the filter to use contains_any(added_lines, "foo", "bar"), if you think that will work better. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That someone is probably me :) There's no issue using filters for this, but if it goes long enough without any hits it should be disabled, since the expense of the filter affects everyone who edits (and we've been running into issues hitting the condition limit). The example edit you gave wouldn't have been caught with the older filter implementation, so I've updated it accordingly. Let's see how she flies. I must ask again though, are we sure we need to target extended confirmed users? Thanks — MusikAnimaltalk17:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Yikes, your friendly invitation to stick my nose into the article Hachijō-jima has taken me hours. And to only minor effect. (But I get the impression that you too arrived there casually and found yourself spending ages on it.)
I'm sorry that, as usual, I lacked the patience to use the "cite" and other appropriate templates.
I'm going to abandon the article for at least one day, but I hope to look in a bit later. Best of luck fixing the problems that I overlooked, and any that I added. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering about this book to be honest. Do you know anything about the 1st edition book cover? I was hoping to upload it so it can be added to the article. Also, based on a buzzfeed article (link), it seems I am unable to get much out of the translation since it appears it talks more about the comic strips rather than the book. Anyways, Thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
On 1 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jōkō Obama, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Obama was born in Japan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jōkō Obama. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jōkō Obama), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
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 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
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.
On 11 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Bliss Baker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ...that William Bliss Baker, a promising Hudson River School landscape painter (work pictured), died a week before his twenty-seventh birthday after being injured while ice skating? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Bliss Baker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, William Bliss Baker), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Writers of the Future, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Wu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
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.
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)
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.
On 27 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hachijō-jima, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Ulysses S. Grant visited the island of Hachijō-jima in 1877, he was ceremonially adopted by the village chief and given a name meaning "courageous general" in the local dialect? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hachijō-jima. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hachijō-jima), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Quick question, and I wasn't sure who to ask: is it right to call Hifumi a unisex name? 一二三 seems to be exclusively male while every other variant is exclusively female. In that case should I categorize it as masculine and feminine rather than unisex? There are several similar examples in Category:Japanese unisex given names and I think I've been doing it wrong. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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.
hey I just want to say that that's cool that you have been to all these amazing places and lived in japan I would love to vist japan some day but I might not like flying in planes because of all the terror attacks and plane crashes but still I can dream ok that's all for now bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaporwaveman34 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Portals update, 11 May 2018
Extended content
We've grown to 73 members, and morale is high. Thank you for joining. Here is some news, and some tasks...
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...
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.
How are "bogus" articles held , when latter found to be notable?
How are "bogus" articles held , when latter found to be notable? - English is not not native language translation. 20:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)YodogawaKamlyn (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
We are at 74 members. If you know anyone who might find this WikiProject interesting, please invite them.
The RfC has ended
The RfC was closed May 11th, and a closing statement was posted May 12th which says "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time."
Ongoing tasks
Some major activities that we are in the middle of include:
Adding the missing existing portals to the main portals list at Portal:Contents/Portals. Instructions are on the talk page. There are about 125 portals left to be processed. (There were 400). Keep up the good work!
Development discussions on how to migrate the subpages to the base pages. There are around 150,000 subpages in portal space, associated with the various sections on a typical portal. We are trying to obsolete them section type by section type. Currently, we're working on obsoleting the intro subpages and the "selected articles" subpages. Please join in.
Other tasks
The list of portals not ready to be listed on the main list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#These are not listed yet (scroll down to see them - they are marked Not ready). They are incomplete. If you want a specific portal to work on, please consider choosing one from that list.
Over the years, some incomplete portals (portals under construction) got added to Portal:Contents/Portals. Therefore, every portal listed there needs to be inspected, and any that are incomplete should be removed from that list and added to the not ready list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#These are not listed yet (scroll down to see it). On Portal:Contents/Portals, I'm already almost done inspecting the portals in the culture section, and so you can skip those. The types of things to look for are empty sections (most will have a redlinked subpage), lack of "selected" sections, portal stubs with just an intro and end sections, and very poor layout (like seriously unbalanced columns).
Portal-building resources
During his work on portals, Broter found a quote randomizer. It is {{Random quotation}}.
Trailblazer: approaching the one-page portal
Broter has transformed the Portal:Community of Christ so it is comprised of only 3 pages in portal space: the base page, its box-header subpage, and its box-footer subpage. Its other other subpages are now obsolete and are waiting for deletion. Nice job, Broter!
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
@Transhumanist: That makes it easier when scrilling down the page, but the contents are still there. I still think it would be better to just have a newsletter section of the project and simply post a link to it on people's talk pages. Like they do with the Signpost, for example. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@JohnBlackburne: I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing in the RfC conclusion that says the featured star should be changed to an empty outline. There were two people who suggested the changes in the stars, and one person who objected to changing them. There is absolutely no consensus to change the stars to outlined versions. Go read it again. I'll wait. If people click on the star, it takes them to the page which tells them the process is considered historical now. That should be enough. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
quoting from the closing decision: "Something should be done with existing featured portals, for example giving them a badge of recognition that isn't quite the same as a full featured articles star", which was done by changing the gold star to the empty one. There are other ways this could have been achieved but that is how it was done. I noticed when it was done and thought it an appropriate solution. Which is why when I noticed them go back to gold stars I checked the template and restored the outlined ones.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds20:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Reading through the discussion, there was not consensus to do that. Whatever, though. People on enwiki seem to have bugs up their butts trying to get rid of portals. This seems to be just one more thing to marginalize them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nihonjoe.
Sorry for impatience. Agree I had to wait more for getting feedback.
Concerning the page List_of_banks_in_Armenia, as I added more data there(like # of employees/branches and etc...) which are available for December 2017 yet, I decided to change the date also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkrtich.soghomonyan (talk • contribs) 12:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bug you, I picked your name up at the Japanese cinema task force. There was a new page created, which meets notability criteria, but I know the article title isn't in the proper format. I've looked at the sources, and can't decide exactly what the title change should be. I'm torn between Servamp: Alice in the Garden or Gekijōban Servamp: Alice in the Garden. Rather than move it to the wrong title, thought I'd ask for help from someone more well versed in Japanese. Thanks. Onel5969TT me10:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I changed my user name as you instructed. From charlottelatinschool to susalcarp. I am still blocked from editing the incorrect information about Charlotte Latin School.
@Susalcarp: I'm removing your help-me template. By placing a message on Nihonjoe's talk page, you have already sent him a message. The message at the top of his talk page says he is possibly unresponsive the next few weeks. Your new account does not appear to be blocked currently, but you have not placed a COI disclosure on your talk page yet with respect to the Charlotte Latin School and should not be editing it directly even after you have made your disclosure. If there is incorrect information on the page, use an edit request on Talk:Charlotte Latin School to explain what needs to be removed or corrected and another editor will be able to make appropriate changes, or discuss the changes with you there. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)01:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Nihonjoe. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Nihonjoe,
is there anyway to revert to a previous version of an article? i dont know who keeps making changes to an article i contributed to: "Dionisio Gutierrez Mayorga" but noticed it was flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GES1985HM (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
On 16 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tu Books, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that publisher Tu Books was created via a Kickstarter campaign, then purchased by Lee & Low Books three months later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tu Books. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tu Books), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Nihonjoe, do you plan on returning to your DYK review here? If not, I can put out a call for a new reviewer. Please let me know one way or the other. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
