User talk:RichardF/Archive/Archive 12

New quote & pic

There exists only the present instant...a Now which always and without end is itself new. There is no yesterday nor any tomorrow, but only Now, as it was a thousand years ago and as it will be a thousand years hence. — Meister Eckhart

---

September 27

A pre-Mercator nautical chart of West Africa from 1571, by Portuguese cartographer Fernão Vaz Dourado. It is done using the so-called "plane chart model", where observed latitudes and magnetic directions were plotted directly into the plane, with a constant scale, as if the Earth were flat. Map credit: Fernão Vaz Dourado Recently featured: San Francisco Bay, 1851 River Thames Grand Central Terminal Archive More featured pictures

}

Thread moved to the Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't catch right away that you changed your name from RFrisbie. I thought you were someone else!

I'm glad you're back.

And I'm happy to see you're focusing on the navigation system again.

Your solution for the portal browsebar was excellent.

The Transhumanist 07:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if I was gone all that long, I just changed my focus to putzing with portals and not much else. But now you have to check out Kivapedia and figure out how you're going to get involved there! ;-) RichardF (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A belated welcome back from your good old friend! I'm busy in real life and occasionally editing (lately, I've been helping out with portal reviewing). How are you? [sd] 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did I go?!!! ... No matter where I go, there I am!!! Portals rock! >;-o) RichardF (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking of which, you need to add yourself to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured portal nominations ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That a new one on me! ;-) RichardF 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, I just posted a note on Woohookitty's talk page, but based on your recent edit, maybe I should have come here first! :-) Are you interested in supporting/making an update to the portal links there? The current discussion is at Portals on the main page. It boils down to updating the Main Page to reflect the consensus updates to the navigation bar for portals. The change involves switching from links to specific portals of varying quality to links to the major sections of the portals list page. This update resolves a long-standing and growing dissatisfaction with the narrow focus on a few portals, many of questionable quality. The proposed navigation scheme synchronizes the Main Page and navigation bar with the structure and inclusivity of the complete portals list. Thanks for your consideration. RichardF (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that discussion, and I'm currently giving the matter some thought. I'm wondering if we could come up with a scheme that links to Portal:Portals only once (thereby freeing up the space for another purpose). I know that some users were disappointed when the category links were removed from the main page, so perhaps we could consider restoring them. —David Levy 03:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for answering so quickly! I'll only reply here. I expected the conversation would expand as soon as it reopened about the Main Page links! :-) I was involved with a number of the top-level navigation revisions a while back, so I can relate to how proposed changes can take a life of their own and morph very quickly.

My personal opinion is that portals are the most reader-friendly way to present topic-based content. That MP block is the only place such a navigation scheme is offered. The only underlying pages that even make sense to do something like this are the ones about portals or categories (the TOC page isn't even topical). At that point, I don't see any technical difference between linking to Wikipedia:Categorical index or Portal:Portals. I would simply argue that since category links are an element of portals but portals are more inclusive in terms of the full rage of Wikipedia page types, links to portal lists are more useful to readers, particularly novices. If you're still not convinced to go with the recommendation, maybe we can move the conversation to the MP discussion page for wider participation. RichardF (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

At Portal talk:Scientology, you mentioned something about: "Yes, the other randomized sections all could use a rule-of thumb for number of lines for text and height for images. Then they'll tend to even out more." Do you have a good idea/estimate for number of lines for text and height for images that would be a good default for all the associated subpages? I will go summarize and implement the changes to that effect, and then I think the Portal will be ready for a review and then be a good Featured Candidate. Please reply at Portal talk:Scientology. Cirt 17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

Hi Cirt. Since I tend to work on portals no one else is much interested in editing, I ususlly just pick something off the top of my head. :-) A relatively good example would be Portal:Sustainable development. What I usually do is look at the number of lines on the subpages view, e.g., Portal:Sustainable development/Selected article, Portal:Sustainable development/Selected biography, Portal:Sustainable development/Selected picture and Portal:Sustainable development/Did you know. Taking any images into consideration, I start trying around 10 +/- lines then take it from there. This applies mostly to any sections in left or right columns. Because qoutes are so variable, I always display them full width. Let me know if you have any other questions. :-) RichardF 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Scientology/archive1. Thanks again for all your help! Cirt 06:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

Looks good! I'll see if I have any more comments to add tomorrow. :-) RichardF 06:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the bulk of your points from Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Scientology/archive1 and made a lot of changes, modeling after the Portal:Sustainable development. Do you think it's ready at this point for WP:FPORTC ? Cirt 14:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes, wait a few days for more comments, then go for it! :-) RichardF 15:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! This is exciting. Cirt 15:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

• Curious if there is an average amount of time or something as to how long WP:FPORTC lasts for? Also, is there a person in charge of closing them like Raul654 (talk · contribs) for WP:FACs ? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

They tend to linger for up to a month sometimes because very few people actually comment. One or two people generally close. It's a much more leisurely process than for articles. :-) RichardF (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, I'm pleased with the amount of feedback so far though. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

• Is it considered okay to have more than one nominated portal at WP:FPORTC at the same time? Cirt (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Sure, as long as the first one isn't having any unresolved issues. RichardF (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll do that after the peer review for the other one gets some feedback or has been up for a while. At WP:FAC that seems to be more of an issue than WP:FPORTC. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Howdy. I threw some notes up at User:Quiddity/sandbox2, I'll try to clean it up a bit more, and rethink some of it, and post it in a relevant thread in the morning, but thougt you might be interested :) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! From the proposed navigation bar, can I assume that the proposed page names at Portal:Contents/TOC work for you? :-) RichardF 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on Portal:The Simpsons, and the material I've drawn from for the "blurbs" for the Selected article and Selected episode sections is of varying length (What is nice is that there is so much quality rated material that we can hold to a restriction of only using WP:FAs and WP:GAs in those sections). So my question is this: Is spacing a sticking point for getting to Featured Portal status, or is it alright if the occasional "purge" leads to space gaps due to differences in size of the two top randomized sections? Thanks for all of your help in the other portal. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC).

• Oh, and by the way, please respond at Portal talk:The Simpsons, because that way the other active editors of The Simpsons WikiProject can provide input to the discussion as well. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
  • "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything!" -- Bart Simpson. In other words, spacing isn't that big of an issue, as long as it isn't extreme. ;-) RichardF (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • How do you think the portal is coming along otherwise? I really like that there is a good amount of GA and FA-rated material to work with. It seems that they had a prior system where everything was updated manually, and at least one editor has expressed support for the new randomized version. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
      • I haven't looked at it and I have to go to work. I have no doubt you can get it featured in short order! :-) RichardF (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I'll do my best and put it up for peer review when I can't think of anything else to improve it further. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
• I put Portal:The Simpsons up for review at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/The Simpsons two days ago, but so far no takers. Feel like providing feedback/comments there as to if anything else needs to be done, pre-WP:FPORTC ? Cirt (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

I probably can't get to it before the weekend, but I'll say at least something by Sunday night. :-) RichardF (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, take your time. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For educating me in The Way of the Portal, I thank you. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Awwwww! Thanks! RichardF (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What a day, thanks! :-) RichardF (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, that message was not by Husond but by User:Vatomanocu, sig fixed now. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh, go figure. It's still a cool stamp! Thanks. RichardF (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there something like Wikipedia:Featured article review for Featured Portals? Because I have noticed a whole bunch of really bad looking featured portals lately, that probably were passed as Featured a long time ago and have since degraded or standards have changed. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

That'd be Wikipedia:Featured portal removal candidates, and/or add them to Category:Portals needing attention depending on severity. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! So it's alright if I go tag some some old FPs that don't look up to snuff? Cirt (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Actually now I can't find the portals I had encountered before. Oh well, at least I know of these two above links now, thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Glad I could help by hosting a little get-together in the back forty! ;-) RichardF 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• You're just the Portal Wizard, is all. Cirt (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

As long as you pay no attention to the gnome behind the curtain, we'll all be just fine with that! ;-) RichardF 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be on for awhile, so we can do some interactive communicating on Portal talk:Contents if you like. See you there. The Transhumanist 13:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are that page and its subpages still needed? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess we never implemented that feature after all. As far as I can tell, they can be deleted with no problems. Thanks for pointing that out! :-) RichardF (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things. First, I think I unecessarily mucked around with the cat layout for the cintents phil and thought page - sorry... Second, why do some people compulsively put spaces under title headings when it makes no dfference to appearances and others compulsivelt remive them? Thrd, I loathe typing... and am very bad at it and kind of fed up ith wikipedia tonight - sorry again. Anarchia (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anarchia, Layouts get mucked with all the time, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. :-o) I put spaces under title headings so I can read the code when editing a page easier. That's actually what clicking the + on a talk page does. Get some sleep!

p.s. I think you're basically right about not overduplicating portals contents. Sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesn't. You actually inspired me to rethink the prosal I've beein working on for contents pages. Sometime, real soon now, I'll add my thoughts on that at Portal talk:Contents. :-) RichardF (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?

As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What research did you do concerning getting the portal links on the Main page changed, and what did you find out?

Will the 12-portal matrix fit on the Main page for all the resolutions that matter? Do you think that will be adopted?

The Transhumanist 09:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you probably haven't already seen. I'm guessing the best approach would be to "finalize" the new, improved top-level portals list for the Contents pages TOCs, spruce up the related magaportals, then go for any needed changes for Main Page links to those magaportals. Any earlier Main Page portals proposals would just get stonewalled by the guardians as "premature" "no consensus." I see that as being the final step in the "Contents & megaportals improvement drive" :- :-) RichardF (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with the fix.

By the way, should we tackle the megaportals?

The Transhumanist 03:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice. :-) I wanted to finish putting the three other contents pages up on the layout page first. I was about to try Glossaries and I'm almost ready to try the last two with infoboxes. For the megaportals, I'd like to kick off the idea with a comment/section on the portals project page. Then I'd like to test whether we can get more participation with a portals peer review posting. The contents project seems to be the place to start the 39-ways-to-classify-articles plus the 19-page navigation scheme discussions going. I don't know how they stand right now, but if there are any more contents subsections to transclude to this or that portal, I think that can continue to go forward without waiting for any other discussions. Anything else? RichardF (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Technology portal's and Health portal's expansions are done.

The contents section titles that will be a problem are "Culture and the arts", "Mathematics and logic", "People and self", and "Philosophy and thinking". The first two already have two portals each, and none of these pairs lend themselves to a single portal as is. So we may need to use your subject-based contents pages for those. Mathematics and logic is really the "formal sciences" section, so that could be a new portal. Partial portals (with just the contents sections) for the other three?

With respect to the browsebar (which now points to portal page subsections, Science is split into 4 branches (Natural, Social, Formal, and Applied), so having a single Science link is misleading. (By the way, physical sciences are natural sciences, and are not a 5th branch). I think Nature is a more appropriate link than Science to represent the natural science section (on the browsebar) -- feel free to revert me if you disagree. The Transhumanist 08:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of your characterizations of the sciences. As one example, the previously proposed natural sciences portal intro describes the natural-physical sciences distinctions. Because this is descriptive of the fields themselves, we should not be trying to "fix" overlaps like that on the contents pages. Since "Science" is the only portal we have that encompasses natural and physical sciences at a high level right now, it's fine with me if the browsebar calls it Nature. Conceptually, I've convinced myself I really don't want to put any of the classificationally-correct, previously proposed topical contents pages online. For example, if we took that to the end of that logic for the sciences, we would split them into their respective areas and the Science portal itself wouldn't make the browsebar or Main Page. That just doesn't seem "right" to me. I'm sure many others would agree. I don't have the answer to that one yet. Maybe the best next step is to convince Quiddity and you to wrangler some editors together at the Contents project to make sense of all the classification systems he listed. :-) RichardF (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Great portal drive writeup :) I have no time at all this month; if I did I'd be working on suggesting/getting Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus into Portalspace, and drafting options for a related/current discussion at Talk:Library of Congress Classification#sub pages (feel free ;) I'll be watching, but likely no use, until early-Jan. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What?! I'm shocked!!! My hero-worshiping can-do-it-all fantasies are shattered!!! ;-) Oh well, I think I'm going to do a couple more organizing tables next – one for the main topic classification schemes you listed, and one for the navigation templates on all the contents, featured content, current events, and portals pages. After that I'll probably stir things up a bit at portal peer review. :-) RichardF (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity, when you have the time, would you please share what you're up to with this at "What general types of pages should and should not be included in portal namespace? What pages need to be moved?" Thanks! :-) RichardF (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick-and-dirty way I would slice and dice the topic of science. Translating this into a classification scheme for contents sections still needs lots of work because most folks choose to emphasize their particular areas of interest, even though all them are completely arbitrary! :-0

Science: Three pragmatic dimensions

I still think Quiddity needs something to do. ;-) RichardF (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(From User talk:Giggabot)

Thanks for the revert - I didn't notice the two non-featured lists in the mainspace linked from WP:FL. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for all that work adding the assessment tags! :-) RichardF (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought we should keep those lists as uniform as possible to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. For example:

• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured portal nominations
• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations
• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured topic nominations

That way they look the same across the spectrum. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

Okay, so they're all ugly! ;-) Someone else can get the portal list up to date. RichardF (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to let you know the design scheme wasn't my initial idea - I just think they should all look the same, whatever they are. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

I'm sure it wasn't. Since they offend my aesthetic sensibilities, I won't be waisting my time maintaining any of them (unless, of course, I change my mind later). ;-) RichardF (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, no worries. It's there, and people can add to it over time. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

What about all those Portal:Contents subpages you created? Should we let them sit there, or should they be MfD'd? The Transhumanist 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep them around at least until there's some sort of overt consensus about the portal improvement drive. Who knows? Maybe the people will say that's the way to go after all! ;-) RichardF (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some work on Portal:Film. For some reason the entries in the Main Topics section will not align left, and instead are centered in the section. I don't know how to fix this. Any thoughts/help? Also, I will soon be bringing Portal:Film to WP:PPREV and hopefully to WP:FPORTC, and of course your input would be most appreciated, as always. Cirt (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Uh oh! I think you need a hobby! ;-) The centering was on Portal:Film, not Portal:Film/Topics. Folks do that sometimes because they can't get the subpage to show centering how they want it. Now, you owe me! Do you want to be the first – and possibly only – brave soul to take a stab at replying to Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Contents‎? :-) RichardF (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked so nicely, I'll give it a try, but that is something I've been looking at and seems beyond me at the moment. Thanks again for your help! Cirt (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

• Question: -- Why is there a red category "Film portal pages" at the Portal:Film talk page? I can't figure out what is producing that, but that category is not needed. Cirt (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

It's coming from Template:Film (hack and cut transclusions until it goes away ;-). That template is off-limits to me so I can't "fix" it. Obviously, someone in the film project thought the category should be there and be populated. It looks like you'll have to take it up with them! >;-o) RichardF (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Your input would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Film/archive1. Cirt (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Sure, real soon now! ;-) RichardF (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the helpful comments at the Peer Review. I tried to address as many of your points as I could, and the portal looks much better for it. The only things that could still be done I think is the Events thingy you mentioned - and maybe a bit more in the Intro. However, I also kinda like the short intro (compare to the Featured Portal in the French Wikipedia), and it sort of moves the focus to the actual content if it is brief like that. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for taking all those suggestions so seriously! :-0 I'll do a point-by-point over there later tonight. I really wanted at least the one-more intro paragraph to get the footer spaced nicely below the image. RichardF (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, allow me to add to the intro paragraph then, or feel free to do that yourself if you want. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

I already added the minimum I though it needed the first time I saw it. :-) RichardF (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, well... now there's a tad more. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

• I archived the peer review, now off to put it up at WP:FPORTC, here goes nuthin'... Cirt (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

Oh, ye of little...? I'm sure what. You certainly seem to have lots of what it takes to get a portal up to snuff! ;-) RichardF (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks ;-) Now debating which one to work on next... I have a couple in mind already but I probably won't get to it for a coupla days. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

Take on one of those megaportals! ;-) RichardF (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Portal:Religion is already featured. Is there a list of "megaportals" somewhere? I was more leaning towards one of the "Related Portals" to the Portal:Film, actually. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

I took a wild guess at User:RichardF/PortalRecommendations. How about The Arts Portal?! :-) RichardF (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, sorry, I'm gonna work on one of the smaller topics next (something in-between the larger Portal:Arts and smaller Portal:The Simpsons.) It's nice to work on something that's a broad range though, cuz that means lots of good WP:FA content to choose from. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

Chicken! ;-) RichardF (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• On another note, after looking at User:RichardF/PortalRecommendations, if all the "megaportals" get to WP:FPORT, that might make the topic "megaportals" a WP:FT... Cirt (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

Ummm...goldstars... :-) So..., is Portal:Contents "a portal" or "a topic"??? RichardF (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, you'd have to ask the folks at WP:FT. Cirt (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC).

• I did some work on my next project, Portal:Television, which I just put up for review at WP:PPREV. Your feedback would be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! >;-) RichardF (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Any reason that you switched some sections to "Read more" and others kept "More" ? I don't really think it's a big deal, just that they should all be uniform in all the sections. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

The preferred link in featured portals has been "Read more..." "More..." was accepted only when the longer version wrapped at 800X600. If you want to try the other way, go for it. RichardF (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my main point is that, within a particular portal, we should pick one or the other and go with it, and not use both interchangeably within the same portal. But yeah, personally I like the simpler "More..." Cirt (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

And my point is the way I put it has been the consensus of featured portal reviews in the past. RichardF (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And which way is that? With "Read more" on the left, and "More" on the right, both used in the same portal at the same time? Cirt (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Just leave it how you want it and see what happens. Reviewers and consensus changes all the time anyway. RichardF (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, sounds good. If the winds of consensus shift, it's a quick fix anyhow. I responded to your peer review comments, by the way. Could you maybe do some experimenting with the Portal:Television coloring, and see if there's a color format you like better? That's not my area of expertise, and that's the original coloring when I started working on it. Cirt (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Already playing with it. I'm looking for a blue shade of the same hue. ;-) RichardF (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, some kind of light blue maybe, I'd like it to go with the image in the intro section.. Cirt (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

• My apologies, but I don't understand your changes to Portal:Television/Selected quote? Why make the updating process harder, and have multiple places where the user has to update the start/end max values every time a new quote is added, as opposed to just updating on the subpage and have that page then transcluded to the main portal page? Cirt (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Look at the "edit" link for the Selected quotes box. It's supposed to go directly to what is being displayed, not the "archive" page. That's what I fixed. If you want to find some other way to do that, it's fine with me. RichardF (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer, I went ahead and reverted back to your last edit for those changes. Also, we have a comment at the peer review to maybe make the color a bit lighter, for ease of reading the text? Cirt (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Are you sure I'm one? I thought it was just Spebi and Daniel. And, yeah sure, I'll help anyway I can. Best regards, Rt. 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's OhanaUnited, Spebi, Chris.B, Daniel and you. Besides, AGK was the first one to close a candidacy after the "elections" anyway, so why wouldn't you be one? ;-) I look forward to your comments at the portal peer review for Contents and megaportals. Regards, RichardF (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case.... :) Best, Rt. 15:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Religion/Selected picture/35, picture was removed. Also, Portal:Psychology has no "Current events" or "News" section. Cirt (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

• Also, an image was removed from Portal:Religion/Selected scripture/9. It seems some of these issue have gone unnoticed for a while. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, I'll look for images. I won't be adding news to psychology. Demote it if you like. RichardF (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Portal:Psychology... needs some work, certainly, but I'm not about to go summarily demoting it - it's still pretty good. The "Did you know" and "Quotes" section could both use some randomization/formatting work though. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

I'll see what sort of simple fixes I can do. RichardF (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject of Current Events sections, any word on the DynamicPageList/Cross-Wiki transclusion front? Cirt (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

Nothing new I know of. I assume it's in the queue. RichardF (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, queue, what queue? Can you provide a link to the queue? This type of tool or bot would be useful for basically almost all of the portals, and probably many other areas as well. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

My imaginary friend queue! RichardF (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I thought there was some sort of specific bot request page that you put it on. So Misza13 (talk · contribs) is working on it? Cirt (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

As far as I know. All I can do is read his talk page and decipher what he wrote. RichardF (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Did you already put in a bot request? Cirt (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

• Different question: Do you keep pages of the portals and the various subpages on your watchlist? Cirt (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

I used to, not much anymore. RichardF (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just thinkin as I'm working on more portals I create lots of new subpages, not sure whether I should keep them all on my watchlist or whether it's worth the bother in case there's vandalism, degradation, etc. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Originally, I watched everything. It just depends if you want to be a hard-core custodian or let other folks pick up some of the slack too. If something gets really screwed up (or even partly), it seems like someone lets me know about most of it anyway. ;-) RichardF (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Religion/Selected quote

Just a heads up that this section is way too overloaded with quotes about one particular topic. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Yes, a proselytizer was about. See talk page archive. RichardF (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're going to fix it? In the meantime I reduced the randomizer to only display one of those randomly on the main portal page. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

It looks like you already did. RichardF (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on Portal:Journalism, which I recently put up at WP:PPREV. Your feedback would be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

And what about comedy?! ;-) RichardF (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, you noticed? Yeah, Portal:Comedy would be next, but all in due time. Quick question for you, and this may sound silly: In getting quotes for the "Selected quote" section in portals, I've been relying on books of compiled quotes on the various subjects as sources, and duly citing them on the subpages of each quote. Does that seem alright to use multiple quotes from the various individuals quoted in the books, so long as the full cite is given on each subpage? Cirt (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

I don't think multiple quotes from one person is much of an issue, per se. The basic issue would come out as POV pushing, if at all. RichardF (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I meant multiple quotes, from different people, but from the same book. Is that fair use or something, or because I'm citing the book on each subpage it's okay? Just wanted to doublecheck. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

I really know virtually nothing on an issue like that, but I've never seen anyone complain about too many citations from a single source on multiple pages. RichardF (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great. Cirt (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

I would appreciate your input, at Portal talk:Journalism/Selected quote#Question. Cirt (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

Done. RichardF (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikinews Importer Bot

Can you make a note about this new Bot somewhere in the appropriate Community portal places and on whichever is the most frequented talk pages for Portals? You'd know better than I which those are. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

Cool! How's it working? I'll post some things later tonight. RichardF (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's actually updating the content yet. Right now, the source & destination don't match and my sandbox doesn't update. It's been more than an hour. I'll wait before I post anything or ask Misza13 what's up. RichardF (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that it won't work in the sandbox anymore - I have restricted it to work only in Portal: namespace (so that someone doesn't use it to vandalize articles or userpages). Cheers, Миша13 15:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandals?! I'm shocked! ;-) Thanks again! :-) RichardF (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I'm glad you got that working. Its good that various wikimedia projects are cooperating together instead of re-inventing the wheel. Cheers. Bawolff (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't seem to figure out how to get it working myself. Right now, Portal:Education/News isn't getting updated from w:Portal:Education/Wikipedia. RichardF (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• The portal transclusion bot is a great boost for Wikinews, can I persuade you and a few other of the people who've been placing this to perhaps help on a 5 minute guide for Wikipedians (perhaps [[Wikinews:Welcome from Wikipedia]]? The idea is to say "speed-read the style guide; don't use <ref>, the {{source}} template is preferred; remember you'll need to register again (until SUL); and if you missed it in the style guide, active voice is preferred".

I've also a query about this being used for fr: and I suspect pl: and de: might follow suit. If I recall correctly this was your idea, and it should give more people an incentive to contribute on Wikinews.

Oh and if anyone is interested in having a go at a Wikinews article to get it featured in their portal tell them to hop into IRC if they've any questions.

P.S. If you really want to cause all hell to break loose over it, put it on Portal:Scientology. ;) No don't, really. --Brian McNeil /^talk 09:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian, thanks! :-) Those all sound like great ideas. I'm pretty uninformed when it comes to Wikinews (news ;-), but I'll see what I can do in the next week or so. Where would you have this five-minute guide go? I'm not quite sure where you would have me put it. Can you point me to something similar? I had and idea, but Misza13 made it happen. I think he restricted this to the English versions, so you might want to check with him about other languages. By the way, Portal:Scientology/News/Wikinews already is up and running. :-) RichardF (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also brought this up on wikinews-l, I'm sure we have some people who came over from Wikipedia that might help out on that plus it'll likely get the thing adopted on other languages. We've a few people who've started doing their best to translate their stuff from other languages to English to get through the accreditation process (and get a press pass to help with original research). They'll likely pick up on this and request the bot.

I was thinking, we start wikinews:Wikinews:Welcome from Wipipedia - but as Sue Gardner told us, news is more a trade than a profession, part of how you do it is learning my doing - and making mistakes. As I've a tiny number of edits on Wikipedia (<500) I don't consider myself well qualified to write a really concise list of the mistakes people are most likely to make; the one that always sticks in my mind is <ref> use versus {{source}}.

This link User:Brianmc/Definitive article template might give you some ideas, what's missing is the don'ts from Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil /^talk 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'm even more confused about what you're looking for. I think wikinews:Wikinews:Welcome from Wipipedia has a typo. "Wipipedia" → "Wikipedia." Maybe the best way to go would be for you to start the page with the topics you want. I'll do my best to fill in or expand where I can. RichardF (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Richard. Since you've been a recent portal peer reviewer, I request your input at the Iceland Portal's peer review. All general feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks! [sd] 13:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look this weekend. :-) RichardF (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. By the way, I'm currently working on a Selected panorama section — are Myvatn lake and Tindfjallajökull, September 2004 allowed to be used in portals? Regards, [sd] 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it would be great if you could response at the review page. Thanks for your helpful review! Cheers, [sd] 13:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking good, I like panoramic photos! :-) RichardF (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful review! I would like notify you that the Iceland Portal has now been nominated for featured status. Comments and suggestions are welcome at the discussion. Thank you, [sd] 02:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this idea? It would take about 5 minutes to set up, and bingo, Portal:Current events would no longer ever require updating - because at Wikinews, every day is its own category, that's how their Main Page is generated. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

It's about time you came up with this idea! ;-) Actually, I did a little test at Portal:Science. Not much overlap! >;-o) There's a bit of a cultural divide between Wikipedia and Wikinews. Different projects, different editors, different time frames, different styles, different uses. Something probably would have to freeze over before Wikipedia current events editiors went along with with replacing anything. Incorporating items from Wikinews into Wikipedia current events pages might be the first possible overture. I think a current deal breaker will be the lack of a date on the imported items. It would be an interesting conversation to begin, but I would expect a long, drawn-out process before anything like consensus would be reached, if ever. RichardF (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, Okay, a good idea, at any rate. Cirt (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

You always could post the idea at the talk page and see what happens. I did notice a little Wikinews box just below the Headlines box. Maybe that would be the location to try something. The date thing probably could be addressed with headers. :-) RichardF (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I shall try that route. Cirt (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

You had asked a little while back I think about my progress at Portal:Comedy. Well, I've been working on it, and I recently put it up over at WP:PPREV. Of course, your feedback would be welcome. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Okay. RichardF (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears the comments you made apply to sorta inside-stuff between you and me from past experiences - what stuff do we not agree on that I don't want to change? Sorry I can't recall it at this point. Also, as there is currently no category for "humor" or "comedy" at Wikinews, do you think it would be okay for the News section of that portal to automatically update from a broader category at Wikinews, like "Culture and entertainment" ? Cirt (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

I Like "Read more..." You like "More..." I'm sure there must be "more" but that's all I can think of right now. ;-) I think "Culture and Entertainment" is too broad. Well, since "Wilhelm" ahem... created that category, I would populate that if you wanted to use the bot. Since you're already updating the portal manually with dates, I thinks that's better than the bot. The question is, down the line, do you want to keep doing that for your dozen or so featured portals? :-) RichardF (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can you ask Misza13 (talk · contribs) about adding the dates display function to the bot? Cirt (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

I already did. He was unresponsive. RichardF (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, short of Misza13 (talk · contribs) adjusting the Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) to include the dates at some point, it seems like too much tedium to manually add on dates after every time the bot does a news update. Might be a good idea to wait a bit and ask again at some point soon for that bot feature to be added? Cirt (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

Would you be willing to directly pose that "dates needed?" question in this peer review, then share the comments with Misza13? If the bot's current no-dates format is a likely deal breaker (or at least strongly disliked) for making featured portal status, that might be one of the more compelling ways to convince him to throw in a little more coding for the bot? RichardF (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I already made a note about it in the peer review, I'll comment at his talk page too. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, it's working now, but not in a very wikipedia-friendly format. RichardF (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI - See DIFF, and DIFF. We shall see what happens... Cirt (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

• Could you reformat Portal:Current events/Headlines modeling after the great way you did it at Portal:Science/News? Could have the regular Wikipedia headlines on the right, like on the Main Page, and the User:Wikinews Importer Bot section stuff can go on the left, what do you think? Cirt (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Unless you think Portal:Current events/Headlines is fine with the Wikinews stuff directly below the Headlines, either way. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

For now, I would prefer to adopt a wait-and-see approach. I think the current layout looks good too. The two different layouts could be presented on the discussion page and ask for preferences. Or... Go to Portal Peer Review with The Wikinews Importer Bot as the topic with a list of questions on topics like expanded usage, date formatting, Wikipedia/Wikinews combined layouts, etc. Getting folks to weigh in on stuff like this is like pulling teeth, but at least we can say we tried. :-) RichardF (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the WP:FPORTC folks and the WP:PPREV folks were different than those that maintained the sections at Portal:Current events? Cirt (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

They are. :-) RichardF (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't see the point of this. It is much less comprehensive than Deaths in 2008 and just duplicates a small part of the same information. What additional purpose does it serve? WWGB (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi WWGB, this is an effort to more closely collaborate on the Wikinews and Wikipedia projects. I would hope that alone is worthy of saving it from summarily giving it an obit! ;-) RichardF (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Film/Wikinews, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this page as having no context. What were you trying to do with it? Was it meant to be a subpage? J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you/the bot shouldn't be creating articles like that. User subpages, portal subpages, WikiProject subpages (etc...) maybe, but certainly not articles. It was in the article space, and we have no use for articles which are just a list of loosely related links to Wikinews pages. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Except it's not just an article; it's a subpage of an article; just as people often create /Temp subpages for rewrite purposes. I have restored the page. I have no problem with it being in mainspace, but if there's more opposition, maybe we should consider moving these pages to Wikipedia: namespace? Миша13 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If they get moved somewhere, wouldn't "Template:" namespace be more applicable? Although, I don't see the need myself. Either the concept is acceptable or it isn't. Changing a namespace of something that is intended for transclusion always amounts to a straw man anyway. Maybe this needs further discussion at some admin noticeboard somewhere. Like they say, "No good deed goes unpunished," but this is getting a little old for me. RichardF (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is a duplicate page of Portal:Film/Film news/Wikinews anyways, why not just transclude the relevant items from there? Cirt (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

That might not always be the case. There are plenty of reasons why the pages could be formatted differently. I just keep finding myself defending why these things should even exist at all, so I don't get much time for enhancements or whatever. RichardF (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict with RichardF Well, almost. The film portal uses double-asterisk indentation. And even if it were an exact copy, it still doesn't solve the problem universally (I don't think Deaths in 2008 have a related portal). What I'd really like to see is an explanation of why is article space unsuitable in the first place. It is sad that this fine idea is now constantly bumping into obstacles. Миша13 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Conceptually, there is absolutely no difference with the purpose of {{Wikinewshas}}. It's just more comprehensive, more efficient and more reliable! Go figure. >;-o) RichardF (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentiment might be kinder and gentler for templates, e.g., here. RichardF (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict, again! Maybe we can have a cake and eat it too after all without disturbing Wikipedia at large. An obscure edit to the template and the news page for Film can now reside safely in {{Wikinewshas/Film}} - if the second parameter for the template (i.e. its content in the usual case) is not specified, it will attempt to transclude the relevant subpage of the template (if it exists). What do you think? Миша13 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Too sneaky to be true! >;-o) Are you going to post this remedy at Talk:Deaths in 2008? ;-) RichardF (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Did just that as you were proposing it. ;-) Миша13 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Also, do you think {{Wikinewshas}} needs a little bit of documentation, now that the second parameter doesn't show on the page anymore? RichardF (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can beef it up if you wish. The documentation is pretty clear to me, but... that just me. :) Миша13 23:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Who else besides Cirt is going to read it anyway? ;-) RichardF (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Um, I read above, and I don't quite understand how to do what you guys are talking about... Cirt (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

First, ignore all rules directions! :-) The bot directions need another subsection for an article, but I don't know if I'll do that today or not. Articles are something like:

1. Make a page at wikinews like you always do.
2. Start a subpage at Template:Wikinewshas that matches the article name where you want the list to go, like Template:Wikinewshas/Film.
3. Put something like {{t|Wikinewshas|related [[wikinews:Portal:Film|Film news]]}} at the article that matches the template subpage, e.g., Film#External links.

That's about it! :-) RichardF (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Cirt (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

i have some changes. please don't mind. i have addressed your prob. i have rem. the headline from the intro box and replaced it by the headliner like Portal:Cricket. thank you, Sushant gupta (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a featured portal and the headliner is far too obtrusive. It also violates the navigation design. Many editors also dislike iconic header bars, but I'll leave that to someone else to challenge. RichardF (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i don't know what you are talking about. can you explain again. sorry to act stupid. i am easily able to navigate. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

First, it looks like Hell - it's ugly, and totally out of line with featured portal design. Second, the browsebar links to the portals list - you destroyed that navigation design. I oppose what you did, period. RichardF (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

fine dude, why are you barking on me. pls. be cool and for god sake a calm wikipedian. you are an admin, it sounds as if you are vandal. fine i won't touch it anymore. sorry and goodbye, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. I'm not an admin. Just a grouchy dude. Sorry. RichardF (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

hey, wait a minute it can't be so. three days ago i saw that you were an admin. and you have deleted a massive number of pages, blocked many vandals and lots of stuff under your namespace. but today i saw that you aren't. how come it be. anyway i am sorry too for that ambigous headliner and my stupidity. Sushant gupta (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner, I just noticed this edit. I know lots of editors want to be like me. Maybe someone "borrowed" my identity for a while? ;-) RichardF (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this? To reduce amount of code on Portal:Current events? Cirt (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

No, to make the table transcludable. See User:Wikinews Importer Bot#Wikinews templates on user pages. RichardF (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. And very nice work at User:Wikinews Importer Bot ! Cirt (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, The more readers, the better the chances of Wilhelm winning Wikinewsie of the year! ;-) RichardF (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What's a Wikinewsie of the year? Cirt (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Whatever we say it is! I'm shocked they're still waiting for the "First annual..." :-) RichardF (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh, ah RichardF (talk · contribs), I do so enjoy the work on portals we do together. It is so much more enjoyable and so much less controversial (for the most part, except for that little foray into "quotes" :) ) then some of the things I've been dealing with lately. Portal work can really be enjoyable, a way for Wikipedians to collaborate, and just have fun showcasing the great work previously done by others. Thanks for turning me on to portal work on the project. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Ah, yes. I basically stopped editing articles (a) because I didn't have much to say, (b) I prefer "original research," and (c) it wasn't worth the BS. But who doesn't love cats, dogs, religious zealots and portals?! :-) RichardF (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • True, true, everyone can appreciate a good portal. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

I put this one up at WP:PPREV, went with the magic number 20 this time... Cirt (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

We should make a list of Wikipedia pages/articles/portals, etc. that make use of User:Wikinews Importer Bot, perhaps at User:Wikinews Importer Bot/List ? Cirt (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

The article pages are going to be here: Special:Prefixindex/Template:Wikinewshas/

I don't know how to pin down the Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Wikinews Importer Bot portals list without something like Google or AutoWikiBrowser. That would be very tedious beyond just listing a few examples. But hey...

Also, your adjustments like here probably arent going to do what you expect. They will put the lists directly under the wikinews link. The "indent = *" is for no indentation. The default would look like "indent = **" to create the indented list as it looks now. RichardF (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See? :-) RichardF (talk)

I added the above links to User:Wikinews Importer Bot#See also. RichardF (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a simple fix for that - remove the bullet from the first line before the transclusion. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Well, if that's the case, then we never should have had a default indent in the first place! >;-o) RichardF (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we should, it should just be one star, not two :) Cirt (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

It's your turn to ask Миша13. :-) RichardF (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the instructions on the bot page are sufficient. Cirt (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

I can change the default to * in a matter of seconds, but the question is, who will go through all pages that need two asterisks and explicitly add indent = **? :) Миша13 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will. The list about pretty much covers it. RichardF (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done! :-) RichardF (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done as well! (Changed in the last second before it ran on 18:25.) Миша13 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW, Zanimum wonders why the Sesame Street page didn't update. Me too! Can you tell? See n:Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous#Help! RichardF (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! No comments, just whack me with a trout. -_- Миша13 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where they are coming from...

    config = {
            'page' : (None, False),
            'indent' : (u'**', False),
            }

...but the "default double stars" are back! >;-o) RichardF (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not enough trouts. :-O That's what happens when you keep your code on two different computers - they may run out of sync. At least the bot is racking up edits - maybe it will become an administrator someday. :] Миша13 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You should move User:Wikinews_Importer_Bot#See_also to a subpage of User:Wikinews Importer Bot, and then transclude it back to the main See also section - because it's going to get a lot bigger over time... Cirt (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Yes Sir! >;-o) RichardF (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice touch. Is there a way to make it click through to the Wikinews main page, instead of to the logo image page? Cirt (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

Yes. :-) RichardF (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Add a nomination for Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Co-directors. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! RichardF (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I kinda thought that would be your response, but it was worth a try. Cirt (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

So every time that I want to put the relevant news in a box to be updated on a main article page, I have to create a new subpage of Template:Wikinewshas? There has got to be an easier way to do this. Suppose I want to put the exact same relevant Film news stuff that is already currently in the Film article - onto all sorts of Film-related articles, in the External links section. Do I have to create a separate Template:Wikinewshas subpage every single time, even though they will all have the exact same Film-news entries coming from the one page at Wikinews - or is there a way to tell them all to use the same subpage of Template:Wikinewshas somehow? Cirt (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

No, you don't have to create a Wikipedia page more than once. Do it like this, like at User:Wikinews Importer Bot#Wikinews templates on user pages, but make sure it's from template space.

{{t|Wikinewshas|related<br>[[wikinews:Portal:Film|Film news]]|{{Template:Wikinewshas/Film}}}}

{{Wikinewshas}}

The question then becomes, do you want to list where it's added anywhere? RichardF (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Couldn't you just look at "what links here" to see that, if they all use the same template? Cirt (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Not the same template, the same subpage. If you do this, film-related pages will be mixed in with all the other uses of the template. RichardF (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, just like you can with other "see also" links. I just wanted to make sure you understand the othe pages won't show up at the current link. RichardF (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can you add this point to the instructions at User:Wikinews Importer Bot ? Cirt (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Sure. RichardF (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done. RichardF (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I notice you found my DYK page. :D No problems. You might want to mention Portal:Indianapolis somewhere on the Indiana Portal.--Bedford 01:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't, and it is. :-) RichardF (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the instructions at Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day to accommodate the yearless tip set. I'm interested in your opinion/input - do you think they are easy to understand and to execute? Feel free to improve them. The Transhumanist 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but it might take a while. RichardF (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Oregon is up on WP:PPREV. This one in particular I'd appreciate your feedback on - as there are lots of various sections to look at and such. Also, could I get your thoughts perhaps at Portal talk:Oregon - about the placement of the "Selected biography" and "Selected picture" sections? I like the current placement with the Selected biography section at upper right, because it gives the Selected picture section more room to be displayed and more width to use up, below the "Selected article" section. Cirt (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've just started paying attention to state portals. They have some interesting and different possible sections, like "attractions," "cities," "colleges" and the like. Are you "collecting" what's out there anywhere? RichardF (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, I was just focusing on this one. Next up - Norway.  :) Cirt (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting, I responded at the peer review page. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. RichardF (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Also, a note, you responded in-between Zaui (talk · contribs)'s comments at Portal talk:Oregon - Might want to move all your comments to the bottom of that section - so it's not confusing to see who said what. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I used a common talk style - indented under topic. I have a hard time following the style you use. You're also the only one I know who uses bullets everywhere, :-) RichardF (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. But if you break up someone else's comments, I'm just sayin, hard to tell where one person's begin and another's end... Cirt (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there aren't sigs everywhere, but I'm too lazy to move them now. I'm going to bed. RichardF (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, but what inclusion criteria do you use at Portal:Indiana/Related portals ? Maybe we should have one standard footer for "related portals" for all states portals? Cirt (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I picked "broader - US, narrower - Indianapolis, and related - all other states." The logic of pulling out the "selected" state is more than I would want to handle. A "browsebar" would work, but I hate them at the top of a portal, 50+ of them!. They could still go in the box, but I can't figure out how to do in-line and that picture-link thing together. I could move just the states to a US subpage if folks would go along with a format like what I used, with their own state included. RichardF (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't figure out the formatting - can you model Portal:Oregon/Related portals after your Portal:Indiana/Related portals and pop out Oregon and put in Indiana into the Oregon one? Cirt (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, doing it one-by-one is easy enough. Doing something "everyone" will use is something else. RichardF (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Hehe, true. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I did some work with {{WikiProject Theatre}}. Do you know how to adjust the code so that if the particular article is unassessed/has not received importance/quality ratings, that it will look like Template:WikiProject Spain, with the 2 sets of question marks and notices that it has not been rated ? Cirt (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I did something! Revert it if it doesn't work right! >;-o) See Talk:William Shakespeare. RichardF (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I dunno if you would know which bot would help with this question I had posed to Misza13 (talk · contribs) ? I know there already exists a bot out there that does this... Cirt (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope! :-) RichardF (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

True but look at most other State sports template, for the most part they're the same way. Does it make a difference if the box doesn't close? HoosierState^Talk 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to make all the templates at Portal:Indiana/Indiana topics display the same way. I'll just look for another way to"fix" it. RichardF (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw the great work you did with Portal:Indiana and would like to know if you'd be willing to help get the Indianapolis portal to featured status as well. If you can't thats fine too :). Thanks for any help! HoosierState^Talk 03:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I really haven't looked behind the curtain on that one yet. Does it have enough content: 10 articles, biographies and pictures? If it does or can, then we can get it a gold star. I'll be glad to advise, help or take the lead, however you want to do it. :-) RichardF (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As the one who has done most of the work on it, I don't think its near ready. Heck, I'm still working on Portal:Louisville, and its far more along. (Wouldn't mind your opinion on either Portal, through).--Bedford 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's never too soon for a peer review. If the content is there, then all we have to do is keep working on it and it will be featured soon enough. If you want written feedback then put it up for review. If you want me to help work on it, then say the word. If you want to keep it to yourself for some reason, then be up front and say that now too. RichardF (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to give it a peer review, go ahead. In a way, it has been as many of the suggestions I received for the Portal:Louisville review I put in play for the Indy portal, as I do intend to get it featured sometime this year as well.--Bedford 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, if either you or TheHoosierState89 wants to start a portal peer review on the Indianapolis portal, I'll be happy to participate. However, your comments here and on the section above you started show a disturbing pattern of implying you own Portal:Indianapolis. Obviously, you don't. If I do choose to participate in getting this portal up to featured status, I won't be asking your permission to make changes. If you're truly willing to work collaboratively in this effort, then I'll be more than happy to work with you. Otherwise, this isn't going to work out. I'll wait for either one of you or someone else to put it up for a peer review before I have anything substantive to say about the portal itself. Regards, RichardF (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We can easily get to minimum of 10 each in the content sections, it's just all the little work and layout work you did for Indiana that could really make it look great. I'm really a newbie at portals so anyway you can help would be really be appreciated. HoosierState^Talk 04:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you come up with the minimum needed content, that's the hard part. The rest is easy enough with all the examples out there. Again, as soon as I see a portal peer review out there, I'll give it a thorough critique. If you and Bedford are willing to work collaboratively on it, I'm willing to pitch in as well to get it up to snuff. :-) RichardF (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not real sure how to ask for a peer review. For FLC and GA I've just asked a fellow editor to do the review for an article. Is it the same with portals or is there some formal way to ask for a peer review? HoosierState^Talk 04:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple and informal. Just follow the steps at Wikipedia:Portal peer review to set it up. RichardF (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the help; started the peer review. HoosierState^Talk 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool! I'll go through the design checklist I use some time this weekend. RichardF (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't a lot of this conversation be done on the Portal's talk page?--Bedford 04:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No. This is a conversation among editors about our willingness to work together. Here's another example of what concerns me. At the Louisville portal peer review you wrote "(My Portal:Kentucky is even worse, so I didn't even bother with my Portal:Indianapolis)".

That's suggests to me you think you "own" those portals. It doesn't bode well for having a truly collaborative effort. Personally, I'm not willing to get involved if everyone concerned isn't committed to working together. So, simply put, the ball's in your court. My question to you is, are you willing to work together with TheHoosierState, me and whomever shows up to get this thing to featured portal status? RichardF (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My "problem" is Hoosierstate not consulting me if its ready for peer review, which it isn't, and you being condescending for some reason. Especially since I'm officially the portal director for the WikiProject. If I say "My", it is because I have taken pride in the hours of work I have done to get Portal:Indy where it is, and I don't like being dissed, or having things done behind my back when I've been taking careful steps along the way.--Bedford 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll I'm just getting this started, we have to get it going sometime. I didn't really know we had to consult one another before submitting peer reviews. Its not like I submitted it for FPC, I just wanted to get some suggestions for improvement to get the ball rolling. HoosierState^Talk 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Consultation and collaboration would be helpful, especially with the guy who has done most of it. Asking me if it was ready would have been the sensible thing; that way, I could tell you what problem it had. Richard has to research what's wrong; I already know. There are several problems with it, and a peer review is only going to tell the glaring obvious ones that I already know. Things such as redlinks, not enough subportals, etc.--Bedford 06:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, you continue to display exactly the type of "problem" I've pointed out related to my concerns about working with you. You do not control the portal or any other page on Wikipedia. That's not how it works. TheHoosierState does not need your or anyone else's permission to post a portal peer review request. You do not control deciding the readiness for moving anything forward. Your repeated implied message to others is, "Back off, this is mine. I'm the only one worthy of editing this thing." That's not dissing, that's telling it to you straight. How you handle it is the issue. At this point, you have demonstrated you are not willing to work collaboratively with others, IMHO. I'll still make some comments at the peer review and then take it from there as far as my involvement with working on the portal goes. RichardF (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I see I'm talking to a brick wall, who was not taught common courtesy. I'll keep the problems I still see to myself. Its obvious collaboration is impossible.--Bedford 06:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, my recommendation to you is take a strong look in the mirror as you ponder the meaning of projection. RichardF (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter to me why you're not interested. Comments like "I won't be asking your permission" shows that it's YOU that needs to check your attitude. KTHXBAI. -- JT^Holla! 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, I expected an attack from you for calling you on your exclusionist comment. Big surprise. RichardF (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, you're breaking my heart. Seriously. It's bleeding all over the floor. Rivers of blood from my broken, bleeding, decrepit heart. Really, get over yourself. You obviously take Wikipedia WAY too seriously. -- JT^Holla! 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You sure you're not from Wisconsin? Move along now, nothing more to see here. RichardF (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It should work now. Thanks for pointing it out. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! :-) RichardF (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Education portal/Did you know requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuke it! :-) RichardF (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Education portal/Opentask requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuke it! :-) RichardF (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Education portal/Related portals requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuke it! :-) RichardF (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Education portal/Where to start requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that was for! >;-o) I second the nomination! :-) RichardF (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. I checked it on IE and Firefox, bur both had no horizontal scroll. Which browser are you using? STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 12:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm using IE @ 1024X768. I can't even see the image in the introduction. It's about the worst I've ever seen. Beyond that, featured portals should not scroll horizontally at 800X600. Unfortunately, I can't see what's cuasing it off the top of my head. It usually comes from a subpage that's too wide because of an image or table, but I don't see anything obvious like that. :-( RichardF (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem was in the intro formatting. I fixed it. RichardF (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there anything else I should do? STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 15:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'l post a suggestion at the peer review, and then we can take it from there. :-) RichardF (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)