User talk:Iazyges/Archives/2018/April

Cleopatra articles
Hi Iazyges! Long time no see. Glad to see you are still knee-deep in the GA process. Can I ask you to do me a huge favor? Would you mind reviewing the following GA candidates that I've nominated recently?


 * Cleopatra
 * Early life of Cleopatra VII
 * Reign of Cleopatra VII
 * Death of Cleopatra

I think they look fairly decent, but I need a fresh set of eyes to look over them, to check for typos or much more grievous errors before I nominate them as Featured articles. You have passed various GA articles of mine in the past and for that I am eternally grateful, but I ask of you one more time, in one last hurrah, to please guide me through the GA process. Regards, Pericles of Athens  Talk 17:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Once more unto the breach, dear friend, once more!" Lol. Pericles of Athens  Talk 17:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll happily review any article of yours! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly, Iazyges! I knew that I could count on you. I look forward to your reviews, critiques, criticisms, and suggestions for improvement. It's a fascinating topic, her life and death, so you'll be entertained as well! Regards, Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...
... for improving article quality in March! Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Iveta Mukuchyan
Hi there. Only if you are interested, I nominated a short article for good status a long time ago and I was wondering if you might be willing to review it. Harut111 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly be willing. I have a pretty long backlog, so it might take a bit of time before I can get to it, however. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news
 * Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
 * Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
 * The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
 * The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news
 * There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous
 * A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
 * The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

New page review "patrol (review) check" / "menu bar" against patrol log
Hi Iazyges, Good day. I come to seek you advise regarding the abovementioned.
 * 1) I came across some articles which the patrol/review was check yet when I search for the reveiwer/patroller on patrol log, I could not find the review's name - example here for Kochi Orthodox Diocese -
 * 2) Here is another article - Post Self - which "no" review menu bar is shown on the page and no reviewer shown on the patrol log - see here.

Kindly advise/explain the above and is that another way/tool to check whether an article has been reviewed. Thank you in advance.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Both articles were marked reviewed (by Boleyn and Sadads, respectively). It appears the issue is that you are searching the "Patrol log", whereas the data is actually found on "Page Curation log". Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Iazyges, I was looking at the wrong place :). Appreciate the info. Have a wonderful Sunday.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 22:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tiberius (son of Justinian II)
The article Tiberius (son of Justinian II) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tiberius (son of Justinian II) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Fold3
Hello! I requested access, and was accepted, but I was unable to actually gain access to the website. I was emailed with instructions to give account info (username); I did, and nothing has happened since. Thanks,  Vermont &#124; reply here  23:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Iveta Mukuchyan
Hello again. Thank you again for taking the review of the article of I. Mukuchyan. Since, you are the reviewer, I would like to ask a question about it, if it's okay. Recently, I have added this non-free image ... I was wondering if it's okay to use this in the article. Harut111 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I definitely believe so, if it is genuinely irreplaceable with a free image. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  12:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantius III
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constantius III you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Andronikos Tarchaneiotes


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Andronikos Tarchaneiotes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Constantine  ✍  13:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Tornikes Komnenos Asan Palaiologos


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Michael Tornikes Komnenos Asan Palaiologos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Constantine  ✍  13:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Plytos


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on John Plytos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Constantine  ✍  13:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Cleopatra articles
Hi Iazyges! I was wondering if you weren't too busy this weekend to review Reign of Cleopatra and Death of Cleopatra as GA nominees. I'm eager to get them up to GA status, while the main article Cleopatra is currently a Featured Article candidate. Also, congratulations on having some of your articles, such as Tiberius (son of Justinian II), lifted up to GA status! Pericles of Athens Talk 20:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Constantine Komnenos


A tag has been placed on Constantine Komnenos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"recently created redirect linking two distinct persons; Alexios is Isaac's son, but this is not a correct way to address this. The redlink should remain until a proper article is written"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Constantine  ✍  11:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 27, February – March 2018  Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * New collections
 * Alexander Street (expansion)
 * Cambridge University Press (expansion)
 * User Group
 * Global branches update
 * Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
 * Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin Dispute: Should I participate? Need advice
Hi Iazyges, I had a question for you. I am thinking about entering the Shroud of Turin dispute. I don't really have any experience in disputes, and need some advice. I have an issue with the same sentence that Aarghdvaark is having issues with, and have posted a proposal to change the article on the Shroud talk page. Since both Aarghdvaark and I are having issues with the same sentence (though our issues are somewhat different, his is more with sourcing, mine is more with the sentence itself), do you think it is prudent to enter the discussion on the dispute, or would that probably only make things more crowded and less likely to come to an amicable solution? Best, Actuarialninja (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Advice I have given in the past is that: the experience with Wikipedia is best when neither you nor anyone else cares about the content. In a perfect world, editors dispassionately discuss the sources and hammer out consensus. With articles like Shroud of Turin, people on either side will have strong feelings about the outcome which almost always ruins the editing experience. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you feel that you can help establish consensus/discourse then certainly I think you can join, but I wouldn't recommend you join just to join, if that makes sense. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , . Thanks both for some sound advice. I gave it some thought, and I think I will hold back for a couple of weeks and let the process progress without me. If the talk page is any indication, my presence will only generate more heat than light, and probably only make matters less amicable. If Aarghdvaark's request doesn't result in changes that address my concerns, I will step back into the talk page and continue making my case there. Cheers, Actuarialninja (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glycerius
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Glycerius you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Volusianus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Volusianus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Volusianus
The article Volusianus you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Volusianus for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals
The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,   &mdash; The Transhumanist   10:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantius III
The article Constantius III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constantius III for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Byzantine emperors GANs
Hi Iazyges! I noticed you put up a number of Byzantine and Roman emperors' articles up for GA review. I can't really comment on the Roman ones, but a few of the Byzantine ones are highly problematic, to the point that I'de automatically fail them if I reviewed them. This is mostly a question of sources, which is a problem that may not be obvious to the non-expert, though, so here it goes: As a general comment, try to avoid generalist works on unrelated subjects or "popular history" books like Norwich, Canduci, the Pen & Sword publications, or Osprey. They are good for beginners, very readable (I have enjoyed them myself), but definitely not suitable as references in an encyclopedia. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  21:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * at Nikephoros III Botaneiates, the article relies on Canduci (a very dubious source, the publisher is an imprint of Murdoch Books, known for "gardening and cook books", not exactly confidence-inspiring), Norwich (good when used sparingly or in conjunction with other works, but not good enough as a source to stand on its own) and Finlay (generally reliable for its time, but by now horribly out of date). The only references to modern, scholarly, WP:RS are Kazhdan and Curta, and these are not enough. There should be at least one monograph article on the emperor somewhere, or at least a work dealing with the context of late 11th-century Byzantium.
 * at Staurakios, a similar case: Bury was an excellent scholar, and is perfectly fine for historical narrative, but is not enough on his own and often outdated (the History of the Eastern Empire was actually published in 1912, not 2008, after all). Jenkins is often biased and generally not the best source, while the other two are tertiary works and at least one (A Chronology of the Byzantine Empire) is not even a scholarly work as such, merely a compilation of dates and events. For the rest, the same comments apply as above; at least one specialist work dealing with Staurakios and/or the narrower period in question should be used as the main source.
 * Heraklonas looks better, but again relies too much on generalist works. Treadgold is fine (though not without problems) in this role, but I would expect far more use made of Kaegi's landmark study. Some of the other sources (The Building of Christendom) should not really be used for purposes not related to their purported scope (i.e., Christian history-related stuff).
 * On Leontios, more of the same: Byzantine Warship vs Arab Warship is an Osprey Publishing book, which is not WP:RS; Fighting Emperors of Byzantium emulates Norwich, which makes it readable but not really reliable or scholarly; Faiths Across Time: 5,000 Years of Religious History is so generalist as to be irrelevant as WP:RS for the specific topic. You have an excellent source there, Haldon and Brubaker, why do you not use it more?
 * Again, on Phocas, apart from the brevity of the article, which focuses entirely on narrative history, two sources (Fighting Emperors of Byzantium, The War of the Three Gods) are of sub-par quality; one (Medieval Italy (2004): An Encyclopedia.) is tertiary and not really related to the subject, so that it should emphatically not be used to reference an entire section on events that had little to do with Italy; Justinian's Men is fine, but used sparingly, while other important works on the period (Kaegi, Whitby etc) are left out. Given the pivotal nature of this reign, this article needs much more work altogether.
 * Apologies for sourcing issues; I don't personally own any of the Byzantine sources, so I usually have to make do with Google Books which I can preview. Do you know if any of the modern ones you mention above can be found for free online? -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  09:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, no need for apologies, it is not really your fault; going for the low-hanging fruit is natural, I was doing the same when I started on Wikipedia :). I've got access to a lot of sources, if you are researching a specific period or subject, simply let me know. Constantine  ✍  11:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you send me (presumably online) your recommended sources for the emperors above? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Very briefly:
 * for Botaneiates, Angold's The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: a Political History is a standard work for that period, and Kaldellis' Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood for a more recent treatment; the only monograph I know of is a 1916 work in Greek, so that's too much to ask for.
 * for Staurakios, Treadgold's The Byzantine Revival, 780–842 is a very valuable work for that period. I also use Lynda Garland's work on Byzantine Empresses, and definitely recommend the PMBZ's articles on Nikephoros I and Staurakios, both for the complete narrative as well as the discussion of primary sources and the comprehensive bibliography at the end.
 * for Heraklonas, Kaegi should be the basic source for context etc.; the PMBZ has a short entry, while has a longer entry.
 * for Leontios, PMBZ has a nice summary, and provides leads to the extant literature
 * for Phocas, again Kaegi's work on Heraclius, Kaegi's work on Byzantine Military Unrest, has a good overview entry. Bury can be used to add to the narrative, e.g. at Bessas (general).
 * Hope that helps for now, Constantine  ✍  21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As a further note, please don't go about creating Byzantine-related categories without understanding a) how Greek names are declensed and b) their context, use, and the prospects of there ever being enough entries to justify a category. I really do appreciate your enthusiasm, but right now I have to clean up dozens of well-meant, but utterly wrong categories. If in doubt, please consult me in the future. Constantine  ✍  12:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto for cases like Michael Tornikes Komnenos Asan Palaiologos. Please do not fill in redlinks by redirects to articles that do not even mention these people! That is both incorrect and improper practice. Redlinks serve a purpose: either write up the article, or leave them. Constantine  ✍  13:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update, April 22, 2018
Thank you for joining the Portals WikiProject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can help us figure this out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals.

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

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

"What can I do?"
There are 3 major areas of activity right now:

Update the main portal list at Portal:Contents/Portals
There are a few hundred existing portals that are missing from this list.

The list of missing entries, and instructions on what to do, can be found at Portal talk:Contents/Portals.

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

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

That can be done at WikiProject Portals.

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

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

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

I hope to see you on the talk page.

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

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

Summing up...
Get ready, get set, go! &mdash; The Transhumanist  22:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!
 The GA Reviewer's Barnstar  Thank you for your work on evaluating articles that have been proposed for Good Article status. Many times, reviewers don't get noticed for their work. Reviewing an article and working with other editors to improve content takes effort. In addition, a commitment to put aside a block of time for the review is also needed to finish the process. I don't think most other editors realize what a service you are doing to improve the quality of content. What you do provides an incentive for the continuing improvement of content. You’ve put in the time and effort to improve content and therefore deserve recognition and appreciation. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  14:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 

Shroud of Turin
I extended the do-not-archive date by another week, since it appears that it is still proceeding, and is one of the longest-running cases I have seen at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject heads up, April 27, 2018
We now have 52 members, and more are joining daily.

New and easier way to handle excerpts
Attention portal maintainers!

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * This new template is fantastic. I've added it to the intro sections of the portals on Australian cities (eg P:PER) and it works brilliantly.  My compliments to its creators.  It can probably also be used in other sections of many portals (eg "Selected article" and "Selected biography"), and, for that reason, will probably make the task of maintaining portals a great deal easier. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so brave.  just got a lot simpler! Certes (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Kudos on a wonderful template.   &mdash; The Transhumanist   03:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is amazing stuff. I'm going to get to work on using it on the selected content at most of these portals very soon. W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  13:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

*poof*

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

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

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