User talk:Samee/Archives/2019/May

Back to the drawing board
Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:
 * Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
 * The default bpsp portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
 * They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:
 * Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
 * The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
 * Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.

Curation
A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.

Traffic
An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of bpsp default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Quantum portals?
An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components
Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?
Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on
The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue... &mdash; The Transhumanist  00:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Anusha Rahman
You are insisting to post biased negative posts of a living person against Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pak research (talk • contribs).
 * I am not trying to do so but you are trying to censor or enforce a particular version without citing any Wikipedia policies in your favour. Would you like to tell me what policies I might have violated against a living person? You want to start the lead sentence as Anusha Rahman was a politician, which implies she may not be a living person now. Do you want to imply she has left politics? If so, cite it with a reliable source. You're removing categories with logics perhaps only best understood by you. So instead of unilaterally deciding what is correct and incorrect, discuss the content issues here at Talk:Anusha Rahman and generate consensus. Thank you. samee  converse  15:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Moreover, we don't use puffery per WP:PEA, which is again a policy that you 'violated'. Examples from the article include a very renowned family, worked with one of the top law firms etc. Also see WP:NOR please. samee  converse  15:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * anuusha rahman is no longer in politics as she is not in the parliament and not seen anywhere in politics. But if you want to say she is a politician, that will be incorrect too because there is no evidence to that either. If you think ''was is going to imply that it is not a living person then I will agree to your 'is'. The Wikipedia policy requires unbiased content, and you have filled the page with biased content- the Dawn article written was by Khawar Ghumman, who is known to be anti PMLN party and is biased plus it is not verified content. TO the contrary you have removed all the content the is properly reported and sourced.
 * If she is not being actively seen in politics, does it automatically imply that she is not a politician anymore? DAWN is a reliable source than your own original researches are. For your information, I have not removed any sourced content but you have added a lot of unsourced and unencyclopaedic information such as adding the name of her uncle (mostly likely non-notable) and name of her classfellows (many of whom are non-notable). If you have any problem with the source, discuss that on talk page of Anusha Rahman instead of solely acting on your own. samee  converse  15:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Khawar Ghumman article reference is against Wikipedia BLP policy.

Dawn article is by an author which is biased and against Wikipedia BLP policy

I have seen your revision of May 14. In the spirit to develop consensus we can agree to your may 14 revision? we can reach consensus near to Your revision made on may 14, 2019, at 17.21pm,
 * I won't comment on the merits of the said newspaper report. I would suggest you to point out what you think may have 'violated' BLP policies here at Talk:Anusha Rahman or alternatively, you may start a new article at Draft:Anusha Rahman, which may be reviewed by neutral editors for inclusion. samee  converse  16:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

when a consensus is offered on your revision of May 14, 2019, then why not accept it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pak research (talk • contribs) 12:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The key policy in BLP IS Neutral point of view (NPOV). The content that you wish to maintain is biased and removes reliable reported attributions of awards and positive work undertaken. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pak research (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments. This is not the place for this discussion. Discuss on the article's talk page. I tire of reading your broken English. Consensus means other editors agree, not just you. You sound like a crank and a partisan, so please stop. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jugnu (talk show)


A tag has been placed on Jugnu (talk show), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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.
 * It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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. Störm  (talk)  17:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...
... for improving article quality in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)