This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) at 00:54, 2 May 2019 (portal update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:54, 2 May 2019 by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) (portal update)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
User page | 
|
|
Library |
|
|
Talk |
|
| Talk page | |
|---|---|
Welcome to my talk page
ThanksFor looking at the Post-classical History article. You appear to be an expert on Pre-Colombian South American history. I think this is neglected within the context of the World History field. Good to meet you! Sunriseshore (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC) DYK nomination of Omingonde Formation
Disambiguation link notification for September 26An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Cottonwood Limestone infobox suggestionsThanks you for the suggestions on my first use of the Infobox rockunit template (3.5 years ago). I have a couple questions: 1. Clarification of "siliceous to quartz nodules or infills of burrows"
2. How should I handle the Coord-missing tag? Just pick a point in the center of the outcrop? I keep thinking a range should be stated. My real problem is with the Western Interior Seaway coordinates when some beds range from the Great Lakes, Arctic, and Utah. I would rather not state the coordinates at all. 3. I used to try to use |author1= |author2= |author3=, etc, until someone changed my usage to |authors=. Reading Template:Citation/doc now, I see that the enumeration is probably preferred, am I right? IveGoneAway (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Fencepost limestone(For some reason, a lot of these helpful edits by others aren't showing up in my Watchlist.)
IveGoneAway (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC) 18:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for October 3An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Talkback Message added 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Narutolovehinata5 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Hey...I was looking at your blurb, after your name at WP:WPPORT. You mentioned the updating function of portals. I am interested in your assessment of the progress of the portals project so far. What have we accomplished, and what yet needs to be done? Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 06:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC) DYK nomination of Omingonde Formation
DYK nomination of Omingonde Formation
TalkbackMessage added 00:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Please return to editing as soon as possible so that this nomination can proceed. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 00:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC) List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in CameroonWhen you added the map to this article, you included the Igumale Formation, but the coordinate given is not in Cameroon and does not display on the map, thus causing the article to be in Category:Location maps with marks outside map and outside parameter not set. I don't know where you got this coordinate. It is in Nigeria. Either the coordinate is incorrect or this formation does not belong on this list. MB 04:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Wetterstein LimestoneHi Tisquesusa, I'm sorry but I've reverted your edits here as the merge discussion hasn't been concluded. Bermicourt (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Tone? While I wholeheartedly support the general concept of merging of the countless, unnecessarily redundant rock unit articles where they can be seen to be so, maybe it would help if you moderated your recent comment to the Wetterstein Limestone merge discussion? IveGoneAway (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 20Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bajo Barreal Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Copying licensed material requires attributionHi. I see in the article Alajuela Formation you included material from a webpage that is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC) CanaanimicoIf you need to change the taxonomy listed for a page like Canaanimico with an automatd taxobox, you update it at {{Taxonomy/Canaanimico}}. Then the change propagates to all relevant taxoboxes. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Automated taxobox system/intro. --Nessie (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Scientific names"The second part of a binomial species name is never capitalized, even when derived from a proper name" This is not only WP convention. Autism is not material to the usage. IveGoneAway (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 March newsletterAnd so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all! Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). Seattle FaultAnother editor wants to bold, revert, discuss your changes to Seattle Fault. I started a conversation at Talk:Seattle Fault#March 2019 BRD ☆ Bri (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC) NPARe this, are you aware you can be blocked for attacking other editors? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Category:Buildings and structures in Duitama has been nominated for discussion Category:Buildings and structures in Duitama, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
WikiCup 2019 May newsletterThe second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:
Other notable performances were put in by So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019Back to the drawing boardImplementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design. Some of the reasons for the purge are:
Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases. In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted. Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:
These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG. However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal. See you at WT:POG. CurationA major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer. There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion. See you at WT:POG. TrafficAn observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get. And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals. The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are? And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)... Some potential future directions of developmentQuantum portals?An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself. Non-portal integrated componentsAnother approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible. What kind of features could this be done with? The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on. Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts). The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's interface. But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them. Keep on keepin' onThe features of Misplaced Pages and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other. And who knows what else? No worries. Until next issue... — The Transhumanist 00:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC) |
