User talk:RichardF: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cirt (talk | contribs)
Line 154: Line 154:


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. [[User:Cirt|Cirt]] ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 18:46, 8 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. [[User:Cirt|Cirt]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RichardF|RichardF]] ([[User talk:RichardF#top|talk]]) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:14, 8 January 2008

Crystal Clear app messenger.png
Talk

Gutenberg Bible
13Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
14Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Matthew, 7:13-14 (NKJV)

March 9

Bodie, California

A street corner in the ghost town of Bodie, California, named after William S. Bodey who discovered gold in the area in 1859. By 1880 Bodie had a population of nearly 10,000. Bodie is also notable for a hydroelectric plant built 13 miles (21 km) away in 1893, one of the first transmissions of electricity over long distance. The town was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1961 and has been in a state of arrested decay ever since.

Photo credit: Jon Sullivan

Recently featured:
}

Hello again, this time Portal:Film

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
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)[reply]
Sure, real soon now! ;-) RichardF (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
I already added the minimum I though it needed the first time I saw it. :-) RichardF (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, well... now there's a tad more. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
Take on one of those megaportals! ;-) RichardF (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
I took a wild guess at User:RichardF/PortalRecommendations. How about The Arts Portal?! :-) RichardF (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
Chicken! ;-) RichardF (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...goldstars... :-) So..., is Portal:Contents "a portal" or "a topic"??? RichardF (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, you'd have to ask the folks at WP:FT. Cirt (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! >;-) RichardF (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
Already playing with it. I'm looking for a blue shade of the same hue. ;-) RichardF (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]

Portal co-director?

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)[reply]

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

FYI

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]
I'll see what sort of simple fixes I can do. RichardF (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
Nothing new I know of. I assume it's in the queue. RichardF (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
My imaginary friend queue! RichardF (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Did you already put in a bot request? Cirt (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Different question: Do you keep pages of the portals and the various subpages on your watchlist? Cirt (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I used to, not much anymore. RichardF (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]

Yes, a proselytizer was about. See talk page archive. RichardF (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
It looks like you already did. RichardF (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism review

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).[reply]

And what about comedy?! ;-) RichardF (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, great. Cirt (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Quotes section question

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

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

Cool! How's it working? I'll post some things later tonight. RichardF (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Vandals?! I'm shocked! ;-) Thanks again! :-) RichardF (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Iceland's portal peer review

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)[reply]

Okay, I'll take a look this weekend. :-) RichardF (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Looking good, I like panoramic photos! :-) RichardF (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]