User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 146

Archive 140

←

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

Archive 148

→

Archive 150

January 2019

Happy New Year, SMc!

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , SMc,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...

... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

SMcCandlish,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your project help last year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

January

January

Lanzarote
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for improving articles! Did you know that Precious began 7 years ago? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Practically an institution. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Behind the eight ball

Hi SMcCandlish: All right, I've searched far and wide, but not finding answers, so since you're a pool guy, here goes:

- Check out this clip at 1:28 to around 2:20 ("You don't see that everyday.") (!)

- So, from searching online, I figured out that the shot doesn't count as sunk, but what is this called in pool terminology when this occurs? Also, is there a specific name for this when it occurs specifically shooting the eight ball?

- Aaah inertia. And lastly, since you're the "pool guy", what do housewives think of you?

I anxiously await your response, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I'm not sure there's a formal name for this; I've heard it referred to as bounce-out and pocket rejection ("rejected by the pocket", etc.; I think Robert Byrne may've used the latter). It's caused by excessive force. Pool balls are actually slightly elastic (otherwise legal jump shots would be impossible), and when a fast-moving object ball is sliding rather than rolling over the cloth, it can strike the back of the pocket (which is itself lined with somewhat elastic material, usually either leather or plastic, over a very rigid frame), without gravity having time to pull it very far downward into the pocket, and thus bounce directly out again. A variation is sufficient forward momentum to roll around in the pocket with enough force to roll back out again; the pockets (on modern tables, especially bar/pub models) are rigid and curved on the inside, so this can happen fairly often, and it's what is shown in both clips in that video (or the second one might be a triangular bounce, of the ball impacting the pocket rim, then the flat bottom of the pocket, then launching back onto the table, without any rolling interaction with the walls of the pocket). In the first clip it was definitely a roll-out, since you can see the ball still spinning; basically, it was travelling so fast it rolled back up the pocket wall, rather like if you drop a marble into a bowl and hit the slope, the marble will roll across the bowl and shoot up out of it on the other side, like a miniature skateboarder on a half-pipe ramp. Personal experience tells me that direct bounce-outs off the back of the pocket frame are more common a pro-grade tables with leather pockets (which have a rigid frame, while bar/pub tables have rather "dead" plastic pocket liners that absorb a lot of momentum), but roll-back-out rejections only happen on bar boxes and tables that have similar solid pocket liners (as in the tournament tables in the video), since the entire pocket is lined with plastic, while on a traditional table it's a leather or cloth net (if the ball gets lower than the pocket rim holding that net, it's got nothing to bounce off of nor a smooth rolling surface to climb unlike in a bar pocket).

These are just aspects of the game, of the finesse and equipment knowledge required; good simulators like the Virtual Pool franchise even include bounce-outs as a feature (though not always accurately modeled; Virtual Pool 3 had more bounce-outs than were actually physically plausible). A third cause, which can result in this effect even when excessive force is not used, is misconfigured pockets, most often encountered on roughed-up bar/pub equipment, where a pocket's sleeve isn't aligned in the pocket hole correctly.

In other games, there can be other causes, and related effects. Snooker has much straighter pocket openings, with rounded knuckles; in pool, one can use a pocket facing in a manner like a basketball backboard, and cheat the pocket; this isn't possible in snooker except within a very narrow angle, so a shot that is not dead straight in snooker will be rejected by the pocket without even entering it, but simply striking one cushion facing then another then back again rapidly until the ball's kinetic energy is spent (and this can also happen in pool, just less often). That's called a jawed ball; not quite the same thing as a bounce-out, since the ball doesn't enter then re-exit the pocket but kind of vibrates in the jaws. In Russian billiards, pockets typically have a metal bar at the back (with a bit of leather over it), so bounce-outs may be even more likely, and jawed balls are very likely, because the pockets are even tighter, compared to ball size, than those of snooker, and the facings angle inward (the knuckles are acting kind of like very narrow goalposts). See illustration at WP:CUEGLOSS#facing. I'll ping Fuhghettaboutit, who may recall a source for other terminology on this stuff.

I'm not one for dalliance with others' spouses, but the hottest girlfriend I had in a decade or so was a fellow league player. >;-) Turned out not to be "the One", but it was interesting while it lasted, including playing in Vegas together at the VNEA Internationals back in '08, I think.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, that's an ultra-response; wasn't expecting all of that! A refreshing read, and quite interesting. Also, the pool guy reference was in reference to something like this. There's an old joke about housewives and pool guys at their houses. Anyway...uh, nevermind!

Ugh, the dreaded jawed ball. Hate it when that happens. Cmon!!!

Wow, even with the terminology you supplied (bounce-out, rejected ball), cursory searches are not providing much about any rule for this. I love hidden gems like this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I got the "pool guy" joke, was just bringing it back around to the game rather than "cabana boy affair" stuff. Heh. In all the league and tournament rules I've played, bounce-outs do not count as pocketed/potted balls. However, the rules are written broadly, in terms like a ball leaving and returning to the table is still in play. Another thing that happens is a ball jumping a rail, rolling along it, and due to spin and the slope of the rail, returning to the playing surface; I've had that happen several times. I've seen a trick shot guy do it on purpose. I think it was Tom "Dr. Cue" Rossman, but memory dims. Another trick of his was doing a chained jump-carom, such that he jumped the cue ball onto an object ball, which made that jump, onto the side of another object ball, which shot the first one into the side pocket. Took him about 20 tries to make the shot (which means he practiced it probably thousands of times, since it's damned near impossible).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Nonexistent cue chalk

My pool venue experience has unfortunately been generally limited to bars/dive bars, which typically use inferior (smaller-sized?) tables, often accompanied with substandard cue sticks. Been to a few where a ball was missing, so another numbered ball was used with the corresponding missing number written on it in permanent marker. Chalk may be nonexistent. Fact is, many of these places have been removing their pool tables for lack of interest, to open up space, etc. A shame. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, my favorite pool bar in San Francisco took their tables out to make room for more chairs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you told me about this before, the one with the dance floor right next to where people are playing pool... Ha! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

({ping|Northamerica1000}} Oh, that was even worse. That was the SF location of Hollywood Billiards (founded by someone famous like Luther Lassiter; I don't actually remember which old pro, but it was someone from his era). The eventual heirs split the business, with the one in LA remaining a pool hall and the one in SF veering into a danceteria while trying to be part pool hall at the same time. The real tragedy was the loss of the city's (the entire region's) only two publicly accessible antique 10 ft pool tables, which were fantastic for practice. I just hope they at least ended up in private collector hands and didn't get scrapped. 03:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

People doing the humpty dance right next to the pool table can ruin a shot! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, so can other players. In a VNEA or ACS championship in Vegas, I was lining up a key shot, and the guy behind me at another table backed up into my shooting hand and literally took the shot for me, driving my cue into the cue ball then the 8 ball (which I was not on) and pocketing the 8 out of turn (in a game of 8-ball). I had to get a ref to come over and declare the game invalid by way of third-party interference (the opposing team wanted to claim it as a game-losing foul on my part). But, yeah, drunk partiers at bars are way more often a problem. Worst one ever, for me, was in Toronto (which is rather out-of-character for "polite" Canada). Some dude got massively angry that my opponent asked him to move, for a shot, so the drunk broke a bottle, sliced the table cloth (about a 5 ft cut) with it, then even cut his friend badly when the latter tried to take the bottle away from him before he killed someone. Cops and arrest ensued (and stitches for that one guy, presumably.; got taken away via ambulance). Bar just closed on the spot, everyone out, around 11 pm (lots of blood to clean up). Glad I didn't have money on that game, and that it hadn't been my shot (I might not have moved away as fast as the other guy did).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: re-doing ping; I seem to have broken the first one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the last two ten-foot public pool tables, stuff like that bothers me immensely. I can understand a company making a business decision to remove them, but c'mon, try to relocate them somewhere where people can still use them, if at all possible. It reminds me of "the end of baseball". I'm a Dead fan, and when Garcia died, I remember a metaphor I read somewhere that a fan used to explain the situation to non-fans. The gist was, imagine you're a huge basefall fan, and then all of a sudden, there's just no more baseball. No more baseball ever, that's it.

Rough business, that broken glass pool game. People can be so douchey sometimes. "Hey man, could you please move a bit so I can take a shot?" Aaaaaarrrgh, broken glass, ripped table, a serious injury, etc. That guy sounds like the most stubborn asshole in the world, too stubborn to even move over a bit. Another angry drunk, bleh. It's a reminder about how randomly chaotic and immediately violent people can be when they perceive only the barest of provocation. I've had my share of times out drinking, and every now and then, there's some problem such as this that occurs out of the blue. Hate it when this sort of thing happens; ruins the night for everybody. One bad apple that ruins it for all. I gotta admit, the part about the jerk impulsively and defiantly cutting the felt is a bit humorous, but not the latter part. Bottom line: shit happens, be careful out there.

However, pool's a fun sport, in part because it can involve drinking, if one chooses to imbibe. Sort of in the same class as bowling, softball and volleyball. Of course, one can also have a great time while not drinking.

I remember a bar in Dublin, CA in the 80s that had an L-shaped pool table. It was fun to play a game on because it was so different and unique. There was often a queue of people with quarters down waiting to play. Gone. No more baseball! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• The Tao of Pool
• 
  The good
• 
  The bad
• 
  And the ugly

Had a vivid dream once in which I was rich (and didn't care whether the business was actually successful, and treated it more like a museum) in which I opened a huge pool hall that housed every kind of cue game ever, including L-shaped, zig-zag, and other miniature-golf-inspired tables, a round one (like in Silent Running), antique bagatelle boards, '70s bumper bool, a table reserved for table-top bocce (bocce pool AKA bocce billiards), pro-quality tables for all major games like "American" pool, British-style (blackball) pool, snooker, three-cushion, five-pins, Russian pyramid, yotsudama, etc., and even had an outdoor area for croquet and related games, including a reconstruction of the ancestral ground billiards game, with king pin and hoops. I was bummed when I woke up and it wasn't real.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That was your brain giving you feedback of some sort. Yep, you're definitely a pool guy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Brands

	Hello, SMcCandlish. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 20:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy

Resolved

 – WP:SNOW closed as a nonsense deletion nomination.

Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Calidum 01:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) listed at Redirects for discussion

 Done

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Memory Lane (or should I say, memory lane)

For reason probably masochistic, I found myself browsing through my old talk page discussions, and scrolled through this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Anastrophe/Archive b#Please make your talk posts legible - whoo-boy. What a time it was, more than a decade ago, and what a shitty all-lowercase writer I was.

After a long struggle, and it was a struggle, I did manage to cure myself of the lazy-caps affliction, through hard work and the influence of my inborne self-loathing - as I did come to realize that the lazy-caps style just...looks...well, I said it before: shitty.

You played a role in this personal transformation (heh). So, thanks! Anastrophe (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Glad to help. All of us have to make some editorial adjustments here. I know I did, especially with regard to encyclopedic tone (in particular the difference between saying what the sources say, exactly and even if that's gappy, versus saying what we think the sources collectively can be interpreted to mean, which is WP:OR).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eva Bartlett

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eva Bartlett. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick question

I'm going to nominate Taylor-Stevenson Ranch for GA but I can't figure out if it should go under Geography or Places or something else entirely different. Your thoughts? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 12:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(Talk page watcher) Hey Atsme: Since (according to the article) it's officially recognized as a Texas Century Ranch, I'd go with a Geography subtopic in the nomination, but yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dude! Thank you. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: I would've gone the opposite way myself, since it's a discrete locale (a "place"), while "geography" in this context seems to refer more to natural features and to jurisdictions. That said, Northamerican1000 does have a rationale (which I haven't pored over), the concept of human geography kinda blurs "geography" and "place", I don't spend much time dealing with GA process and categorization, and I don't even know if an article can be multi-categorized as a GA. (If it can, then maybe both would be appropriate.) I'm not sure it matters much, since if the GA regulars are really particular about the categorization stuff, and they think whichever you pick is/are wrong, they'll surely say so during the process and work it out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ersan İlyasova

 Declined

 – I don't know enough about the topic or dispute, and don't have time to research it.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ersan İlyasova. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #026, 20 Jan 2019

Well, here's the first issue of the new year. Enjoy...

New participants

A hearty welcome to new arrivals to the portals department:

• Emoteplump
• Pakieditor
• CASSIOPEIA
• Venomous Sniper
• DannyS712

Harvesting categories tool prototype

DannyS712 has created a user script prototype, User:DannyS712/Cat links, that can pull members from a category, a functionality we've been after since the project's revamp last Spring. Now, it's a matter of applying this technique to scripts that will place the items where needed, such as with a section starter script and/or portal builder script.

New portals since last issue

What else is going on

There have been some discussions at Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines.

DreamyJazz is working on a bot to place links to portals on root articles, category pages, and navigation footer templates.

Portal bugs are getting dealt with soon after they are reported.

Lots of wikignome activity (using Hotcat, etc.).

Keep up the good work.    — The Transhumanist   09:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of...

SMcCandlish,

What do you think of merging Wikipedia:Portal guidelines and Wikipedia:Portal?    — The Transhumanist   09:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: I wouldn't, but cross-reference them heavily. Guidelines and information/how-to pages serve different purposes and have a different vetting process, and different authority levels. Merging these pages would either demote guideline material to information-page level (= essay), or elevate info-page essay material to guideline level without a WP:PROPOSAL. If there were a proposal, it would surely fail, because the material in the info page isn't guideline material by nature. There may be some stuff in the one that should migrate to the other and vice versa (or be WP:SUMMARY-treated and cross-referenced). E.g. some of the "how to make a good portal" stuff in the info page might belong (or belong in more detail) in the guideline, and the latter might have some verbiage in it that really isn't WP:P&G material ("rules"), but general introductory stuff that belongs in an information page. Basically, if you can't get in any trouble for not doing what it says, it shouldn't be in the guideline. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   12:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: We are now at 5,300 portals. Shooting for 10,000.

P.P.S.: I just wrote an explanation of ye old grand approach, at User talk:Northamerica1000#What else is going on.

Thank you

I don't think I ever thanked you for this, User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 14#On the indef, what led up to it, and hopefully undoing it without the albatross being made of lead, initially because I was blocked at the time you wrote it, and later because I didn't want to diminish what you did by implying it was a favor to me or something. I think you made it very clear that that's not what it was.

Regardless, just want you to know that I have read it, and I do reread it regularly. There is a lot there, and it means a lot to me that you went to all the trouble to break apart what really happened with the SJB fiasco. It was so frustrating to see so many people think I was forum shopping, etc., and so cathartic to see that you got what I was really doing, at every stop along the way, almost 100%.

Since I got pulled into another AN/I recently I'm asking editors who I respect, if they have the time and wish to help, to check on my activities from time to time, and let me know if you think anything I'm doing is out of line, or even could be perceived as that. As you wish.

So thanks, and I do look forward to working with you (or against you, in a civil/friendly/healthy debates), in the future.

--В²C ☎ 02:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I ran across the new-ish ANI bit by accident, but it fit the overall pattern. You've not said as much, but I doubt you like the idea of an RM topic ban. And while I've said myself that your activities in that area have improved, a) people are proposing a site-ban or indef again, and b) almost all your trouble seems to originate from or to be closely involved with RM stuff, so suggesting that limitation seems like a way of avoiding a worse outcome, and avoiding later trouble. No one wants their foot amputated, but if you have an inoperable malignant tumor in it, it's better to lose the foot than do nothing and die, or to try to ineffectively treat it, have the cancer metastasize, and then die anyway. Not a perfect metaphor, but probably close enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The crimes alleged this time had nothing to do with RMs. —В²C ☎ 16:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: But the thread, and the urge to "do something", are dominated by RM. It pretty much didn't matter what the opening salvo was in that particular ANI, it was almost guaranteed to come back to RM stuff because that's all you're usually ever ANIed over. What we have here is a "we're tired of dealing with this person over and over again and will get a pound of flesh at very least" situation. Shunting you away (at least in theory) from the area that is the source of 95% of the drama relating to you would make future nit-pick reports like this last one seem petty instead of "proof of a pattern of long-term abuse", yadda-yadda. Anyway, I don't think the ANI is really going to go anywhere, since the RM-related sanctions ideas are technically off-topic for the report, and the lead-in idea (proposal 1) was heavy-handed, and not narrowly tailored to the "crime".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

So I'm brought to AN/I for doing nothing wrong in a discussion that has nothing to do with RMs, and I'm taken to task for stuff I allegedly in the past in the RMs, with no citations to the alleged wrongdoing much less relation identified with any policies I violated, and for supposedly exhibiting the problematic behavior ("too much" commenting) in the AN/I discussion itself where I simply wanted to seek clarification and defend myself? How is this not being rail-roaded, again? Anyway, I get the point that the practice of responding to many editors comments in a discussion can end up seeming overwhelming to someone who tries to read the whole discussion at once. --В²C ☎ 18:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Drop me a line in e-mail about it. Given past WP:DRAMA festivals, I'm not entirely comfortable having a frank discussion of wiki-politics, here on the wiki itself. It's meta enough that it needs to be outside the bounds of the system on which it would comment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Line has been dropped. thanks.--В²C ☎ 01:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Celebrity lookalike

Per you user page, I would say Robert Downey Jr., at least in that particular photo. but yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I AM MOLYBDENUM MAN!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Haven't seen the Iron Man stuff with Downey Jr. yet. I like this iron man, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Portal creation is self-regulating

Try creating Portal:Stoats with {{subst:bpsp}}.

There's just not enough meat on the subject, and after looking around (doing an intitle search for stoats), an editor would naturally abort.

However, there is much more coverage on weasels, resulting in Portal:Weasels.

Enjoy.    — The Transhumanist   09:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Disregard

 – already closed by teh time I looked at it.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #027, 28 Jan 2019

Portal styles

For a visually intensive portal, see Portal:Hummingbirds.

If you find any other portals that stand out, please send me the links so I can include them in the next issue. Thank you.

Conversion continues

There are about 1100 portals left in the old style, with subpages and static excerpts. As those are very labor intensive to maintain (because their maintenance is manual), all those except the ones with active maintainers (about 100) are slated for upgrade = approximately 1000. We started with 1500, and so over a quarter of them have been processed so far. That's good, but at this rate, conversion will take another 3 years. So, some automation (AWB?) is in order. We just need to keep at it, and push down on the gas pedal a bit harder.

You can find the old-style portals with an insource search of "box portal skeleton".

Flagship portals: the portals on the Main Page

Speaking of upgrades...

The following portals are listed in the header at the top of Wikipedia's Main Page, and get far more traffic than all other portals:

1. Portal:Arts
2. Portal:Biography
3. Portal:Geography
4. Portal:History
5. Portal:Mathematics
6. Portal:Science
7. Portal:Society
8. Portal:Technology

Of those, all but one have been revamped to an automated self-updating single-page design.

The remaining one, Portal:Mathematics has manual maintainers, and has been partially upgraded.

As these are our flagship fleet, they need to be kept in top-notch condition.

Check 'em out, and improve them if you can.

And be sure they are on your watchlist.

New portals since last issue

Keep 'em coming!

Deorphanizing the new portals

As you know, thousands of the new portals are orphans, that is, having no links to them from article space. For all practical purposes, that means they are not part of the encyclopedia yet, and readers will be unlikely to find them.

What is needed are links to these portals from the See also sections of the corresponding root articles.

Dreamy Jazz to the rescue...

Dreamy Jazz has created a bot to place the corresponding category link to the end of each portal (if it is missing), and place a link to each portal in the See also section of the corresponding root articles.

That bot, named User:Dreamy Jazz Bot, is currently in its trial period performing the above described edits!

To take a look at the edits it has made so far, see Special:Contributions/Dreamy Jazz Bot.

It shouldn't be long before the bot is processing the entire set of new portals.

Good news indeed.

Way to go, Dreamy Jazz!

And, that's a wrap

That's all I have to report this time around.

No doubt there will be more to tell soon.

Until then,    — The Transhumanist   14:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: See below...

SMcCandlish,

Hey, in case you are interested, here is the updated task list I've been going by, in case you have any comments or suggestions:

To-do list:

Continue encouraging creation of new portals Assist Dreamy Jazz in further developing the link placer bot to deorphanize new portals Convert old portals to new design, except those on the "maintained" list Encourage participants to post wishes for new features at WT:WPPORTD Fix portals in the "In need of immediate attention" category Report buggy portals in that cat, and at WT:WPPORTD Work on general portal tool (script) Refine search parameters in new portals (so that DYK and ITN items show up) Place panoramas at the top of portals Add Recognized content sections to portals (that have a corresponding WikiProject) Brainstorm and develop new portal components Clean up (speedy delete) obsolete portal subpages Figure out a way to automate these features: Anniversary/On-this-day section Quotes section Gathering and placement of panoramas Biography section Other topic sections Revise/update the Portal support pages, including the Portals guideline Develop a navigation footer builder script (navigation footers can be used to power portals) Develop an outline builder script (outlines can also be used to power portals) Keep portals notice section of the Community Bulletin Board up to date Send out updates as news becomes available Refine/expand the portal category system Reduce portal load time (by making the lua modules more efficient) Develop and test applications of existing portal components at User:The Transhumanist

Let me know if anything is missing.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   14:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: That's a long list with a lot of competing priorities. I would think for the short term that "Assist Dreamy Jazz in further developing the link placer bot to deorphanize new portals" (if it's not already completed) is very high, since orphaned portals are a) individual targets for deletion, and b) collectively an incentive for portal skeptics to seek mass deletion or even to attack the new portal system in general.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear SmcCandlish,

Dreamy Jazz Bot has been approved, is up and running, and is deorphanizing portals daily. It places 2 link types leading to portals: one on the corresponding root article page, and one on the corresponding category page. See its contributions – it has been busy. Based on that page, around 400 portals have been processed so far with incoming links.

Thank you for your concern.

By the way, I've spelled out the current strategy in the latest issue of the newsletter, including the next stage in the evolution of portals. Active discussions on that are taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quantum portals.

Enjoy,    — The Transhumanist   06:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've taken a closer look at the bot's ops. "Task 2" is the process that places links to portals. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dreamy_Jazz_Bot/Task_2

Apparently, it is processing new portals daily, so newly created portals are getting deorphanized soon after they are created. This means we are not adding to the orphan problem by creating more portals. Dreamy Jazz has certainly gone beyond the call of duty by producing this amazing feature.

During its monthly passes the bot checks all portals for incoming links. And since only about 400 out of the 4700 single-page portals have been processed by the bot, it doesn't look like it has done a monthly pass yet.

I've posted a message to Dreamy Jazz's talk page, congratulating him on a job well done, and to ask about the monthly. It looks like the orphan portal problem will soon be behind us.    — The Transhumanist   20:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: Concerning the disparity between the total single-page portals and the number the bot has added links for, Dreamy Jazz is working on it.    — The Transhumanist   23:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Talk page viewer) @The Transhumanist: Does the bot automatically do the work for all portals, or do they have to be categorized with Category:Portals needing placement of incoming links in order for the bot to find them? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • All, monthly, regardless. Answered further on user's talk page.    — The Transhumanist   05:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up discussion on portal specificity, merging

@The Transhumanist and Dreamy Jazz: I'm glad this aspect of the process is well in-hand. I still think there will still be issues with unnecessary/redundant portals, e.g. some of the food ones. There was a thread about this back in October or November, I think, mostly focused on food portals, but just using them as an example. The issue in a nutshell is that we have no need of Portal:Bacon, Portal:Ham, etc., when a single Portal:Pork will do and will actually be more useful. I do note that we have a merged Portal:Pasta and not a bunch of Portal:Spaghetti, Portal:Rigatoni, etc., so this is improving. There are some obvious issues though, like Portal:Capsicum and Portal:Chili peppers which are the exact same topic (the portal should be at the more common name, even if the botany wikiproject has gotten its wish and convinced people to allow scientific names in plant article titles).

In some cases, topical overlap may be desirable; Portal:Fruits isn't entirely redundant with Portal:Apples, Portal:Grapes, etc., because such plants come in a bewildering array of cultivars, have different domestication histories, etc., etc.; there's enough "meat" to support a sub-topical portal. Similarly, Portal:Poultry and Portal:Chicken aren't a problem; they're different "classes" of portals, as it were. But separate portals for different cuts of meat from the same animal is probably an issue. (In anglophone countries alone, there are over 50 named cuts of pork, and if you count up all the kinds of processed pork – prosciutto, back bacon, soppressata, pepperoni, etc. – there are hundreds at least, a large subset of which would be covered at Portal:Sausages, which is discrete enough a topic to be a portal.)

We also need redirects that prevent the creation of more obviously redundant portals; Portal:Cucurbita isn't at a name many readers will use, but Portal:Squashes, Portal:Pumpkins, Portal:Zucchini should redirect there both so people find the portal and so they don't make redundant ones. (Yes, in theory, it might be possible to make non-redundant portals on the pumpkins and zukes, as major human-use plants with many cultivars, if someone wants to put in the manual work to make such portals "not suck"; but auto-generated ones are going to be redundant with the Cucurbita portal.) "Squash" is just a general classification, essentially synonymous with the genus Cucurbita (though Portal:Squash should probably be about the sport).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, there may be an issue of perspective here -- that is, from where the portals are being viewed. It seems like you may be viewing from the top down. Viewed from an article, the question becomes "Will this page benefit from having a link to a like-named portal?" If the answer is "yes", then we build the portal. So, from the bacon article, if the user wants elaboration, he clicks on the Portal:Bacon link, and that is what he gets: more coverage on bacon. Pork would be somewhat off-topic, and would include ham, which is not what he is currently reading about.

Bacon ice cream, anyone?    — The Transhumanist   21:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Pork would not be off-topic if it includes bacon. I'm not trying to "lay down the law" here, I just have been doing categorization, merging, MFD, and other processes long enough to have what I think is a good sense of tolerable and intolerable levels of redundancy, over-precision, etc., and I've been paying attention to the rationales of people who have issues with the current "portals 2.0" rollout. It's not that I want to remake the new portal system in my own image (or I'd've been much more involved in developing it), I just want to prevent it being unmade (or a bunch of interminable drama seeking to unmake it) all because it's gone 5% too far in a particular direction. Another way to think of it: I'm not demanding an outcome but predicting one.
PS: I have actually had bacon ice cream, back in the days of that bacon-everything fad, around 2008 or so. I wouldn't recommend it. For weird ice cream, garlic was better, as was hot red-chile chocolate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't write that it would be off-topic, but that it would be somewhat off-topic, that is, partially off-topic. In other words not a close match. After all, pork is not the subject, but the parent subject of bacon, and includes the entire animal from its nose to its tail. If you crave bacon, you probably aren't interested in pigs feet. So, if you go to the library to read about Germany, you probably won't be that happy if the librarian hands you a book on Europe, or Countries of the World. There's a whole section on the shelf specifically about Germany, and that's where a good librarian will direct you. When you want something specific, more general just won't do. From the viewpoint of focused study, more general isn't. We're talking navigation aids here. All of the navigation systems are analogous to each other. So, if you were studying bacon, you would go to Category:Bacon. It would be much harder to learn about bacon on the Category:Pork page. Here's an experiment for you. Let's say you want to read about penguins. Let me know which portal 1) you learn more about them on and 2) find material more easily about them: Portal:Birds or Portal:Penguins. Which one is someone looking for material on penguins more likely to want to read?    — The Transhumanist   23:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You mentioned you have been paying attention to the rationales of people who have issues with the current "portals 2.0" rollout. I'm very interested in all types of feedback. Could you provide links to those please?    — The Transhumanist   00:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Upon rereading your post carefully, I've come to the conclusion that we are on the same wavelength. You stated, "In some cases, topical overlap may be desirable", which boils down to "on a case-by-case basis", which I totally agree with. If the subject has enough distinct coverage to warrant a portal, then build it. (And I'd still like to see the links to the 2.0 issues you mentioned above.)    — The Transhumanist   02:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah; my earlier material is pretty clear that birds and penguins would be separate portals (but not every bird species is going to have a portal). And maybe bacon, due to the annoying bacon fad of the 2000s, is actually portal-worthy. But the 50+ other cuts of pork probably are not, nor are the 500-ish kinds of prepared/processed pork. It's going to end up being a lot like categorization and navboxes.

The community just organically develops and enforces criteria (very mergist criteria) for such things, especially if they generate pages to maintain. The criteria are very similar, except where they actually need to diverge, for differences between the purpose/functionality of different kinds of nav; some rationales for having (or eliminating) a category are different from those for a navbox, and the same will be true of portals. But the reasoning applied in arriving at and applying such criteria is remarkably consistent. This isn't accidental; regulars at CfD, MfD, RfD, and talk page discussions about navigation (of which portals are a form) take pains to be aware of all this stuff and to not produce conflicting guidelines and decisions. I'll reaffirm that I'm not trying to come off as a "topic-snob" portal deletionist. I'm just firmly predicting a wave of mergers and outlining some of the "meta-notability" and over-specificity reasons the merging will happen, based on what we already do and have been doing since the 2000s [since bacon "became a thing" – a coincidence or a conspiracy?]
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

PS, re "I didn't write that it would be off-topic" – I wasn't trying to straw man you; rather, I meant (as you did) that relevance is relative; then, for my part, I was suggesting that pork is relevant enough for most pork-related topics, in the same way that Category:Pork doesn't have a gazillion subcats (notably, the only mostly-pork-specific food item that does have one is bacon, so maybe it really is an exception to the general rule). Category:Sausages has substantial overlap, but is a different kind of topic, and thus Portal:Sausages is also viable for the same reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)