This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

+ new email. AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

		The Multiple Barnstar
		For the best Wikipedian and pal ever. Thank you for all of your contribution and friendliness. To many more years. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If I want to reply to GPL93, do I put that reply above or below your note? Right now, my reply is below. Thanks, Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Зенитная Самоходная Установка: You're going to have to be more specific. I don't know what discussion you are talking about. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viral drink Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Зенитная Самоходная Установка: In this case, either way is fine. Folks tend to post after a deletion sorting listing is placed. If you want, you can post above it with the same indentation you used. FYI, for relistings, people typically post below the relisting notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

+ email. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

+ mail. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I sent a recent email. Please respond asap. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

mail. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

More mail AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

If very odd to see an admin act the way she does especially towards another admin...perhaps best to see if an interaction ban can be put in place. As on now her effort to block any progress and calling people names and saying everyone is a liar is simply not what we are looking for from anyone . I have never really seen this editor before the portal stuff...is the bullying normal behavior for them? Would you be interested in a interaction ban ? --Moxy 🍁 16:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

If either of you want to go down path, please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG ... and rest assured that I will respond with a bundle of evidence about how NA1K's strategic mendacity is a disruptive and destructive force.

If Moxy is a party, I will list a range of serious problems with Moxy, including repeated personal attacks on me by Moxy, and also Moxy's disruptive conduct in launching a bad faith RFC.

So if you guys want to take this to ANI or wherever, then we can do that. (I doubt you will enjoy the experience, but if that is what you want ..)

But it would be far more productive for you portalistas to simply clean up your acts. Stop the lying, stop gaming the system, start upholding portal gudelines, and drop the battlefield mentality which portalistas have deployed ever since the first proposals were made to halt TTH's flood of portalspam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess others beat me to the punch...so lets see what the community has to say about your odd behavior.--Moxy 🍁 21:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

small additional mail. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

mail. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please take a look at Draft:Zava? It is a properly stated conflict of interest contribution currently being reviewed. It is my first article on telemedicine and I would appreciate your advice on whether something could/should be improved. It has been reviewed by doomsdayer520 who left very helpful comments at the article's talk page, but I would also like to hear your suggestions. Thank you in advance!--Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bbarmadillo: I'm focusing on other matters on wiki, and don't know if I will have time to give it a full assessment. I noticed that you placed the ((Connected contributor (paid))) template on the talk page. While I do not condone particularly support paid editing, it is definitely good that you have declared it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate your answer. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nb. Struck part of my comment above, and added "particularly support" in its place. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:New Mexico. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:New Mexico redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought there was a convention that Portals, although they should be in the named category, should have a greek letter sort key; or at least "*" (indicating principle list) rather than " " (indicating principle article). Of course, I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Arthur Rubin: I've been using the vertical bar and a space for years, and so have many others from what I've seen. Doing so sorts more specifically on category pages, typically in the same area that the main article is listed, before the article list begins with the alphabetical sorting. That way, the portal is not listed in the articles under the category, which serves to differentiate the portal from articles. Also, it would be my guess that folks who browse categories are typically looking for related articles, rather than portals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mail. AmericanAir88^(talk) 12:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've basically retired but occasionally follow discussions elsewhere. I just wanted to say: please don't fall for the trick of comparing portal views to article views. Articles are wikilinked: Smith was born in California doesn't lead to a portal. Articles appear in search results; portals don't. Almost all incoming links from other sites lead to articles. The system ensures that no portal, however perfect or broad, can stand a snowball's chance in hell of approaching its article's pageviews. This fact might be used as an argument to scrap the entire portal system, but any attempt to use it to show that an individual portal is below the general standard for portals is a gross misrepresentation. Certes (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Certes: Well, you can always un-retire later, right? I can't spend much more time thinking about page views for now, it's making my head hurt. Seriously, though, I have agreed at BHG's talk page to utilize the average daily page views when citing page views for portals at MfD discussions, since this is essentially the MfD status quo at this point. Another user has also provided input there and elsewhere why this is the preferred method. It's fine, no problemo.

I'm actually very good with statistics and mathematics, although it's not my life's goal. Ultimately, I'm not here on Wikipedia to stir things up in a negative manner; it's easier to go with the flow. For what it's worth, in the real world, where money is involved, true numbers are the best numbers. Rounding can be bad for business, because at times it can interject an ambiguous, overgeneralized figure that deviates from actual diverse figures at various points in time in too inaccurate of a manner. The use of rounding even has the potential to place people into a higher tax bracket, depending on how it's applied (e.g. see this article). Also, the use of averages in the business world and other arenas of the world can be harmful and even devastating: check out this excellent article here from Harvard Business Review for more information, if you're interested.

It's all good. Folks at MfD on Wikipedia prefer to use averages to describe page views, which I fully understand, in part simply because it's much easier for people to work with as a general guide. Ultimately, since citing the average figures are the status quo at MfD, might as well go with that. I wasn't even looking to challenge this at all; my experience in the real world is based upon analysis using true numbers, because it typically leads to more accurate analytical conclusions. However, Wikiworld is not the business world.

It appears that you saw the discussion where I mentioned comparing the page views of various portals as a metric to potentially determine whether or not a portal receives adequate page views relative to WP:POG's criteria for attracting adequate readers. I still think that this is a valid comparison to at least consider. However, the groupthink that has been occurring at times at MfD against this comparison prevents its use. It could be because the differences between article and portal page views is much more divergent and extreme, which makes it easier to get portals deleted compared to comparing portal page views. MfD has essentially become a deletion warehouse for portals at this point anyway, and some folks become bitter when various facts are presented that conflict with a potential inherent bias for deletion from the start, regardless of page views, or POG for that matter. However, this is just simple banter, and truthfully, I really don't care too much at this point.

At AfD, we have rather standardized guidelines such as GNG and SNGs that were decided upon by consensus, whereas the criteria at WP:POG was ultimately unilaterally added by one user in a passing edit. See below in the hatted box for more information, if you're interested. This simple addition of content from one user's point of view, which was weakly challenged, eventually stuck anyway. There was actually no community discussion or consensus regarding POG; it was just one guy's opinion. It's too late now, though, since most of the portals are gone anyway.

People sometimes ask why links to portals are needed in articles, in other portals, on category pages, etc. Your observation makes perfect sense. Unless someone is specifically searching for a portal in a search on the Wikipedia site, they likely won't see them. They're much more easily found using google. Oftentimes, even searching for a portal on-wiki won't lead to any valid search results, unless a user knows to type-in "portal:Foo". Furthermore, I've heard that portal links in articles don't appear on mobile phones unless the inline form of the link is used.

For what it's worth, I'm always open to discussion about matters, and I also possess an ability to change my mind, particularly when evidence is presented that is congruent with best practices on Wikipedia overall. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Northamerica1000!

Could you please tell me why did you delete the article about Soul Button again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Button

The page was previously reviewed and approved in May 2019 by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the admin with over 13 years of experience on Wikipedia, who made over 3,090,500 edits and who wrote more than 30,000 articles.

After that, the article was nominated for deletion by Ceethekreator and went through two weeks of discussion without anyone telling that the article should be deleted, but you made a soft-delete back then, without telling the reason.

I explained you why I thought that was a mistake and you agreed with me and restored the article.

So the article was previously reviewed and approved by two admins, Ser Amantio di Nicolao and you.

Unfortunately, the article was nominated for deletion again on July 26, 2019 by Duffbeerforme, who nominated more than 55 articles for deletion so far.

In a short discussion full of weak evidence Atlantic306 said that Soul Button is not notable because he doesn't have a page on AllMusic site, which is not true. There is a page about Soul Button on AllMusic: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/soul-button-mn0003258951 , but even if there was no page about him, as we discussed before, Soul Button is not only a musician, he is also an entrepreneur who runs three record labels with more than fifteen artists.

Today, on August 2, 2019, you deleted the article without any explanation and before the discussion was ended. Could you please tell me why didn't you wait for the discussion to finish, for seven days, so the other users can tell what they think?

It is also important that the article got over 2,000 views so far, which means that people are interested in the subject and that they are coming to Wikipedia to read about it.

Some users said in the discussion that the article is promotional. If it is, why couldn't they just edit it?

I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia and to that article, but it is really discouraging for me if I need to prove the same thing so many times.

Could you please consider restoring the article again so it can be improved by me and anyone else who wants to participate?

Thanks!

All the best NMGS19 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• I said he doesn't have a bio on AllMusic which is the case, he only has a short listing. Also the article was very promotional and you are responsible for fixing it not other editors, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Also, the discussion had run for the full seven days and was not closed early Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for the prompt reply Atlantic306! I appreciate it. I didn't use AllMusic previously, so I didn't know the particulars about the site and types of pages there. I would like to have a chance to fix the article, but it is currently deleted. However, anyone else can edit any article, including this one about Soul Button, so I thought that if anyone thinks something should be different, he can change it. I am also improving articles that were created by other users, so I thought if there is something wrong with my article, someone will maybe tell me this or fix it, but I definitely didn't expect to see the article removed. Anyway, thanks again for the clarification! I hope the article will be restored and that I will be able to improve it. NMGS19 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hello @NMGS19: Here's a rundown of events:

• Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Button, the article was soft deleted. This occurred after the discussion was relisted two times. You did not provide any independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage in the first discussion. Please see WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO for an overview of what qualifies notability on English Wikipedia for people and musicians.
• Since the article was WP:SOFTDELETED, I WP:REFUNDED (restored) the article to main namespace, per your request to do so here
• After the article was restored, you did not improve it to demonstrate notability by adding necessary source coverage to qualify an article.
• The article was then nominated for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Button (2nd nomination). A consensus formed there that the subject is not notable per Wikipdia's standards of notability. There were also serious concerns there about the article being promotional in nature (e.g. " Bombarded with shops, listings, PR and interviews, nothing good for GNG. PR complete with official portrait from his label", "...this atticle is so promotional it reads like an advert and could well qualify for G11". In the event you're not familiar with speedy deletion criteria, see WP:G11 for more information.
• The Allmusic listing does not provide significant coverage at all; it does not qualify notability on English Wikipedia.
• Furthermore, per utilizing the find sources template below, it does not appear that the subject has received any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.

((fss|Soul Button))

Per all of this, I am declining to restore the article again. Sorry about this, but I cannot buck the consensus for the article to be deleted. I hope this does not deter you from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia; it is my hope that you will continue to contribute. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template ((Ds/aware)) to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

A tag has been placed on Category:Software portal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Hunger relief, 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/Portal:Hunger relief and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Hunger relief 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Pitchforks Hello, Northamerica1000. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Pitchfork Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Bianca Wahlgren Ingrosso • Great Spirit Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Tram portals requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi NA1K, hope you don't mind me addressing you in that manner. It's probably got bad connotations for you, but it's just easier to type.

Anyway, just dropping you a note to say that I was about to start work on the Portal, now that the Featured/Good Articles/Pictures lists have been added to the talk page by JL-BOT. I very much doubt that I'll do any Live editing for the meantime and probably work on it in my sandbox. I had made a preliminary start a week or so ago, don't know if you saw. I had converted some of the Article subpages to transclude the relevant main article. I think this has merit, in that it overcomes some of the inherent inflexibilities in the portal transclusion templates (when used on the main Portal page with a subsequent list, they limit all articles in the list to use the same number of paragraphs and numbered file in the article) That's not ideal when, for example, you've got articles with vastly differing size of lede's, or less than an ideal selection of photographs etc). The downside is that a large number of subpages are still required; the upside is that they all contain transcluded content (absolutely no content forks).

See Portal:Scotland for an example of how it works. More comments on that, pertinent to your Lua queries on TTH's talkpage, will follow. (Addendum - will include this in my sandbox space)

I've been thinking of asking Certes who was one of the primary authors of many of the templates and a complete Lua/Template guru, about possible adjustments to the templates. Unfortunately he has expressed a reluctance to do much work in Portal Space given the current frenzied atmosphere. I had hoped to leave it for a while until things settled down - FAT CHANCE.

One of the apparently new recruits to the Deletion Team, Mark Schierbecker seems to be going at it like a Bull in a China Shop. I was about to start work on the Portal this morning when I spotted on my watchlist that Portal:Northern Ireland/Selected article/3 and all the others I had prepared was up for Speedy Deletion (nominated by said new member). So, I was busy typing up my objection to the Speedy Nomination when I got the dreaded edit conflict. Yes, it had already been deleted, with a non standard and very dodgy rationale. See Portal talk:Northern Ireland/Selected article/3. So for that reason, I'll confine my edits to personal sandbox space for now. Any portal content, even a work in progress, is a viable target for these zealots. I am literally losing the will to live, which is likely their game plan. I've lost the energy or commitment to query it further with the nominator or deleting admin. Just a waste of time TBH because the usual suspects would magically appear to trot out their standard rebuttals, personal slurs and obnoxious gross generalistaions.

I've got some ideas and comments to make about Portal:Northern Ireland, which I still believe is a topic worthy of a Portal. Not least of them is to do with the issues of political sensitivity of the subject matter and how to handle that. I'll probably set them out in my sandbox space so please comment there if you still have the will to live :)

I'll keep you posted. Keep the chin up --Cactus.man ✍ 20:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my ill advised attempt at humour, hope I removed the part you were concerned about. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @Cactus.man: A quick rundown:

• I have already added some FA and GA articles to the portal, from those that are accessible in the table below. These are listed directly on the main portal page, using transclusions, under the "Selected article" section (select "edit" and scroll down, to see where the articles are listed). The Selected biographies are also now listed on the main portal page in this manner. Subpages may not need to be used at this time for the portal.

Article Statistics

Northern Ireland-related articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA				8			8
FL			1				1
A			1	1			2
GA	1	5	11	38		8	63
B	15	34	56	122		188	415
C	14	46	129	523		569	1,281
Start	8	63	214	2,121		3,795	6,201
Stub		5	50	1,744		4,083	5,882
List	2	9	132	165		191	499
Category		1		4	4,869		4,874
Disambig			1	1	41		43
File					31		31
Portal					1		1
Project		1			22		23
Template			2	16	274		292
NA		1	6	68	511		586
Other					21		21
Assessed	40	165	603	4,811	5,770	8,834	20,223
Unassessed						259	259
Total	40	165	603	4,811	5,770	9,093	20,482
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 72,794			Ω = 5.26

• I will not be commenting about MfD or users at MfD here. I am quite sick of the derision that has been repeatedly directed toward portal editors that has been occurring there.
• I recently removed myself as a portal maintainer for the Northern Ireland portal.
• I am taking a break from editing this portal for awhile.
• I initially avoided adding content about The Troubles to the portal, because there's so much content about it, I didn't want the portal to become a "The Troubles" portal. More recently, I have added some content about The Troubles.
• Please feel free to further improve the portal. It is okay to improve Wikipedia's content for the encyclopedia's WP:READERS at any time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that infoUser:Northamerica1000. I had seen your recent additions, and was feeling a bit lax, having signed up to join the improvement effort. Thanks for your work so far. As I say, I'll work on the portal in User Space due to the febrile atmosphere around here right now. --Cactus.man ✍ 21:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cactus.man: FWIW, if you feel that your ideas for additions are worthy, you can always be bold and just add them directly to the portal. If anyone objects, the WP:BRD process can occur, and matters can be discussed at Portal talk:Northern Ireland. I notice that there has not been any real activity at the portal's talk page for some time. If you were to do this, you could then state the changes you made on the talk page, just for the general record, if you feel that the changes may be perceived as controversial, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cactus.man: Thank you for the compliments. Module:Excerpt was my first significant attempt at Lua, and I'm not even a template editor, but if you have ideas for improvements I'll see what I can do. I'd like to do more but there is a limit to how long one can assume good faith whilst being kicked repeatedly in the baws, and I reached mine several weeks ago. By the way, other editors are also joining the deletion effort: I found this briefing interesting. Certes (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Saw you just moved on from Portal:Nigeria to other important work. Wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for your diligent past help on that Portal and future work on all the others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to share my logic on removing the browsebar from the tops of portals: look at Portal:Europe. I think someone coming there, obviously interested in Europe, is most likely to think that each of the browsebar links relate to Europe: Activities, Culture, etc., and will be surprised when they instead navigate to non-Europe general topics. I also think there is value in keeping portal viewers on the portal page, engaged, rather than having unrelated general links right at the top. What are your thoughts? UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: At a time when dozens of portals are being deleted in part for receiving low page views, removal of the portal browsebar, which has traditionally been placed atop portal pages, seems highly congruent with adversely affecting portal page views, contributing to reduced views, which could therefore contribute to a portal having a lessened likelihood of meeting WP:POG. The browsebar links to various portal contents pages, and I feel that it serves its function well. I've removed it a couple of times when ((Portal navbar no header2)) was already in place, but I don't think I will be doing so now. Furthermore, I feel that the portals listed on Wikipedia's Main page should absolutely have the portals browsebar present, because some readers are likely to find the links to the contents pages useful. Removal of the browsebar from the Main page portals also has a potential to lower portal page views for other portals, because the main page portals receive the most page views out of all of them. Higher numbers of viewers is correlated with a higher likelihood of readers using those visible links to learn about other portals. Also, I notice that you have recently nominated some portals for deletion at MfD, and if you're taking actions that could potentially reduce portal page views, such as removing links to portal directories, it could potentially be perceived by others that your actions may be undertaken to further enable deletion. I'm not saying that I think this, but others may. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Not at all my intent (and I think my MfD keep !votes would show that), but given the possible ambiguity, I'll refrain from further removals until the time when (if?) there is consensus around a complete portal redesign. I have also restored it to Portal:Science, the one mainpage portal from which I removed it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: I'm not sure that portals actually need a complete redesign. The newer templates that utilize transclusions directly from articles provide lots of potential, and their use serves to keep portal content up-to-date per the direct transclusion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but one reality is that the current "best practices" design (i.e., with transclusions throughout) does not seem to be attracting readers, so it is possible that a different design could do a better job of that. At least that's something worth a brainstorm, IMO. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to estimate the approx deletion rate for established Wikipedia pages (initially posted here). Are there stats anywhere for the number of established articles deleted each day (i.e. not via WP:AfC/WP:NPP). There are some great stats at meta:Research:Wikipedia_article_creation about articles deleted soon after their creation, but I've not managed to find anything on eastablished pages (more than a few months old). Any rough useful, detailed stats a bonus! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Evolution and evolvability Offhand, I don't know. I may not become involved in the research that is apparently needed to solve this matter. However, I don't mind your asking the question here. I'm pretty busy with other matters, and there are only so many hours in a day. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries. It's actually useful to know tht it's not just trivial knowledge that I've not been able to find! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A vegetable soup prepared using udon noodles Hello, Northamerica1000. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Vegetable soup Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Organ (anatomy) • Pitchfork Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

A tag has been placed on Category:Hunger relief portal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Northamerica1000,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

An example of a miniature book: The United States History and Presidents in a Nutshell, published circa 1904 Hello, Northamerica1000. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Miniature book Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Vegetable soup • Organ (anatomy) Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Thanks for uploading File:Pizzeria Venti logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)