User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2021/February
The citations involved are duplicates but I know the Queensland Place Names website had crashed last night (my time) so this is probably why the links failed for you when you tried to check it. It is now up-and-running again so feel free to check (just avoid midnight on Australian time as they bring the site down each night for 10 minutes or so while they update all their public databases). If you look at the article's history, you will see I wrote most of it. I am the person who added the 2014 citation that I am now trying to delete (the 2014 one was added by me when I started the article back in 2014). I am just cleaning up after myself, not removing someone else's cited work. Kerry (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Merger discussion for 100% renewable energy
[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing—100% renewable energy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Brothers Osborne discography
[edit]Release dates don't need citations since the album itself is the source of that information. Justin Moore discography is Featured List and does not cite the release dates, nor does any other FL-class discography I've seen. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's interesting. How does "the album itself" provide the date of release? What about when the release date varies regionally? For sure, though, articles should have undefined references in them -- we don't want articles rendering with big red error messages in them, and that's what I fixed. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't heard back from you. Meanwhile, you might want to examine No Doubt discography, Powderfinger discography, Radiohead discography, or KT Tunstall discography if you'd like to find examples of featured-list discography articles that referene at least some of their release dates.
- Funny thing is, I don't care if the dates are specifically referenced or not -- but since the reference is available, why not use it?
- What I was fixing was your failed attempt at adding a reference for the release date. You used an undefined reference name, and that left the article with a red error message in the "references" section: Cite error: The named reference ryman live was invoked but never defined (see the help page).. I hope you can agree that leaving articles with visible error messages is unacceptable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Borough of Milton Keynes
[edit]I picked up that technique of getting the 2019 estimate from another article. It seemed to do the trick. What have I missed? I didn't understand your edit note. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi! The version of the article after your edit shows an error because you deleted a reference. You replaced it with the new template to get the numbers, but that reference (named "ONS2015") was used elsewhere in the article. Even if we replace the reference definition, it would mean that the article would use the new 2020 numbers (or whatever numbers the template produced), but also use the old 2015 numbers. Maybe that's okay -- if so, we can just replace the reference definition and continue using the template.
- Or, maybe it's not good to have conflicting population numbers from two different points in time because it's a bit confusing. But at the very least, the article shouldn't show an error (and now-unreferenced material) because of a deleted reference material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. That was indeed careless of me, I should have checked for silly errors before saving. You will see that (apparently) I reverted your reversion, but only because it was easier to correct my error than to redo. I think it is all ok now. I would be interested in your view as to whether the 2015 info should be deleted, especially given that the cited URL is not unique and MKinsight@MKcouncil could replace its content with an update at any time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- The templates that pull current population data seem like a great idea. But then, it's not so easy to write interesting prose around the numbers because the templates could change the statistics at any time. Maybe it's not too confusing to have two different sources of the stats, and use two different epochs for comparison, since that's the point of the text being written. Soooooo ... my opinion is just that I'm not too sure! If the article were more elaborate, I think they both could remain. Since the written comparison isn't particularly elaborate, maybe it's best to delete it and just leave the auto-update stats in the info box. But I'm only weekly convinced of that, myself.
- Indeed, now the article renders with referenced info and has no errors, and that's the only thing I feel strongly about. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm quite strongly of the view that the only firm figure is the census and that this is what should be in all articles as a constant basis for comparison, but the rising/falling/static trends are interesting too and need to be reflected somehow, Estimates are too fluid: for example I think it rather unlikely that the ONS's pre-Brexit, pre-Covid19 estimate for 2025 population of the Borough will be achieved. I will delete the 2015 figure, as it is only really useful to have one estimate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds great! -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm quite strongly of the view that the only firm figure is the census and that this is what should be in all articles as a constant basis for comparison, but the rising/falling/static trends are interesting too and need to be reflected somehow, Estimates are too fluid: for example I think it rather unlikely that the ONS's pre-Brexit, pre-Covid19 estimate for 2025 population of the Borough will be achieved. I will delete the 2015 figure, as it is only really useful to have one estimate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. That was indeed careless of me, I should have checked for silly errors before saving. You will see that (apparently) I reverted your reversion, but only because it was easier to correct my error than to redo. I think it is all ok now. I would be interested in your view as to whether the 2015 info should be deleted, especially given that the cited URL is not unique and MKinsight@MKcouncil could replace its content with an update at any time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Transclusion errors
[edit]Thanks for your edits to Results of the 1913 New South Wales state election which fixed transclusion reference errors I had introduced to Electoral results for the districts of Bingara, Parramatta and Willoughby. While I have reverted your edits, this was in order to apply a different fix. I'm happy to explain why I took a different approach if you're interested. --Find bruce (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- No worries! Lots of different ways to make it work. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 24
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrei Skoch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)