User talk:PRmaster1

Referencing population

Hello there! Glad to see other people working on population figures. I would like, however, to draw your attention to some problems with referencing population. I am well aware that my updates disable the automatic population density calculation (which you have been trying to reinstate). I'm doing this because in almost all cases there is absolutely no source given for the area of a given administrative unit. So the area mentioned in all these articles could be true but it could also be false - there's no way of knowing that without a source. I believe it's dangerous to use the automatic population density calculation in these circumstances, because you end up calculating something on the basis of unreliable information.

So if you want to add population density, I suggest taking it from the source - and then the footnote can be moved to the date. Take a look at Chełm as an example. The GUS source which you added says it's 1707/km2. The infobox calculates this automatically as 1700/km2 and your footnote suggests that this is the GUS figure, which it is not - it's confusing.

I'm going to correct this by providing the population density mentioned by GUS. I'm also going to add the "population_footnotes" parameter in the infobox (this moves the footnote number beyond the parentheses with the date). This is better than just a total population figure with no density (I'll admit that). But my 'raw' population which disables automatic density calculations is still better than an infobox with false information.

Also, please note that 'BDL' in the link to the source now needs to be changed to lower-case 'bdl' for the link to work properly (GUS must have changed something in the way the database works). Pearlmaster1212 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for letting me know. For the article you mentioned (Chełm), I believe you're right; one might assume that the population density is based on a GUS figure. Keep in mind though that in other articles I edited (most of which are about smaller cities), I did not change anything about automatic population density calculation (I've not been trying to "reinstate" it). I will improve how I reference population updates, probably by just providing the GUS figure for population density and referencing it with a separate footnote.

Also, I've noticed that in your recent edits (such as Kutno or Radomsko), you removed population density from the infobox, leaving just the total population figure. It might be better to provide the population density information from the GUS source (as you did with Chełm). As you said, it's better that the 'raw' population.

Best regards, PRmaster1 (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

About the separate footnote referencing, I changed my mind; there's no need for that as the source I've already been using may apply both to population and population density figures. PRmaster1 (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I've had a look at your edit of Aleksandrów Łódzki and a few other recent ones and I think that outside of using wikidata (which I tried with Łęczyca, just to experiment) this is the best approach to providing population data. As for the area data, someone might complain that, with Aleksandrów for instance, BDL says it's 14 km2 and not 13.82 km2, but personally I think it's fine. Btw, the English version of BDL uses terms such as category/group/subgroup rather than category/division/subdivision (unless I've missed something). Anyway, I'm done with population edits for the time being as I need to work on a different project, good luck! Pearlmaster1212 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for your response! Just to clarify, for the area, I've been using the hectares data, it's more accurate (group/subgroup at BDL are the same). So, for example, BDL says that Aleksandrów Łódzki has an area of both 14 km2 and 1382 ha (13.82 km2). That's because the Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography, from which the data comes, says that the km2 and ha data are calculated separately. I will also start using the category/group/subgroup terms.

Wish you luck on your project! PRmaster1 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Template talk:Country data Biała Prudnicka

Hi PRmaster1, could I please bring this proposed move to your attention and ask for your support? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Yeah, of course. Thanks for informing me. PRmaster1 (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello PRmaster1! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)