Jump to content

User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 78

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80→Archive 85

Tech News: 2016-34

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The ORES review tool is now available on Special:Contributions as a beta feature. It can make it easier to find contributions that are probably damaging the wikis. The ORES review tool is available on Wikidata and Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turkish and Russian Wikipedia. [1]
  • The norm and ccnorm functions have been updated to make it easier to write abuse filters. This also affects the TitleBlacklist extension. You don't have to transform "I" and "L" to "1", "O" to "0" and "S" to "5" anymore. [2]
  • The old pageview data in the "pagecounts-raw" and "pagecounts-all-sites" files is no longer being updated. You can find the new pageview data here. This happened on August 5. [3]

Problems

  • Some big image files could not be thumbnailed. This has now been fixed. [4]
  • When you moved a page over a redirect it would delete the redirect without saving it in the logs. This has now been fixed. [5]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 August. It will be on all wikis from 25 August (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 23 August at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Sometimes when you mention another user they don't get a notification. You will be able to get a notification when you successfully sent out a mention to someone or be told if they did not get a notification. This will be opt-in. You can test this on the test wiki. [6][7]
  • How you add text after an edit conflict might work in a different way in the future. You can test the prototype. [8]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Mail from another Andy

Hello, Pigsonthewing. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Andycyca | Hola! 22:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #223

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

UIPM

I found the link in the language box by clicking edit links. There, the link under UIPM ID leads correctly to [9]. However, in the article it leads to [10], although the template does not include any id information, just {{UIPM}}.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #224

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Planet to Earth: this tool uses data from Wikidata to visualise the links between places on an astronomical body named after a place on planet Earth.
    • WikiDataScape is a Cytoscape app for interactive browsing of Wikidata.
    • The property "KML file" was created last week (see list below) and has already a full list of values, sample LUA module and property documentation page available (Property talk:P3096)
    • enabling data access in user language will be deployed on Wikidata on August 29
  • Development
    • Fixed a but where the text field doesn't always load when trying to add a statement (phabricator:T115267)
    • We're now also creating mediainfo entities when a statement is added to a non-existent media info entity (phabricator:T140760)
    • Fixed a but where the suggester would show information twice (phabricator:T143645)
    • The ArticlePlaceholder now also shows the links to other projects in the In Other Projects sidebar (phabricator:T141771)
    • Worked more in figuring out how to show usage tracking data (phabricator:T103091)
    • Made progress on Citoid support for Wikidata to make it easier to add useful and complete references (phabricator:T141856)
    • Worked on restore "purge without confirm" user right (phabricator:T143435)


Tech News: 2016-35

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them. This is to save mobile data and make the pages load faster. [11]
  • When you edit a table with the visual editor, pressing Tab in the last cell of a row will take you to the first cell in the next row. Pressing Shift and Tab in the first cell of a row will take you to the last cell in the previous row. [12]

Changes this week

  • The name of the "Save page" button will change. The button will say "Publish page" when you create a new page. It will say "Publish changes" when you change an existing page. [13][14]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 August. It will be on all wikis from 1 September (calendar).

Meetings

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

CWGC casualty details

Following up this discussion, I made this set of edits recently. Is that the sort of thing you meant? I may at some point work manually on some of the ~3000 links for casualties (some will be from outside articles). Is there a way to distinguish between external links not generated by {{CWGC}} and those generated by that template? At a first pass, those with the name as part of the URL are not being emitted by the template, but I am sure there are ways to get a proper list. Also, the first one I clicked on I got stuck: Samuel Pethebridge. That uses 'citation' and the reference has been archived (for some reason). Once a batch have been done here, is there an easy way to transfer the CWGC id numbers to the corresponding wikidata pages, or should I leave that for a bot run later? Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Late reply, sorry.To your first question; yes, but more so in external links (where the ID is for the subject of the page where the template occurs; and where Wikidata can be used) rather than citations (which may not be; and where Wikidata cannot (easily) be used). There is no easy visual way to check whether a link comes from a template or manually, though there is probably an an HTML class which you could style in your common.css. I've edited the Pethbridge bio - see what you think. IDs from templates that are not in references (for the aforesaid reason) can be copied to Wikidata using the HarvestTemplates tool (I can operate that) when there is a suitable batch to do. A bot can then be requested to remove them from here by using {{Wikidata property migration}} on the template;s talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The latest is that I've been working on 22 MPs that died in WWI. The edits on Wikipedia are here and here. The edits on Wikidata are here and a set of 22 edits here to one Wikidata item. Would you be able to suggest if I should be doing things differently or more efficiently? My current aim is to end up with a manually constructed list, and then to try and understand how the data should be input/imported to Wikidata to regenerate the same list automatically (probably using Template:Wikidata list, which I don't understand at all, but looks about right). After all that, I will probably understand things a bit better! Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: That all looks good, though I would consider adding references to your edits to Parliamentary War Memorial (Q17514021). You might like to look at User:ListeriaBot, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I will try and work out how to add references. The CWGC ids are their own references, is that right? Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: Yes; you need to add the full URL as reference URL (P854). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Like this, and then repeat 21 times... (that will be tedious - I should have done it that way first time). It does feel a bit like repeating what I've done on Wikipedia, but more atomised, the data split apart into its component bits. Which does make some sense, but is a lot of work. Is it possible to create an item for an online reference? It seems that is not how it is done. Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Carcharoth:Yes, like that. You're going to love the DuplicateReferences gadget, under your preferences on Wikidata ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That was quick! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests

Does adding "|answered=yes" then changing it to "no" make any difference? No. Using "no" makes the template exactly the same as if the parameter were not there. So me reverting your edit achieved exactly the same goal as if I'd changed it to "no". Changing it back again, just so that I'd have to add "no", when you could have left it or added "no" yourself... See: WP:BUREAU. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Or if you're referring to the fact that the template says that it "should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus", I proposed the change before I put the edit request template there. No one responded. I thought it was non-controversial anyway. The first person who replied said, "I'll leave the TER up and see if anyone else wants to take that on". Since then, there has been continued discussion and no one has opposed it. Hence, non-controversial. If I don't use the edit request template, it will never get done because the community on that talk page is too small/inactive. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Accidentally removed comment?

User discussed is not welcome to post here.

Hello, I just noticed you removed a comment on your talk page requesting assistance with a contest? I presume it was done accidentally, it was about a Midlands contest. It would be great to have a wiki-meet up built into it - I don't know if you remember me from the Queen Street Mill event? It might be a good idea to merge it with edit-a-thons. ツStacey (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. It was not done accidentally. See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see. Well maybe away from the infobox debate, good work can come out of a collaboration between you and Blofeld on a contest? You are both clearly passionate about the encyclopedia; a large project such as this will have many disagreements and I think we need to try to find areas where we agree. I hope you will consider helping with the Midlands, I think you have a lot of skills that will come in helpful and we could make it bigger and better than previous contests. I do have an ulterior motive.. having edit-a-thons fairly nearby will be a good excuse for me and Worm to get away from kids for a few hours! ツStacey (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read the section to which I referred; this is not a mere "disagreement"; his reprehensible actions preclude any such collaboration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Not here, please

I know you think of me as an anti infobox zealot, or a threat. The truth is I generally use infoboxes myself. But I don't see their value in arts biographies where information is minimal. We're not google. I think editors who promoted content should be respected. I don't think it's right for them to attract negativity over something as minor as deciding against an infobox. You seem to repeatedly deny that there are any disputes over infoboxes, or that there is a group of pro infobox supporters who target articles by a small group. Tim, SchroCat and Cassianto seem to have departed now. Do you think it's their fault or do you think actually they've been subject to bullying in recent weeks? Do you think wikipedia is better off without such content producers because it means less articles will be without a box? Or do you think that the featured content they produce is actually worth more than something like an infobox? I have no idea what you stance is on this. Is making infoboxes uniform more important than our best contributors?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You're no threat to me. The editors you list - leastways, some of them - are the bullies, not the bullied. You say you have no idea what my stance is, and yet you see fit to make pronouncements about it, and about what you imagine I think, and you do so both here and elsewhere. Even when I directly point out your falsehoods, you do not strike them. Do not post here again until you have rectified that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: If SchroCat and Cassianto (I don't know who Tim is) are taking a wikibreak, that's a very good idea. I'm fairly certain they knew I was going to do an AE or RFARB; I commented somewhere that just the diffs of personal attacks alone, without looking for them very hard, was already 5× more than the allowable evidence limits. Them taking some time off will allow their tempers to cool, obviate the need for a dramaboard (and if they make it long enough, it'll make the evidence too old to be relevant), meanwhile the ongoing ARCA attention should prevent any sort of "mass infobox invasion". This whole thing has been unnecessarily polarized territorialism. Andy and I have opposed infoboxes before but get called "infobox-zealot vandals" and accused of being a conspiracy (meanwhile we actually don't get along well, to my regret), meanwhile you and Cassianto both profess to have supported infoboxes, but Gerda and co. call you "anti-infobox". It's really all about "get your filthy paws off my article", and I think we all know that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Not my keeper

We would get along much better if you'd try to focus on the message instead whether I'm conveying it the way you would have. I am not you, I do not write like you, and this will never change. The tension between us is unfortunate, since we so frequently agree on so many things, and could probably work together well if we could back off a little from the tooth-grinding. Let me know what I can do in that regard. I recognize that I've been a little testy with you lately, but it's been mostly reactive to testiness coming from you, and that may in turn stem from the same coming from my direction earlier, etc. I'm not even sure why this started or when (probably some time like 2008), but it seems increasingly silly and pointless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't give a fig whether you post messages "the way [I] would have". Your overly-verbose walls of text are frequently off-putting and it is time consuming to extract from them the substantive points; they also often include things irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is not conducive to people understanding you, nor to reaching consensus. This issue seems to be getting worse of late, at least in the areas where I am aware of it. I notice I'm not the only person to have mentioned this to you recently. Please have more consideration for your readers (who are not just the people who reply to you, but also others). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
If two people say something that doesn't just make it correct. I'm trying to take the criticism at face value. I do edit down (or sometimes decide not to post after all, after having written something). I know that I'm wordier than you and many others. So are other people, including someone at RfA right now, and one of our Arbs. People are different. I know the Japan-related thread in which you thought something I said was irrelevant to the issue. But it wasn't clear that it was until I brought it up and it was clarified, so I'm not seeing that as a good example. It's not like I talk about video games at WikiProject Archaeology, or vice versa. I actually take more pains than you seem to think I do to focus, and am frequently accused of doing this too often, of itemizing against an argument instead of just approaching it in a fuzzy way ("you should have figured out what I was getting at really; stop nit-picking", etc.) I can't please everyone all the time. I also perceive that a tremendous amount of poor WP discourse is person 1 making five points, person 2 latching onto a single weak one and never addressing the others, then argument turning circular on this basis, sometimes for weeks, even months. It takes more per-post effort to cover an entire argument, but in the long run it actually saves everyone time by short-circuiting that very frequent bullshitting technique. Anyway, I'll endeavor to compress more.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:nlab

Hi, I notice that you changed the ncatlab template recently -- it appears to have dropped the word "in", and I can't figure out how to reinstate it. Viz. it now reads, for example, Pointed object at the nLab whereas it used to read, last week, Pointed object in nLab (without the quotes, with the word "in"). On the one hand, it might seem like a really fairly minor difference, but on the other hand, it makes the references look really weird and funky. Can the word "in" be re-inserted? Can the quotes be removed? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I made it a wrapper for {{Cite web}}; the 159 articles which use this specific template now use the same format used by the web citation template in well over two million other articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. I could not figure out how to retain the use of the cite-web template, and remove the quotations, remove the period, and add the word "in" back in. Is there a way to do that? The new format looks awkward and ugly. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Some options are available, see Template:Cite web#Display options. If you wish to use them, they will need to be added to the wrapped template in {{Nlab}}. For anything else, you will need to propose a change to the standard presentation, at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I posted there. BTW, what are the technical reasons for making this change? What made the old template inadequate? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. Why the revert? It looks absolutely horrid in that format, and breaks all citation styles. I'm trying to make the thing look half-decent, something that is not an eye-sore. Is there some other way of achieving whatever it is you are trying to do here, while also maintaining some sort of semblance of beauty and elegance? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
"In the Nlab wiki" is not a website. I answered your second question, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #225

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • The events page is now up to date. You want to join or organise a meetup with other Wikidata editors? Keep an eye on this page!
    • 30K entries from Kindred Britain added in Mix’n’Match
    • Welsh Wikipedia includes Wikidata-based article placeholders, like this one
    • Wiki Loves Monuments started! You can help by improving the items about heritage buildings or use Wikishootme to find unpictured monuments
    • English Wikipedia now has a WikiProject Wikidata to coordinate integration with Wikidata. Why not start one for your local Wikipedia? Add it to Q20855878 if you do.
  • Development
    • RDF exports now contain page properties, this allows to query by number of statements or sitelinks (T129046)
    • Working on unit conversion for RDF exports (T117031)
    • Enabling Wikidata data access in user language deployed (T122670)
    • Information about usage of entities in other projects will be visible and reusable (T103091)
    • Pasting full entity URLs into suggesters will be possible (T117763)
    • Added meta descriptions to allow for better snippets in external search engines (T88475)
    • We replaced the old parser limit report (an HTML comment) with the new format (T143423)
    • Ongoing refactoring of the frontend JavaScript, this may break user scripts accessing private properties (T142694)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


UniProt2

The only valid argument for deletion of UniProt2 was it wasn't transcluded enough. There were hundreds of transclusions that could have been reasonably been made and I was willing to do this. The deletion of this template therefore makes no sense whatsoever. Boghog (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to raise your concerns at WP:DRV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_78&oldid=740286571"