User talk:XAM2175/2023/04

A discussion you may be interested in

Hi XAM2175, there is currently a discussion ongoing at the Reliable Sources noticeboard regarding the validity of WNXX as a source in UK Rail articles that you may be interested in. Thanks! Danners430 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding disagreement regarding the inclusion of additional information to the Miller-Casella thermometer article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Miller%E2%80%93Casella thermometer".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI hyphen discussion

@XAM2175: Thanks for your comment on the ANI. Here's the rub. The guidance on ISBNs being preferred is very old. And out of date. Hyphens were once important to book publishers and librarians. But now if you want to find the ISBN for a book you look up the title on DuckDuckGo or Google. You'll get links to Amazon or other sources. And those sources will only give you a non-hyphenated or 978-1234567890 ISBN. Since WP "prefers" hyphenated ISBNs, some editors say we should then use a conversion tool to get a properly formatted fully-hyphenated ISBN. I'm trying to get the "preferred" language out of the guidance. A better solution is to stress consistency – per WP:CITEVAR. E.g., we want our articles to use a single, unified pattern of hyphenation – not a mix of hyphenated and unhyphenated ISBNs. Alas, I can't find a good description of what "established citation style" means when it comes to ISBN hyphenization. We'll figure it out sooner-or-later – meanwhile, Happy Editing! – S. Rich (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It may well be "very old" and "out of date" in your mind, but it remains in place and there appears to be very little agreement from the community with your proposal to deprecate it. I also disagree with your premise that [hyphens] were once important to book publishers and librarians (emphasis mine) and the attached implication that they're now useful to nobody. Several users have already mentioned the value of hyphenation in chunking the ISBN for ease of reading and recalling it; this is a documented psychological phenomenon that is widely deployed in everyday life. It is the reason, for example, that virtually every country in the world has a chunking pattern for its telephone numbers rather than simply giving them as one long string of digits – even though you don't enter the spaces or hyphens when you dial the number on a telephone, and most computer systems will strip the separators out of the strings before storing them. Indeed, it's considered such an important part of recognising a telephone number that most smartphone manufacturers and CRM system developers provide logic that re-chunks numbers in each country's correct format as they're entered or before they're displayed to the user.

I maintain that if you wish so dearly for consistency – which is entirely laudable, and a goal that in general I support – the easiest road for you is to hyphenate all unhyphenated ISBNs that you see. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

reply

Please see the reply in the talk page of the article not in my talk page Egeymi (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

British Rail Class 210 rebuild

Is this a suitable reference for the British Rail Class 210, rebuild? https://www.pressreader.com/uk/rail-uk/20230405/281638194469435 I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you have access to the full article and can summarise it appropriately, and provide a full citation ideally including the magazine's issue number, and the page or pages the article is on. It's important not to overstate the progress of the project; for example, the article appears to support a claim that they are fundraising in order to buy a Class 317 unit because they want to convert it into a replica 210, but you wouldn't be able to claim that it will definitely happen. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

maintenance needed

Of course, you are expected to maintain your statement. Apart from posting against your rule, the post is also trolling &tc. Btw, I am not interested in your one-way whitewashing. DePiep (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Care to comment? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § DePiep breaking Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#DePiep. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Short description on British Rail Class 720

Hi! I noticed that you undid my edit on British Rail Class 720, but I wasn't quite sure what you mean by the edit being "not an improvement". I was adding a short description to the article since it didn't have one and the wikidata description hasn't been imported. Would you suggest that the wikidata description should be used instead? Or some other short description? Hope to hear back from you. Liu1126 (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Liu1126 and @Mattdaviesfsic: Sorry, the way the edit summary was phrased made it appear that the Wikidata description had been imported, and I considered it better than the one you supplied. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)