Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-10-15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-10-15. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: One case closed and two opened (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-15/Arbitration report

Featured content: Bells ring out at the Temple of the Dragon at Peace (802 bytes · 💬)

Pinging Pine, NickGibson3900, ɱ, Adam Cuerden, Hafspajen, and Muhammad Mahdi Karim: Holy cow! Great work, everyone. I'm very impressed with the work done this week. Thank you very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to have done it! Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In the media: College player falsely linked to sports scandal by Wikipedia; the Nobel Prizes (513 bytes · 💬)

Are we not mentioning the torrent of media abuse for the Jennifer Lawrence vandalism? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Jennifer Lawrence vandalism was mentioned in last week's ITM. If there's more to the story I missed, I will consider covering it next week. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Op-ed: Ships—sexist or sexy? (34,917 bytes · 💬)

Adding to the weirdness, by tradition Russian naval vessels were considered male and referred to as "he" while Wikipedia articles such as Soviet submarine K-222 and Soviet submarine K-278 Komsomolets refer to the boats as "she" and "her". - Dravecky (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm a big supporter of countering systematic bias across wiki, but "male editors of ship-related articles in 2014 unconsciously perpetuating ... misogyny", really? Well, plainly not. This is both offensive and wrong. For a start, I'm struggling to see how using a pronoun for a ship can be interpreted as sexist (or, indeed, put off potential female editors) - a ship is not a "good" or a "bad" thing and has few connotations. This is a pure grammar point and, as a side note, I don't see our colleagues on wiki fr, es or ru worrying about such minor stuff. What is a much bigger deal than this storm in a tea-cup is the under-coverage of female figures, the colonial ideology rooted in virtually all African history articles and a hundred other things. But not this. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • (commenting as a ship editor) In part, this is through the context in which they were used. A few are present in the article: ... "It takes a lot of work and tender loving care, as well as a lot of paint to make a ship look good" and "Some have a cute fantail, others are heavy in the stern, but all have double-bottoms which demand attention," are two of my favourites. Our Wikipedian usage still reflects the sentiment of "... it takes an experienced man to handle her correctly; and without a man at the helm, she is absolutely uncontrollable." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree that the quotes he gives are silly, sexist, and make me uncomfortable - but you can always have fun by picking the most stupid arguments made by the other side and ignoring the serious points. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Machinery is traditionally referred to in the feminine; I see no good reason to cease that practice. It may interest people to know that in the UK at least, windmills were also referred to in the feminine.[1] As a writer of many ship and windmill articles, I've taken a different approach to each. WP:SHIPS is a very active project, with WP:MILHIST also giving considerable support. I write ship articles in the feminine gender not through sexism but tradition. It is something I'm comfortable with. With articles on windmills, I write in the neuter. WP:MILLS is a small group and not that active. It's not worth the arguments writing about mills in the feminine. I prefer to spend my time creating articles instead of arguing over them. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Coles Finch, William (1933). Watermills and Windmills. London: C W Daniel Company. p. 77.
    • @Brigade Piron: The reason the fr, es, and ru wikis aren't worrying about it is because those languages still use grammatical gender for nouns. English does not, except in a few informal contexts, like talking about cars and ships. As a point of pure grammar, our current practice is just outdated, especially within an academic context. There are no academic sources that still use that grammatical style besides Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Executive Director Sue Gardner
Former Executive Director? MER-C 07:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Good catch -- I've made this change. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Its an interesting topic. Does the author find the use of "she" to refer to tropical storms equally jarring? I personally don't like the use of grammatical gender but I don't see the point in countering it while it is still prevalent across mainstream media. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our role to reform the world. What are the recommended conventions on pronouns referring to the ship in major manual of style (Chicago, Harvard)? Have any reliable sources suggested a change of pronoun? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's in the article: The AP style guide and the Lloyd's Register discourage "she" for ships, and the Chicago Manual of Style has stated since 2003: "When a pronoun is used to refer to a vessel, the neuter it or its (rather than she or her) is preferred". --John (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The Guardian's style guide says "ships are not feminine: it ran aground, not she ran aground". But leaving it to individual editors' choice seems preferable. PamD 16:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@PamD: If we want to be respected as a serious academic source of information, why would we not want to standardize on using modern grammar (as reflected in mainstream style guides and modern academic sources)? Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
We don't "standardise on using modern grammar" for anything else where there is widespread normal variation in the language. Why is this particular case so important that we have to tell tens of millions of people, explicitly, that they're wrong to speak the way they do? Andrew Gray (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: Yes we do. The MOS currently recommends logical quoting, which is a specific style among many in widespread use. We also have specific recommendations about dashes, capitalization, and other points of grammar that vary widely in English usage. Kaldari (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair point (I noted it below as "a few small exceptions" but forgot the caveat here). But we don't standardise in far more cases than we do, and things like word choice and phrasing are usually left up to the author. This feels the same to me - I do honestly wonder if there is a real ENGVAR issue here, with "she" remaining more common outside the US. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A similar process is the decline of the word songstress for female singers. Now the word songstress is used almost exclusively for female singers with exceptionally good voice. I know it is subjective who has an exceptional voice or not.... but now female singers or just that, singers. Thankfully the use of actress for female actors is still common. werldwayd (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The female actors I know want to be called "actors". —Neotarf (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is exactly why no one wants to edit Wikipedia anymore: a handful of people have to lock onto and reject an open option to choose so they can force the rest of us into a increased state of misery just to politically correct. Misogyny be damned, this is censorship, plain and simple, and I for one will not stand for it on or off Wikipedia. As for the Op-Ed, its a nice peace of literature, but in my opinion the time wasted on this piece of original research could better have been spent contributing to something more useful on site. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems quite unlikely that "no one wants to edit Wikipedia anymore" because some editors want to make a change to the manual of style—as unlikely as this article's suggestion that such an MoS change would help "create a female-friendly editing environment". Perhaps the mere presence of this sort of debate, rather than its outcome, drives away some editors, or contributes to a culture that does so, but even there I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
An issue may be important (or not), but there's no need to try to tie everything to the gender gap/editor decline. —Emufarmers(T/C) 14:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That's why its called an "opinion", and not a "fact"; and more importantly I know that what I've stated is only an opinion, and not a fact. For all the disagreements in the world today, many could be solved if only all people had such a mindset :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Something that's been in use in major style guides for over a decade is "censorship" and "political correctness"? We should be following the example of these sources, not fighting them. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting a few things here.
Firstly, there was an RFC in June on this very issue, which oddly wasn't mentioned here. The closing admin noted that "...there is clearly no consensus here for the proposition that the MoS should prohibit or discourage it. The choice between "it" and "she" is still part of the natural variability of English, and as such to be permitted on Wikipedia." The Wikipedia community has looked at these very questions several times and come down with no consensus to support a change.
Secondly, I strongly disagreed with the proposed changes on that occasion - not because of "tradition" or because of some strange association of ships with feminine characteristics, but simply because this is the way most people I know, be they male or female, speak English. Wikipedia has a long tradition of neutrality in style choices. With a few small exceptions (mostly around quotation style), we support and encourage people to write in the way that seems natural to them, using the grammar and word choice they see as normal and appropriate for the context. Using "she" or "it" seems to me to be a natural outgrowth of this - it is a legitimate and reasonable stylistic variation, used by many people, and we should respect it rather than simply declare ex cathedra that they are wrong and should change their ways. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for changing the language to suit your personal preferences, no matter how strongly you feel about them.
Finally, blithely declaring a stylistic choice - one used, consciously or unconsciously by millions of both male and female English speakers day-in-day-out - to be inherently misogynistic is simply insulting. Not only does it ascribe to people a very unpleasant motive that simply does not exist, it trivialises the very real explicit misogyny that exists elsewhere on Wikipedia. We should worry about that, and do something about it, rather than fighting endlessly over a well-documented linguistic quirk. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with the above. By the same token women can protest the traditional naming of cyclones and hurricanes which are often given female names. While a ship is an inanimate object, some people refer to them as "she" not because they are mysoginistic, but out of respect and love (or emotional attachment, which is a natural feeling of a navy serviceman towards his/her ship). Brandmeistertalk 12:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The tropical storm comparison is bogus. Tropical storms are assigned gendered names 50/50, half of them have male names, so there is no sexism and no valid comparison. Needless to say, no one in their right mind would refer to Hurricane Andrew as she. If half of ships were called he, this would be a logical comparison, but they aren't so it isn't. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Since the storms with male names are not referred to as he there is some sort of bias occurring. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Err they can and did which is why modern hurricane naming is 50% male. See Lists of tropical cyclone names. Its unlikely to have anything to do with naval personnel given that it dates to at least 1375. Mind you arguing with Lloyd's over ship naming seems rather odd.©Geni (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: If a female navy serviceman is in love with their ship, wouldn't they more likely call the ship "he" (unless you're implying that all female navy servicemen are lesbians)? I think you're dancing around why the practice is sexist, namely that it assumes that all people who care about ships are (heterosexual) men. Kaldari (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Naturally, but the fact is that majority of the navy folk are men and I've never seen an instance when the ship was referred to as "he" in a reliable source. Brandmeistertalk 17:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oiyarbepsy -- When Atlantic hurricanes started being named in the 1950s and 1960s (at first somewhat unofficially), all the names were female ones. However, I don't think hurricanes were ever commonly referred to as "she" except somewhat jokingly ("Thar she blows")... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well put Andrew. 'It' and 'she' are both common usage, and to argue that people who prefer 'she' are sexist men is a fairly lame straw man argument. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Ironically, "straw man" is also a gendered phrase. Euryalus (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Striking own comment as humour does not always come across in the spirit in which it is meant. Euryalus (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Heh, that occurred to me as well ;) Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew's comments about stylistic variation. I may be old fashioned, and I'm probably older than most Wikipedia editors, but I've always considered the use of feminine pronouns to refer to ships as being normal and acceptable. It's something I was taught when I was a child, and at that time, my teachers and their students were not in the least bit concerned about the origins of, or reasons for, that longstanding usage. Rather, we were taught to speak and write that way simply on the basis that in the English language, for whatever reason, the feminine pronoun was used to refer to ships. Some time later, I was taught that in the German language, tables are masculine and doors are feminine, and, again, we were not concerned about the reason for it; our only concern was that that was the way things were. Against that background, when I see neutral pronouns used in English to refer to ships, it just strikes me as being jarring and wrong. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's what it is - it is common to give gender to an object that a person has an intimate connection, as is the case with captains and their ships. If you want to call your own ship she, go right ahead. But none of us have a personal connection to any of these ships, so it is a clear "it". Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's also a perfect example of why calling all ships "she" is sexist: it assumes that all captains are male. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, our tropical storm articles use "it", regardless of the storm's name. —Emufarmers(T/C) 14:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In the 18th Century British sailors referred to their own vessel as "she", and an enemy vessel as "he". As in "she turned her broadside toward him and opened fire. He fired back." In the late 18th Century, early 19th Century this usage died out, leaving us with all vessels being "she" or "it". I tried to implement the she/he distinction in some articles I produced, but it became too cumbersome to maintain, and also to defend so I gave up. I continue to use "she" generically out of a respect for tradition. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Nice work, User:John. You know you've struck a nerve when you manage to generate so much comment so soon after publication. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • With respect, a respected publication like the Signpost prints an editorial declaring that an entire class of editors are misogynists. The level of comment is not that surprising. Euryalus (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • an editorial declaring that an entire class of editors are misogynists That's not what was written. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • In fact, it is exactly what is written, in the second last paragraph. However, please note my posts here have not criticized the editorial-writer for expressing his views - he is as entitled to them as you or I. As mentioned elsewhere, there was an inconclusive RfC on this issue in June which resulted in no consensus. But consensus can change - if there is interest in pursuing this issue further then another RfC is the appropriate path. Euryalus (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To those who contend that the use of the feminine pronoun is innocuous and acceptable – based on claims of "tradition" (and parochial claims that it's "the way people talk") – it would be worthwhile to admit what such usage meant to those who once used it regularly. The Elements of English Grammar (1903) states that masculine or feminine pronouns should be used based upon the perceived strength or weakness of the noun in question, i.e. strong and powerful things are masculine, and weak or submissive things are feminine. Time has not brought forth any other justification for this false and insulting anachronism, and Wikipedia should stop making excuses for it. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    That's a fair point, although belied by the fact that warships are clearly neither weak nor submissive. Powers T 20:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    @LtPowers: Ah, but there's the rub. A ship is just a hunk of metal or wood without a captain to command "her". Of course, ships, being so terribly lost on their own, could only possibly be women. What would they do without noble grey-haired men to guide them through dangerous seas and straits? RGloucester — ☎ 20:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    Then I fail to see what inanimate object could ever be labeled masculine. Powers T 22:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That's because very few were. In Ye Olde Speeche, masculine pronouns were reserved for genderless nouns of power: few were granted such consideration, although "Winter" and "Death" were two popular examples. Feminine pronouns, however, were indeed used whenever a thing was considered "weak or submissive", or inanimate. Many things never rated a personifying pronoun at all, but the feminine was applied to any inanimate object that was imbued with a fond personal attachment. A carpenter's tools, a house, a beer, an automobile or airplane: they are prized possessions. They are owned, and used. They may or may not be cherished and protected, but the dynamic remains the same. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Euryalus regarding the editorial labelling male ship-related editors as misogynists. As a male editor who edits ship articles, I take offence. Besides, what is this supposed to be? Is this an attempt at a rematch of the June RFC? Manxruler (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.18.150 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • labelling male ship-related editors as misogynists You appear to be tilting at windmills. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Be careful what you say! Accusing someone of tilting at windmills can have ArbCom on your case! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC).
  • Alternatively, this article could have been written to illustrate how a handful of self-appointed progressives launched a crusade to change vernacular word usage, over and above the traditions and source information upon which the articles are based. The disease of correctness reaches here as it already has in journalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The only disease at work here is the institutionalized sexism and discrimination that others continue to ignore. No one is free until everyone is free. What you feel as "correctness" is the antibiotic of freedom coursing through the veins of justice, remaking the world with every word. Not everyone enjoys taking the bitter medicine of progress; many are dragged, kicking into the future, screaming at the nurses and doctors who are trying to save us all. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The use of feminine pronouns to refer to ships has rankled me for years because ships do not, well, have any sex. This is so obvious as to be beyond dispute. As fpr "tradition," this would be like calling all African-descended people "Mammy" or "Uncle." I had not heard about any WP:Request for Comment regarding this matter, but it would have not made any difference if I had because the vast majority of Wikipedians simply have no ability to judge issues on their merits but only on their preconceived notions. I suppose we all have our shibboleths, but I, frankly, have never referred to a vessel as a "she," and I doubt that any normal person outside of the sailing profession or avocation have done so. We are encyclopedists, not sailors. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that our article — Gender in English#Ships and countries — says "the origins of this practice are not certain..." and lacks good sources. Anyway, by coincidence I recently noticed this recent edit in which a male lion and female tigress were denied gendered pronouns. Andrew (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Factual error (and I know you've seen this before, John): "ship" is not "the last bastion of grammatical gender on Wikipedia"—Anglo-Saxon scip was neuter. The later use of "she" to refer to ships has nothing to do with grammatical gender. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Grammatical gender is interesting, for example the German Madchen is neuter. Thai has distinct first person masculine and feminine (two) pronouns. English has the same accusative and possessive female pronouns (her and her), while there are distinct male pronouns (him and his). Conversely the possessive and second possessive are the same for male (his and his) but distinct for female (her and hers). Attempting to assign baleful influences to the origin, and still less to the perpetuation of these differences is a futile effort, best left to conspiracy theorists.
  • On a more solid note, the figure of 13% female editorship was demonstrated to be wrong, and is several years out of date. The attendance at Wikimania his year was 36% female. While there is plenty of desire to increase the number of women and girls contributing to WMF projects, there is still a shortage of decent science around the whole debate, leading to vague hand-wavy assumptions and promises. For example citing being "open to very difficult, high-conflict people" as a bad thing for female editors is appealing on its face, but research found that female editors edited in higher conflict areas than men. Being less tolerant of "high-conflict people", could therefore worsen the gender gap. We certainly do not have data to suggest that it would improve it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC).
It's not rocket science why we don't have more women. Two recent data points for you, sir: 1 and 2. Check out the user name at the bottom of the page at the 2nd link. It is appalling what you may find when you need to report something to the administrators. Only very confrontational women will venture into that sort of atmosphere, and even then, it may be highly ill-advised. As the http://cyberharassment.org/ site says, The best time to defend against Internet harassment is before an attack ever occurs. -- Djembayz (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • My first reaction to this article was "bikeshedding! This is an attempt to deflect attention from the more serious issues of respect for women on this site." However, since so many have opinions, here's another. Most likely I am the only female editor here with a maritime background. Generally speaking, ships attract men who comment on their "graceful lines", watch how they move with great interest, and express either affection, admiration, or frustration depending on whether it is possible to get the ship to do what they want.
A modern power vessel does not really seem like a "she", given its more angular lines, and its mechanical responses. By contrast, a sailing vessel with its graceful curves really does appear to spring to life when you get the sails and rudder just right for the sea conditions.
I often, though not always, call ships "she" when I want to express a positive or affectionate opinion of the vessel, as long as it's not a naval vessel. A naval vessel is not supposed to have a quirky personality of its own; it's supposed to do whatever the captain and crew require of it and obey its orders.
All that said, if something appears wrong and offensive to a substantial number of people participating here, I'm happy to go along with the preferred terminology, and view this as a part of what it takes to get along in a community. --Djembayz (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "...not to mention the millions of volunteers who write our articles..." — Uh, no, Wikipedia's articles are in the main written by a cast of "tens of thousands." In the spirit of Wiki Peace, Love, Respect, and Joy I will split the difference with you and call it "hundreds of thousands." Carrite (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A Wikimedia Foundation study found that fewer than 13% of contributors to Wikipedia are women. How could they KNOW without hacking the computers? Do you know if I am a man or a woman? Give me a break. This is WP:Outing, and it is dangerous. And don't you ANYONE start posting here .- OH, I know ... what gender Hafspajen has, I can tell you!!! Just STOP this fishing after peoples gender, please. Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would respectfully suggest that the editors of various style guides probably never had the privilege of serving aboard a ship and do not understand the naval traditions involved. Does tradition mean nothing in writing the history of a ship? Must we sterilize everything and cook it down to pabulum served up to the gods of political correctness? I fail to see the connection of a gender reference relating to ships to a lack of female editors on Wikipedia and would respectfully suggest that there are more serious problems to address by those few editors that continually carp about this issue. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As both a mariner and a ship enthusiast, one must ask what right we have to go against hundreds of years of tradition? We aim to produce accurate and factual content. Ships are referred to as "she" in the majority of the western world and we would be doing all Wikipedia users a disservice to enforce our own politically correct agenda. Fiosracht  Talk  00:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, captains don't disrespect ships. I don't think that calling them "she" is disrespectful. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • She's gotta go - "The modern academic standard in all serious works is to omit it as an archaic usage." -- what more do we need than that? I edit science and medical articles and that sentence alone would be a slam-dunk to eliminate an archaic usage, no matter what "tradition" we were talking about. Traditions and the things they impact (like general usage) change, and the latter should be determined by academic usage, not the "in-universe" standards of "tradition". That works in science and medicine; why not everywhere else, if we're "reality-based"? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yet another instance of radical liberals thinking that they make more sense than radical conservatives, and yet only further proving that they are just as bad as their opponents.

Here's an idea, since the referring to ships as she is not sexist (do not try and tell me that it is. If you think that it is, then I emplore you to refer to ships as "he" yourself. I would take no issue with it.), and goes way back (which, contrary to radical liberal belief, is not a bad thing. Traditional things are not bad by definition. They would only be bad if they are harmful, which this is without question not harmful, unless you have convinced yourself that you are a boat and not a human being, in which case I think you had ought to see a doctor about that.) I think it should be up to the original page author.

If there is a particular issue of its use on certain pages, then I think it should be changed to the neuter pronoun. If there isn't actually any particular controversy with an individual page, then it should simply use the same pronoun as the first author used.
I am tired of hearing all of this childish whining about doing trivial things that are not harmful in any way the same way as they have always been done. If it isn't broken, do not fix it. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Technology report: Attempting to parse wikitext (6,390 bytes · 💬)

First of all, it's great to see progress on making it easier to edit our content using a variety of tools.

That said, I think that it's worth looking more closely at Parsoid. It also provides a well-defined tree structure, but covers basically every aspect of wikitext. It even marks up multi-template content in a way that makes it easy to replace the entire block of templated content.

The DOM structure it provides can be edited by bots, gadgets or external services like content translation (see a list of current users). There is no limitation to manual editing; any method of manipulating HTML will work. A combination of several algorithms (video) is used to avoid dirty diffs (unintended changes in the wikitext).

We are very interested in improving Parsoid further for bots and other uses. Let us know about your needs. You can find us on IRC in #mediawiki-parsoid. -- GWicke (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Great to see mwpfh getting some attention, it's been tremendously useful to the code behind SuggestBot. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To add to what GWicke said, Parsoid's express goal is to be a bidirectional converter (wikitext -> html; html -> wikitext), be a clean wikitext roundtripper (wikitext -> html -> wikitext without introducing dirty diffs in unedited portions of wikitext), and also be a semantically identical HTML roundtripper (html -> wikitext -> html -- we don't handle arbitrary HTML yet). But, yes Parsoid and mwpfh provide different representations -- Parsoid's representation is HTML5 with some RDF annotations, whereas mwpfh's representation is probably more along the lines of an Abstract Syntax Tree? However, both are well-structured tree representations which can be manipulated fairly easily depending on what representation is found suitable / useful for the application at hand. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @GWicke: Thanks for your comments. For what it's worth, Parsoid wasn't as usable or stable when work on mwpfh started, but I digress. I'm still a bit unclear on how Parsoid handles multi-level template nesting. I tried to parse "{{foo|{{bar|{{baz|abc=123}}}}}}" and got <span about="#mwt1" typeof="mw:Transclusion" data-parsoid='{"dsr":[0,31,null,null],"pi":[[{"k":"1","spc":["","","",""]}]]}' data-mw='{"parts":[{"template":{"target":{"wt":"foo","href":"./Template:Foo"},"params":{"1":{"wt":"{{bar|{{baz|abc=123}}}}"}},"i":0}}]}'></span>, and I'm not sure how I could, say, use this to read the value of the "abc" parameter in {{baz}}. Would I need to use Parsoid again on the value of that "wt" key or am I missing something? Part of mwpfh's usefulness for bots is that the trees it generates have methods for common wikicode manipulation – there are simple functions for adding template parameters and the like, modifying and traversing the tree, etc. As far as I know, Parsoid is focused solely on the parsing aspect and doesn't support this kind of stuff directly, but it raises question of whether it could be useful as an alternate backend for mwpfh. Would be annoying to have to deal with outsourcing queries from Python to a node.js subprocess, but it could be an interesting experiment. — Earwig talk 17:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @The Earwig: Thank you for your response as well! The Parsoid and mwpfh projects did indeed start at around the same time. Back then there were no good parsing options for editing, and it wasn't even clear whether full editing of typical wiki content would be technically feasible. Both projects have independently done pioneering work.
    You bring up a good use case where the usability of the Parsoid DOM is not optimal for bots interested in nested parameters. Parsoid actually supports exposing the templated parameters as HTML (using the 'html' key instead of 'wt'), but this is not currently enabled in production. We should be ready to switch this on in a month or two.
    Generally the idea with Parsoid is to do all the parsing on the server, so that bots don't have to deal with it. The workflow is basically retrieve HTML from the API, edit it, and send the modified HTML back to the API for saving. Convenient APIs for this workflow (especially the saving part) are being worked on right now. I agree that having a more specialized client-side interface / library for specific tasks like template editing is very useful. Your idea of using Parsoid as a backend for mwpfh sounds very promising to me, and could even expand beyond templates into other content. -- GWicke (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried mwpfh once, and I must say I was disappointed. It does not distinguish parser extension tags (like <ref> or <source>) from tags like <b> and <table> which are (mostly) passed through to HTML. If I recall correctly, there is no support for noinclude/includeonly/onlyinclude. Sufficiently tricky markup can get mwpfh really confused. It seems the authors developed it by trial and error instead of actually looking up how MediaWiki parses markup (which is not that hard, really: just read the source). By the way, I just tried the <ref>foo{{close ref}} thing… it does not work as described here (as I expected, because I know how the parser works). You will be better off using mw:API:Expandtemplates with the generatexml option instead. (I would avoid Parsoid too, it has similar warts.) — Keφr 21:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Traffic report: Now introducing ... mobile data (2,219 bytes · 💬)

Very interesting break down. Would be interested to see where these percentages go and change as the Top 25 team accumulates data. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes - the mobile %s vary hugely, and we can expect to see some interesting analyses of what gets views on what device. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentence in Moose is no longer as it reads above. That was not correct grammar and didn't make clear who was swimming. I assume the moose were.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Softlavender, I have no information about that.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Signpost reaches the Midwest (360 bytes · 💬)

Being from Michigan, I believe that I'm predisposed to hate you Ohio editors. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2014-10-15&oldid=1125230197"