| Revision as of 17:39, 28 April 2018 editRexxS (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,075 edits archive untimestamped← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:24, 29 April 2018 edit undoFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits →DS: new sectionTag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
| Line 259: | Line 259: | ||
| Thanks again :-) -- ] along with the rest of the team at '''] 02:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)''' | Thanks again :-) -- ] along with the rest of the team at '''] 02:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)''' | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| == DS == | |||
| {{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' | |||
| '''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
| The ] has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding discussions about ] and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ]. | |||
| Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. For WHS infoboxes, for instance at ], see | |||
| * RfC outcome at ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }} ] (]) 05:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC){{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
Revision as of 05:24, 29 April 2018
| This is RexxS's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66Auto-archiving period: 28 days  |
Parity
"That means I believe we need to create another 1,000,000 biographies of women to reach parity (unless somebody can convince me that women are inherently less notable than men" - Seriously??? If "parity" were compatible with WP:NPV that would mean that "patriarchy" was just a myth. But it isn't, and a global, all history, encyclopedia should always have more men than women. I'm amazed to hear you expressing such views. None of the research attempts to work out what the appropriate ratio should be that I have seen can get above the low 20%s. The gender imbalance project does WP serious damage by perpetuating this myth. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously!!!, John. I have a daughter and I don't want her to live in a world where women are regarded as inferior and less accomplished. The earliest Greek society was profoundly matriarchal, so what? It's not a question of myth or fact; it's just a question of what sources we can find. If you want to believe that a truly comprehensive encyclopedia ought to have 20% women's biographies and 80% men's, that's up to you. I simply disagree. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- So patriarchy has never had any effect. Well, that's good news! Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Strawman, John. It's obvious male-centred history and politics had an effect on what we can now read. Most medieval history was written by monks and not many of them were female. But just because in earlier times women had fewer sources that describe them, doesn't meant that no sources exist. Virtually the only near-contemporary source that tells us much about Boudica is Tacitus' Annals, but that's provided enough for an article and many later works. Of course if you contrast that with the multiple contemporary sources that paint a picture of Nero, there's a massive disparity. But Nero only has one Misplaced Pages biography, the same as Boudica. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- "male-centred history and politics", and indeed society as a whole, didn't just have "an effect on what we can now read", it had a huge effect on what happened. For example considerable efforts have been made by academics to expand knowledge of female artists from before 1800, but numerically there just aren't that many who we can hope to have any record of (as opposed to women in manuscript or embroidery workshops etc). Then there's formerly all-male categories such as soldiers (ok a handful of exceptions), MPs, FRSs, doctors and academics generally, sportspeople until pretty recently, and so on. It might be true that the "earliest Greek society was profoundly matriarchal" (although I think that's more than we actually know), but we just don't have the names, let alone any other details. Meanwhile women's health articles with high views (ask User:WhatamIdoing) and other non-biographical women-related topics continue to be neglected, and new editors continue to be funnelled to write bios of borderline notability and minimal views. There's no strawman: parity or neutrality - pick one. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Strawman, John. It's obvious male-centred history and politics had an effect on what we can now read. Most medieval history was written by monks and not many of them were female. But just because in earlier times women had fewer sources that describe them, doesn't meant that no sources exist. Virtually the only near-contemporary source that tells us much about Boudica is Tacitus' Annals, but that's provided enough for an article and many later works. Of course if you contrast that with the multiple contemporary sources that paint a picture of Nero, there's a massive disparity. But Nero only has one Misplaced Pages biography, the same as Boudica. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- So patriarchy has never had any effect. Well, that's good news! Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Talk page stalker feeling feisty
- Neutrality does not refer to the encyclopedia but to articles themselves. Reliable sources on a topic are considered reliable per the content and context not per comparisons to any other topic. So if I, for example, have an interest in the judicial system in Ireland which included women and one in particular and I find one good source on that topic, and that woman, that is enough to be considered reliable for that particular topic. We can as a 21st century document choose to begin to correct the imbalances of the past or to continue them. Our guides on sourcing are just that, guides; we as editors have it within our remit to adjust those guides to make sure we enter the next years of the century with an enlightened encyclopedia. Editors edit as they like on topics that interest them. No need to channel anyone anywhere. Often the women that young girls could emulate are hidden both in history and by the men they either served or worked in the same time as as for example, Camille Claudel, Rodin's mistress and model who for many years was hidden by obscurity and overshadowed by Rodin. I won't prolong that kind off injustice.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC))
- Nobody's asking you to - but she has had an article since 2002 and gets over 330 views a day. You won't get anywhere near parity with people that notable, though I certainly agree they should be the priority, if people must do bios. If NPOV doesn't stop the parity plan, WP:N will. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Neutrality does not refer to the encyclopedia but to articles themselves. Reliable sources on a topic are considered reliable per the content and context not per comparisons to any other topic. So if I, for example, have an interest in the judicial system in Ireland which included women and one in particular and I find one good source on that topic, and that woman, that is enough to be considered reliable for that particular topic. We can as a 21st century document choose to begin to correct the imbalances of the past or to continue them. Our guides on sourcing are just that, guides; we as editors have it within our remit to adjust those guides to make sure we enter the next years of the century with an enlightened encyclopedia. Editors edit as they like on topics that interest them. No need to channel anyone anywhere. Often the women that young girls could emulate are hidden both in history and by the men they either served or worked in the same time as as for example, Camille Claudel, Rodin's mistress and model who for many years was hidden by obscurity and overshadowed by Rodin. I won't prolong that kind off injustice.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC))
- another TPS, but what started this conversation? Curious what got it started...Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: It was a sort of throw-away comment I made at Misplaced Pages:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation:
John's right of course that sources on notable women are far fewer than for notable men; but I still want us to work on reducing the effect of that disparity on our encyclopedia. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)If I'm running an event for the Theoretical Roman Archaeological Conference, chances are that most participants will be working on existing articles. On the other hand, if I'm running an event related to Women in Red, I know that Misplaced Pages has about 1,250,000 biographies of men and only 250,000 biographies of women. That means I believe we need to create another 1,000,000 biographies of women to reach parity (unless somebody can convince me that women are inherently less notable than men). So those events will have a greater proportion of new article creation.
- It was this edit, though I hadn't realized it was quite so old. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
need help with Lua
Dear "RexxS"
I wanna make a module or template for Arabic Misplaced Pages, that serves the Arabic language.
The script I made is in Python.
Is it possible to transfer it to Lua, and most importantly is it gonna work on the wiki?!!
Nice regards. -- سامر (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, سامر, Lua and Python share a lot of similarities in their data and control structures, so anyone experienced in Python should be able to pick up Lua quite quickly. They are sufficiently different, however, to mean that you can't just drop Python code into a Lua module and expect it to work. Unfortunately I neither speak nor read Arabic, so I can't be much direct help to you on that Misplaced Pages. Nevertheless, there are several good tutorials available on the web. Also the entire Lua documentation itself is at https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html and the Scribunto (Lua extension for Misplaced Pages) documentation is at https://www.mediawiki.org/Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual - you'll need to study the sections on standard libraries as well as those on Scribunto libraries as much of the functionality of working in Lua on Misplaced Pages derives from those. Finally, you are always welcome to adapt code that you find in anything in Module: space as it's under a CC-BY-SA licence. Let me know how you get on. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Arbcom case
I am sorry it's come to this, but Swarm forced my hand before even letting me post on the existing arbcom case so... --Tarage (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Tarage: You probably need to copy your statement onto a subpage of your user space, then summarise it and link to it from the ArbCom request page. You could break it up into logical blocks using paragraphs and list-markup to make it more readable. HTH --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'll work on it later. --Tarage (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
RfC notice at Project Medicine
If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. I think you should strike your aggressive, and irrelevant, remarks. Ping not necessary, I am watching this page. Geogene (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- And I think that if you don't want to hear aggressive, highly relevant comments, you should stop edit-warring your unwelcome notifications back onto other editors' WikiProject. --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- You are in no position to unilaterally determine what is "welcome" on any board or not. Geogene (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- And yet I didn't remove your unwanted post; another member of WPMED did. I won't be taking advice from somebody who doesn't even understand the meaning of the word "unilateral". Now stop trolling here, and get back under your bridge. --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- You are in no position to unilaterally determine what is "welcome" on any board or not. Geogene (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Catalogue
Regarding this comment: what would be the most useful way of compiling such a catalogue of problems such that it would meet the standard of solid research to inform decision-making? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Documenting what has as well, as has not, worked - which is what RexxS suggested -would be a good start. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
AN/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Geogene (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Precious six years!
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018
Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018
[REDACTED]
The 100 Skins of the OnionOpen Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that. Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron. Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF.  From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart. Links
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hello RexxS. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
- URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages, Infoboxes, and Wikidata
Hi RexxS. I've had a thorough re-read of everything at 2018 Infobox RfC, and think most of the objections to using Wikidata stem from:
- not being able to easily see what has been changed
- the data displayed not being in the article, or not referenced in the article
- an (understandable) unwillingness to get involved with Wikidata
- a concern for the standard of references in Wikidata
I think I have a possible solution that may address some, or even all, of these concerns. I know you are good at creating templates. What are you like with bots? Within Misplaced Pages, I've only done a bit on templates, and nothing with bots, but have a general idea of what can be done (but not how to do it). So, this suggestion uses two bots (one working on Wikidata, and the other on Misplaced Pages) although the two might possibly be combined into one:
- The Wikidata bot (WD BOT) regularly monitors wikidata items used in the Misplaced Pages {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} template. A list of wikidata items could be generated from the What Links Here page, and a list of the interesting properties from the template definition.
- If any of the interesting properties of the item have changed since the time of the previous check, WD BOT generates a report detailing the changes in a log file somewhere on Wikidata.
- The Misplaced Pages bot (WP BOT) regularly checks the log file on Wikidata.
- If the log file has been updated with changes since the last check, WP BOT writes a report of the changes on the talk page of the appropriate Misplaced Pages page. The report will also include details of the reference information on Wikidata in a cite template such as {{Cite Book}}.
- Any Misplaced Pages editor who has the page on their watchlist will see that the talk page has been updated (provided they haven't hidden bot edits).
- The Misplaced Pages editor can then check whether the changes to the infobox are appropriate and referenced and if the information is from a reliable source. They can then make any appropriate changes to the article, including suppressing the infobox parameter, adding text to the article to show the new/changed data in the article, adding a citation to the text using an existing source, or creating a new reference using the information in the WP BOT report.
I'd be interested if you, or any of your stalkers, think this idea has legs. If so, I'll post something on it at the RFC. If it is possible, then it may also be useful to expand the process. For example, if the article gets improved, and some facts are added that could go in the infobox, then the editor could just add a local value, but it would be much better if they used a yet to be created template, something like:
| death_date = {{ForWikidata|Value=1972|ref name="Maggs"}}
which would just display "1972", but would provide a bot with the ability to find the details of the ref and pass at least some of it to Wikidata.
I understand you're off to the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. Hope have a fun and fruitful trip. Cheeers Robevans123 (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think the idea mentioned above is amazing... Capankajsmilyo (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Rob, I can see the value in trying to do what you suggest, but I foresee two issue arising:
- The first is a philosophical one: that of real-time vs scheduled updates. This is a general issue in systems analysis concerning transactions. Using a bot to trawl though a lot of data to look for changes every so often ("pulling" the change report) has a time-granularity of whatever the update interval is: if you make it too long, the change doesn't get reported quickly enough; if you make it too short, then you have a lot of searching with no result and you run the risk of reporting a change even when it has subsequently been rolled-back. I much prefer event-driven logging where the edit that makes a change triggers a report of that change in real-time ("pushing" the change report). The latter is effectively how our watchlists function. The Wikidata team are working on filtering out irrelevant changes from what is reported when we enable seeing Wikidata changes in our watchlist, but personally I'd prefer to have a separate Wikidata watchlist where I could pick a shorter set of articles whose Wikidata changes I wanted to monitor.
- The second is a practical one: there would likely be, in my opinion, a problem with maintaining a list of the properties for each article that would need to be monitored by the WD BOT. If someone updates the fields in a Wikidata-enabled infobox, what would be the mechanism to ensure that that field is then included in WD BOT's list? (The articles themselves are no problem, because using a Wikidata-enabled infobox can automatically place the article in a category that a bot can read.) Additionally, we would need to look at the scale of the job we want WD BOT to do. There are around 2,000 infobox templates on enwiki, of which 105 are presently wikidata-enabled, meaning that any solution has to be capable of scaling up considerably. Template:Infobox person has one of the largest uses with about 270,000 transclusions in articles. Template:Infobox person/Wikidata currently has 23 fields enabled, so if {Infobox person} were to become fully Wikidata-enabled, that would require over 6 million properties to be examined for changes by WD BOT each time it was run. Other infoboxes have fewer transclusions, but the potential to require tens or even hundreds of millions of properties to be checked would have to be considered.
- I don't mean to be dampening your enthusiasm, which I appreciate, but it is important to keep in mind the potential limitations, and to consider any alternatives that may be come to fruition before this one might be implemented. Nevertheless, I do think your idea is interesting and I'll have time in a couple of weeks to have a play with it, perhaps on test-wiki where I can try stuff without breaking anything. You might have to remind me, as I tend to be forgetful these days. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hey RexxS. Thanks for your comments. Good to know that it could work, but there are limitations to consider. Yes - I'd much prefer a real-time event driven logging process - but to begin to suggest how to do that is way above my technical grade(!).., and I suspect would take a long time to implement. Hence my cheap and cheerful approach where a proof of concept trial with some sample results could be knocked together quite quickly. I do think the idea of seeing the changes and have some ready-to-use wikitext available (all on Misplaced Pages) would go a long way to meet the concerns of many experienced Misplaced Pages editors. Some specific points:
- good point on using automatically placed articles in a category.
- as to a list of the properties to monitored - I think that is ultimately down to the person creating or updating the template. Anyone working on a template should take responsibility for updating the documentation and the list of properties to monitor (or ask for help with the tasks if they find them difficult - I'm always willing to knock up some documentation if I get some hints on what the changes are meant to achieve, so I can start digging in the code and trying it out). But doing a quick grep for "#invoke:WikidataIB | getPreferredValue" should do most of the work on the list of properties to monitor...
- It would be great to have improved watchlisting from Wikidata (from within Misplaced Pages) - it really isn't very good. Of course it would useful to only watch certain properties within an item.
- 6 million checks could be a little time-consuming... But it could be trimmed by checking if anything at all had been changed on an item first, and only do the deeper testing if yes. But it would be useful to get some performance figures.
- Alternatively if the wikidata item also stores the name of the infobox being used on each 'pedia (or possibly the names of bots that should run when changes are made to the item) would it be possible to kick off the bot(s) whenever a change is made?
- It might be useful to throw the idea at any Wikidata/Bot creators you meet in Berlin?
- Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hey RexxS. Thanks for your comments. Good to know that it could work, but there are limitations to consider. Yes - I'd much prefer a real-time event driven logging process - but to begin to suggest how to do that is way above my technical grade(!).., and I suspect would take a long time to implement. Hence my cheap and cheerful approach where a proof of concept trial with some sample results could be knocked together quite quickly. I do think the idea of seeing the changes and have some ready-to-use wikitext available (all on Misplaced Pages) would go a long way to meet the concerns of many experienced Misplaced Pages editors. Some specific points:
Italic title
Hi, you tend to be good at spotting this type of thing so can you work out why the title at Shiamak Davar is italicised? It would usually be due to {{italictitle}} but I cannot see it in the article. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's because {{Dance India Dance}} has {{italic title}} in its first line, for whatever reason. Eric Corbett 11:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
-
- Fixed - no good reason why a nav box should set an italic title. Some infobox templates can call {{italic title}} but it is always an opt-in choice. Robevans123 (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Correction on background detail - a few infoboxes (for works of art etc) do use {{italic title}} by default, but still no good reason to use it on a nav box. Robevans123 (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rob & Eric. I'm guessing the reason is that the composer of the navbox wanted the title in the navbox top bar in italics and though that was how to do it. If we know that an infobox is only going to be used on works that always italicise their title, then it's probably reasonable to include {{italic title}} in the infobox definition. Navboxes just aren't suitable for that because someone will eventually add it to articles that don't italicise the title. --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Useful exercise though - in my earlier days of editing I can remember being confused by the title of a film that had some (non-italic) disambiguation text, and no mention of italic formatting in the text of the article, little knowing that the infobox was setting it and that {{italic title}} is clever enough to not italicise the dab text. Learn something new every day. Robevans123 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, all! - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Useful exercise though - in my earlier days of editing I can remember being confused by the title of a film that had some (non-italic) disambiguation text, and no mention of italic formatting in the text of the article, little knowing that the infobox was setting it and that {{italic title}} is clever enough to not italicise the dab text. Learn something new every day. Robevans123 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rob & Eric. I'm guessing the reason is that the composer of the navbox wanted the title in the navbox top bar in italics and though that was how to do it. If we know that an infobox is only going to be used on works that always italicise their title, then it's probably reasonable to include {{italic title}} in the infobox definition. Navboxes just aren't suitable for that because someone will eventually add it to articles that don't italicise the title. --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
WMCON18
It was great meeting you in person and to be part of your workshop. Cheers, RexxS! Rehman 19:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Roy! I'm finally catching up on all my messages and emails – I really enjoyed meeting and working with you, as well as all the others in our workshop. You'll always be welcome on my talk page, and I'm here to help if you ever need assistance with anything. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Misplaced Pages, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Misplaced Pages:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Misplaced Pages. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up, WAID. I've just fixed German submarine U-65 (1940), but it took me about half an hour! The whole thing's a can of worms, because the problem was actually caused by a misspelt parameter, which meant I had to read a load of documentation to figure it out. I hope some of the others are easier. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The plainlist was the problem, not the misspelt parameter.Actually.. Most of them are very similar - something along the lines(see the wikicode in editor for difference) instead of having:
- bar
- foo
have
- bar
- foo
- (as {{small}} has a span tag and beginning and ending span cannot be split across lines). etc etc along the same lines Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Galobtter: Actually, it was the parameter that caused the lint problem. Template:Infobox service record doesn't accept
|is ship=yes, only|is_ship=yes– the underscore is not optional. That meant that the template began a new table, rather than embedding itself inside the parent infobox as new rows. That's the error that the linter was complaining about. Thank you for the reminder about span tags crossing line breaks, though – I'd quite forgotten about those. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)- Yeah I did see that wasn't true and struck it out. Interesting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. We edit-conflicted and I didn't spot the strike until after I saved, sorry. I would guess that there might be a few of these type of errors in that list, but Mike Peel now wants a change to commons:Module:WikidataIB, so I'll have to prioritise that for a while. No rest for the wicked. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Some of these are pretty tricky. I think that several of them are going to be straightforward fixes, like not letting {{Citation needed span}} run over multiple paragraphs. WT:Linter seems to be the best place to ask for help right now. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. We edit-conflicted and I didn't spot the strike until after I saved, sorry. I would guess that there might be a few of these type of errors in that list, but Mike Peel now wants a change to commons:Module:WikidataIB, so I'll have to prioritise that for a while. No rest for the wicked. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I did see that wasn't true and struck it out. Interesting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Galobtter: Actually, it was the parameter that caused the lint problem. Template:Infobox service record doesn't accept
- (as {{small}} has a span tag and beginning and ending span cannot be split across lines). etc etc along the same lines Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Misplaced Pages's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into your local language via meta
| [REDACTED] | The 2017 Cure Award |
| In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Misplaced Pages. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Wiki_Project_Med_Foundation_logo.svg){kind=link}
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
DS
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. For WHS infoboxes, for instance at Windmill Hill, Avebury, see
- RfC outcome at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site/Archive 1#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?
- Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Implementation of RfC
- Template:Infobox World Heritage Site#Conversion to local data
Francis Schonken (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33