![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for helping Wikipedia grow! Promotional Attack (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
co-authors
I saw your comment here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Deprecated_parameters_in_the_citation_template that you fixed a problem related to deprecation of co-authors.
The Google Books citation tool has the same problem. I poked the creator here: User_talk:Apoc2400#Deprecated_parameter:_coauthors but haven't heard a response.
I realize you might not have access to that tool's code, but my guess is that you know exactly how to do the fix, so I am hoping you might offer to help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: The fix for the tools is basically to output
|authors=
rather than|coauthors=
/|coauthor=
or any other variant of such. The maintainers should be able to fix their tools' issues within an hour (find + replace + check to ensure nothing else is being placed into that parameter, since the coauthors parameter was exclusive before to coauthors). --Izno (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC) - It looks like Apoc's tool has other issues which are unfixed, as well. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- APOC is a volunteer, and I am extremely reluctant to push any volunteer to do something when I do not have a clear picture of the time necessary to make the change. Your suggestion that it is an easy fix encourages me. I wonder if you were to offer to help? I can’t make that offer because if they took me up on the offer I wouldn’t know quite what to do. No big deal, except I use that template a lot and it is frustrating when it pops up the red link. If you don’t want to ask, with your permission I will request again and suggest that someone who knows what’s going on thinks it’s a relatively easy fix, linking to your comment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
-
Heard. You can provide the link to my comment, no problem. However, the code source has not been updated in 2 years. I might suggest that it's time to abandon the use of the project or to find a new maintainer for the project and migrate the project e.g. to Labs (I am not so technical as I should be else I would take care of the request, I think?). The code is licensed appropriately for such a migration.
Citoid, which is an extension using VE, may be a suitable alternative since I believe it performs the same functions for a greater set of websites. With the soon-deployment of a single edit interface, you should be able to access Citoid trivially. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I tried using citoid (assuming that I am using Citoid if I use the Cite button in VE, and it failed. But maybe that’s the place to add the functionality?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Based on the description at mw:Citoid, I'd say so. Project on phab. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I tried using citoid (assuming that I am using Citoid if I use the Cite button in VE, and it failed. But maybe that’s the place to add the functionality?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- APOC is a volunteer, and I am extremely reluctant to push any volunteer to do something when I do not have a clear picture of the time necessary to make the change. Your suggestion that it is an easy fix encourages me. I wonder if you were to offer to help? I can’t make that offer because if they took me up on the offer I wouldn’t know quite what to do. No big deal, except I use that template a lot and it is frustrating when it pops up the red link. If you don’t want to ask, with your permission I will request again and suggest that someone who knows what’s going on thinks it’s a relatively easy fix, linking to your comment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
March events and meetups in DC
Greetings from Wikimedia DC!
Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:
- On Wednesday, March 9, we'll host our first March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle.
- On Friday, March 11, the National Archives will host the Women in the Civil War Edit-a-Thon.
- On Saturday, March 19, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian will host the Color History with the Smithsonian! event, and we'll hold our second Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.
- On Sunday, March 20, the American Chemical Society will host the Computers in Chemistry Edit-a-Thon.
- On Saturday, March 26, we'll host our second March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.
Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.
Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Yup!
This made me laugh. Have a good one, Izno. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Soetermans: I was inspired by your removal of the development names. :) --Izno (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I figured, yeah. That discussion didn't help much, huh? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Soetermans: It did. The sources I listed in my edit are RS, which is why I listed them in the edit summary. There were others in the VG/S RS search using "HOTS" directly (sometimes in the text, almost always with a tag page e.g. "kotaku.com/tags/hots"). --Izno (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- For what's it worth, I have no intention of reverting or debating on this issue, I've brought it up several times at WT:VG already without any substantial input. Same like the subtitle issue. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-
FWIW, I agree with you somewhat regarding the subtitles crap. It's obnoxious.
Regarding abbreviations, I don't see that you have ground to stand on in this specific instance. You can plug HOTS into the VG/RS search yourself and you will find exactly what the article now provides. --Izno (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you that HotS is the common abbreviation for Heroes of the Storm. What bugs me is that there's no general consensus on this, if we should or shouldn't add them. While I'd personally rather didn't see abbreviations added to articles, at the same I would really would like some clearity. It's hard to stay consistent when abbreviations like GTA, KotOR, FFVII or LoZ: OoT aren't used, but they are commonly known and are often used as redirects. But hey, again it's just us talking about it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you when you say "there's no general consensus" -> Its specific inclusion and associated guidance in WP:MOS/WP:MOSABBR makes it evident to me that there is general consensus for inclusion of abbreviations. How many we include and their appearance in terms of capitals and lowercase letters is probably a per-article discussion to have. --Izno (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you that HotS is the common abbreviation for Heroes of the Storm. What bugs me is that there's no general consensus on this, if we should or shouldn't add them. While I'd personally rather didn't see abbreviations added to articles, at the same I would really would like some clearity. It's hard to stay consistent when abbreviations like GTA, KotOR, FFVII or LoZ: OoT aren't used, but they are commonly known and are often used as redirects. But hey, again it's just us talking about it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- For what's it worth, I have no intention of reverting or debating on this issue, I've brought it up several times at WT:VG already without any substantial input. Same like the subtitle issue. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Soetermans: It did. The sources I listed in my edit are RS, which is why I listed them in the edit summary. There were others in the VG/S RS search using "HOTS" directly (sometimes in the text, almost always with a tag page e.g. "kotaku.com/tags/hots"). --Izno (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I figured, yeah. That discussion didn't help much, huh? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I was just thinking, what if we use {{efn}}, like for Japanese titles? Something like The Last of Us{{efn|Commonly abbreviated ''TLoU''<ref>http://kotaku.com/should-you-get-the-last-of-us-again-on-ps4-1611888103</ref>}}. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Get consensus for that at WT:MOS/WT:MOSABBR first; I'm not particularly objectionable to it, but I think there's a rather large difference between the two: a single (or perhaps multiple) abbreviations still end up taking less space than even one {{nihongo}} does; a second difference is that {{nihongo}} is not English (aside from the literal translation), so less people reading the English Wikipedia can understand it. TLOU is evidently an abbreviation, which English-reading people will understand as such.
That said, I think an improvement you could make (if you wanted) would be to include references to the abbreviations. I'm not sure how I feel about that given the guidance in WP:MOSLEAD, which says to avoid references in the lead. This might be an interesting point of discussion
Aside: I generally agree that hiding {{nihongo}} behind a {{efn}} or similar is an okay practice, though I'm not sure I personally would use it if I were writing an article. --Izno (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'll do that. I'm curious to see where this goes. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I tried rewording it so it doesn't come off that my opinion is more important somehow. I hope it doesn't come off as such. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'll do that. I'm curious to see where this goes. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Confusing edit summary
In this edit to WP:CITE you edit a bullet, but your edit summary seems to say you want the bullet you edited, and one other, removed. Is that really what you meant? Please discuss on talk page of the guideline; discussion via edit summaries is next to impossible. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h: It was an idle thought that crossed my mind in the middle of the edit I made to correct the intent of the second bullet. --Izno (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The second and third bullet need to remain, because "major citation styles" is not defined within the guideline. Those intent on introducing citation templates everywhere, or introducing their favorite variation of citation templates everywhere, will seize upon the vague meaning of "major citation style" to introduce what they want everywhere on the basis that "the article had footnote citations before, and footnote citations after my change, so it's OK" or "the article had parenthetical citations before, and has parenthetical citations after my change, so it's OK. Similar reasoning would be applied to changes in the variant of citation templates present; as long as the rendered results were about the same, the fan-boy of a certain variant would claim it's just fine. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Span
Good catch, had my mind on something else. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
no browsers don't adjust
I'm not gonna revert your edit to the rfa header, because it's not worth my time. But browsers do NOT adjust, thank you. Why did I have the word The smashed up against the page border to the left of that ugly "Who's going for rfa?" table, and a pile of subsequent text below it? Because browsers do not adjust. Have a nice day. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
- @Lingzhi: If it's not worth your time, why did you comment on my talk page? That aside, if you disagree and think the format of the page should change, WT:RFA/WT:Requests for adminship/Header are that way. You were bold, I reverted. --Izno (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Template editing
Would this user right be of interest to you? I'm sure you meet all the criteria. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: I've considered it but I hadn't looked into the criteria for granting. Now that I have, I see I meet the first 4. I can't say I've executed 5 or 6, though I've definitely participated in enough discussions on highly protected templates to probably waive those. If you're willing to grant it, sure. --Izno (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have no reservations granting it. I'm suppose to subst {{Template editor granted}} on your talk page, but perhaps you could just read it. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Reply
phab:T54180#2169644 was not primarily directed at you. ;-)
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Oi! You should make it clear to whom you are addressing; your objection was noted prior by me as an obvious excellent use case. --Izno (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Notice to quit vandalizing the article Jazz
You don't own the article, it's free for all to add material to as long as it's relevant. You reverted my valuable addition of relevant material twice in a 24-hour period. One more time and I will be forced to report you for violation of the 3-revert rule. Sorry, but I am the offended party, and you can't discuss it on my talk page because I don't have any, so I'm posting this notice on yours. As to a discussion, what is there to discuss? Any and all Wiki articles that mention a person should endeavor to provide an image if one is available, so your bold reversion of a whole string of images is not constructive, it's pure vandalism, and can result in disciplinary action if you persist. Using a gallery format saves page space, so don't try to make that the issue please.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.112.141 (talk • contribs)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.112.141 (talk • contribs)