User talk:Trappist the monk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
CS1 This user is responsible for those
CS1 error messages (help).
Comments are welcome. If your comments are about my work on a particular article, please make
them at the article's talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.

MonkBot: coauthors=et. al.[edit]

In case coauthors is et. al., it should remain italicized in the author2 field. Or perhaps there's another cite template field for et. al.? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Found it, although I'm not sure it will work. Set display-authors to 1. I'll do it in the one I noticed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I presume that you've discovered that |display-authors=1 doesn't do what you wanted it to do – unless the citation has more than one |authorn= or |lastn=. And even then, CS1 doesn't italicize et al.
Monkbot removes removes Wikimarkup italics from ''et al.'' where this text occurs in CS1 citations because the Wikimarkup contaminates the citation's COinS metadata and because et al. is properly not italicized (see Help:CS1; also see et al. and MOS:ABBR)
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. Still, display-authors is supposed to do what I wanted it to do, at least if "et al." is in position 3 or later. If authorn = et al., then display-authors is also supposed to be n −  1. And it's probably cleaner code. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

great old bulgaria[edit]

CHAPTER CXX the oldest documents about Bulgaria and Kubrat are from the chronics of JOhn of Nikiu in early 600 AD:

47. And when the inhabitants of Byzantium heard this news, they said: 'This project is concerned with Kubratos, chief of the Huns, the nephew of Organa, who was baptized in the city of Constantinople, and received into the Christian community in his childhood and had grown up in the imperial palace.'

CHAPTER LXXXIX 74. But immediately on his return to the emperor, the latter removed him from his command, and appointed in his room another general, named Cyril, of the province of Illyria. 75. And he also gave battle to Vitalian, and there was great slaughter on both sides. Cyril the general retired into the city named Odyssus, and stayed there while Vitalian withdrew into the province of Bulgaria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Your comments at VPT here indicate you may wish to comment on the 5 closely related {{lang-en-XX}} TfDs at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think that I have a dog in this fight. My interest was more on the technical side.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Templates inside cite templates[edit]

I've seen a number of templates being used inside the cite template. For example, {{start date}} and {{nbsp}} being used in the date and accessdate field. I see on start date's page that using it inside the cite templates would, "pollute the COinS metadata ". Does this go for other template used in the date field? Bgwhite (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, any template that applies styling or adds characters to its output will corrupt the COinS metadata. For example, as Module:Citation/CS1 sees it, the output of {{nbsp}} when applied to a date 25{{nbsp}}August 2014looks like this:
25<span style="white-space:nowrap;">&nbsp;</span>August 2014
Each CS1 template documentation page has a list of parameters that are included in the COinS. Use of styling templates within these parameters is discouraged.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Besides which, using {{start date}} to enclose the date of a source - even if the source info is not marked up using a citation template - is an improper use of {{start date}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits regarding DWT template[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you were adding "clarify" tags to several articles. In international shipping, the deadweight tonnage is always measured in metric tons (this is also the figure in the classification society databases from where I source most of my tonnage figures) and thus there is IMHO no need to clarify it in Wikipedia neither in the infobox (the abbreviation is always DWT anyway) nor in the text (that is, no "metric tons deadweight"). Of course, in case of older ships such as Haudaudine it might be long tons... Tupsumato (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, the script can't know if the ship is older or newer; {{DWT}} provides a mechanism by which DWT can be properly quantified and adjusts the display accordingly. Readers may not know that nowadays DWT is uniformly metric. I think that adding the {{clarify}} templates is an appropriate mechanism to draw attention to the missing parameter. I did think about changing the template to emit an error message and/or add a maintenance category; {{clarify}} seemed simpler. Have I truly done a bad thing? If you think so, perhaps this discussion would be better moved to WT:SHIPS.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
How about not running automated scripts for heavily used templates without discussing it first at WP:SHIPS? I'm not saying what you do is "truly a bad thing" and in general you're doing a good work with the project, but if it concerns thousands of articles, it would be a good idea to discuss it first with other active editors, especially if it results in some kind of tag or error message in just about every ship article.
While I agree that readers may not know about modern shipping, in my opinion there is still no need to mention it in every ship article. The article body should contain a link to deadweight tonnage where it can be explained and properly sourced. As for the template itself, DWT is an official figure and it should not be adjusted according to user preferences (that is, there should not be any automatic conversion). Also, I've been removing "metric" from the template over the years when I've encountered it, for I see it as needless redundancy in case of modern ships ("I'm going to call you with a phone").
Anyway, I think it's a good idea to move this discussion to the project page and discuss it before continuing any script runs. Tupsumato (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at WT:SHIPS and quoted this discussion there. Tupsumato (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Status of Monkbot activity on deprecated parameters?[edit]

Do you feel that Monkbot's tasks have done as much as they can to fix |coauthors= and |month= errors in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters?

A search indicates that there may be about 2,000 articles that still use |month=, and a random sampling of those shows month/year pairs that look easily fixable with a script.

I was observing the various Monkbot tasks' passage through the category to fix the coauthor errors, and it is not clear to me that each of the tasks has completed a full run through the category. The various tasks seemed to jump from one part of the alphabet to another.

Would you like help identifying patterns that might be fixable with adjustments to the bot tasks' code? If the bot thinks it has fixed all of the bot-fixable errors, should we ask the community for opinions on exposing the coauthors error messages?

Thanks for all of the work you do on the CS1 module and your bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly getting there. If I recall correctly, the last runs were making less than 500 fixes. Not much, but 500 fixes here and there from time to time is 500 fixes. I'll start up Monkbot this morning and see what happens. It's been nearly a month since the last run.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Monkbot tasks 1–5 have just completed. There were 625ish edits among all of the tasks. At the time of the task 1 RFA Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters contained 163,762 pages. As I write this, the category contains 31,217 pages.
It's possible that tasks 2–5 might be extended to handle |coauthor(s)= with more than 10 names. I haven't spent any time looking at what remains in the category to see why there are still |month= parameters lurking.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed a bug in task 1 that prevented fixes when |month= is the last parameter before the citation's closing braces. So, rerunning task 1.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That explains it. I see that the bot is finding many more hundreds of month parameters to fix now, with version 1e of the task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just put a coauthor back into an article. I do not appreciate a bot removing coauthor when there is no consensus to do so.[1]. The solution of using editor2 is a particularly nasty one because it means that an editor has to have knowledge of how to change the ref= parameter if the long citation is linked to a short one , which is an unnecessary step if coauthors is used. Please remove this from your bot list until such time as you gain a consensus via a well advertised RfC to remove this parameter. -- PBS (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning for why Monkbot should not operate appears to be based on some false premise. The Monkbot tasks that replace |coauthor= or |coauthors= parameters with a series of |authorn= parameters (tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5) do not do the replacement if a CS1 citation template contains |ref=harv or if the citation template is {{citation}} which, by default, sets |ref=harv.
Your example citation uses |ref={{harvid|Neutzner|2010}}. Because the page also uses {{sfn|Neutzner|2010}} as the short-form citation, all of the expected links that were present and valid before Monkbot's edit were still present and valid after Monkbot's edit. The short- to long-form citation links for citations like your example, work regardless of whether the long-form citation uses |coauthor= or |author2=.
Monkbot did not break anything when it edited the article.
You can always place a {{bots|deny=<botlist>}} template.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The point is that the bot says it is depreciateddeprecated. The bot could just as easily write it is appreciated. Who has decided that coauthors is depreciateddeprecated"? -- PBS (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The bot is fixing articles in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. Note the word "deprecated", which is not the same as "depreciated". A deprecated function, in programming, is one that is no longer needed or supported. There is no value judgment associated with deprecation; it's just a standard programming practice.
|coauthors=, along with |month= and |day= are no longer needed, because the citation templates have been upgraded to function without them. Deprecation in code development happens all the time. The bot is simply performing what would otherwise be an onerous and tedious human task of converting these deprecated parameters into supported parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I often make that spelling mistake. This project works on consensus, not on whimsical "deprecation in code development". "coauthors" and "coeditors" are both useful because they the do not invoke messing around with changing CITEREF values if author2 or editor2 are used insetead. Bots should not be making changes like these when there has not been an RfC to agree changes. -- PBS (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


Not sure if you and your cohorts were aware of mw:Citoid. An email went out on the Labs developer's list today.

"Citoid is a new web service under development that performs full citation metadata extraction for a number of supported sources, and basic metadata extraction (<title>) for others. It's not working perfectly yet, but it is running in Labs right now, and a nice front-end might be a good alternative to the (now gone) reflinks tool."

"There is an existing user script for VisualEditor that demonstrates the basic usage." Bgwhite (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unaware of this. Looks mighty cumbersome to use, at least in its current guise, but is certainly something to keep an eye on.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)