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.

Queen Mary[edit]

I saw you reverted my revision on the RMS Queen Mary page to remove the definite article before the ship's name. I've been an ocean liner enthusiast for thirty years, and have shelves of books written by maritime experts, almost all of which use the definite article before a ship's name. However I know James Cameron made the choice in his 1997 film TITANIC to never use the definite article. It appears Wikipedia users have made a similar decision now. I'm not sure of the reason for this, but I wonder if this is perhaps a case of British English transitioning to general use in America as well?

Regardless, I just checked Wikipedia and saw that the preferred style here is not to use the definite article. Personally, I disagree with this, as it does not reflect the way writers in the field refer to ships. However I'll obviously go with the Wikipedia consensus.

However there were a number of other small revisions that were not to do with the definite article. I understand you couldn't undo only the definite article revisions, but I'll go back and redo the other changes. User:jamesluckard (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much the whole guidance on the subject of the definite article is in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Using ship names in articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Introductory_sentence. For the rational, you will have to troll the talk pages.
At the top of the Queen Mary article there is a {{Use British English}} template. See there? Did you see what I did? A definite article preceding a ship name. But take it out and the sentence would read like sammat written by country folk from the North of England.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Tools for using wikidata items as citations[edit]


I've drafted a potential IEG on meta: Tools for using wikidata items as citations

A big part of the proposal involves writing a new template to format citations from a wikidata item, so any kind of input on the proposal from you would be very welcome! And if you wanted to join as a developer that would be even better :). Also let me know if there's anyone else I can contact or a good place to post messages in order to find people interested in participating, if you are not! Mvolz (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no experience with wikidata except the bad taste in my mouth I get when I see interactions with it done through very user-unfriendly stuff like: {{#property:P214}} and local snaktype =[0].mainsnak.snaktype. We are now living in the 21st century, surely we can do better than this. To make wikidata readily usable by generic, non-technical editors, a raw citation template invocation must not look like {{cite book |wd-cite-id=p12345 |page=24}}. Editors reading that have no idea what it cites and that is just wrong.
Without having studied it closely, I don't see any obvious technical reasons why some mechanism that extracts citation data from wikidata can't be integrated into CS1.
You might try posting at Help talk:Citation Style 1 and or WT:CITE.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Link confusion[edit]

Any idea what's going on with this link ? — Cirt (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know. Looks like the server at pcquest is serving blank pages. Try again tomorrow. Perhaps by then they will have fixed it. Or not.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It's okay I found it confirmed in an archive database as well. Thanks for all your help, — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

en icon removals[edit]

Hi, do you have any idea why your AWB made these edits? Special:Diff/628738125, Special:Diff/628662282    FDMS  4    02:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Because of the rather large message box at {{en icon}}.
In your first example, it's possibly correct to say that my script inappropriately removed the template from the vicinity of the 'Asha Mehrabi on AksDownload' links. Those links lead to a clearly bilingual website which one might argue makes both icon templates unnecessary. Similarly, 'The Official Website' has two versions one of them English so the icon templates are again arguably unnecessary.
Official Beijing Subway Website without the icon template is arguably correct.
I'm thinking that I'll make the script a little less enthusiastic about how it handles {{en icon}}: {{en icon}} redirects ({{En li}}, {{Ref-en}}, {{En-icon}}}) will be converted to {{en icon}}; if {{en icon}} is adjacent to another {{xx icon}} we're done; if not adjacent to another {{xx icon}} then delete {{en icon}}.
All of this is preparatory to an upcoming change to Module:Citation/CS1 (the engine underlying the Citation Style 1 templates) that creates a new parameter |script-title=. The new parameter is intended to be used when a citation's title is written in a script other than the Latin based alphabet; for scripts that should not be italicized or which are written right-to-left, Chinese and Persian for example. When my AWB script encounters CS1 citations with rtl or non-Latin values in |title= as identified by the value in |language= or an adjacent {{xx icon}}, the {{xx icon}} is converted to |language=xx and |title= is converted to |script-title=xx:....
This change allows us to put a transliterated title (pinyin, romaji, etc) in |title=, the original writing system title in |script-title=, and a translated title in |trans-title=. In the underlying html, the value assigned to |script-title= is wrapped in <bdi lang="xx">...</bdi> which both isolates the content for rtl languages and helps the browser to correctly display the script. When the CS1 template would normally italicize a title, values in |script-title= are not italicized – this in response to a long-standing complaint that Chinese and Japanese scripts should not be italicized.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow – thanks for the explanation. You seem to know what you are doing :) . However, in my opinion, the Beijing {{en icon}} makes sense to distinguish the second "official website" link from the first.    FDMS  4    00:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's why I wrote that it's arguable. You will likely see that change made again. I've submitted this script at WP:BRFA to become Monkbot task 6.
Trappist the monk (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately, your bot is {{bots}} compliant (added it to Beijing Subway).    FDMS  4    16:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it would seem that you can't deny a particular bot task, you can only deny the bot. I've tested that and tweaked {{bots}} to {{bots|Monkbot}} so Monkbot will not be visiting Beijing Subway.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I thought Monkbot 6 was the username. Thanks!    FDMS  4    14:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot is breaking cites[edit]

I just had to go in and repair every cite broken by the bot doing "date corrections" when date is part of the unique "author" for sfn references. Where there is no byline, the easiest way to make unique last= cites is the organization name, newspaper or such, with the date of publication—thus sfn|New York Times (31 January 1914)|1914| "corrected" to sfn|New York Times|(31 January 1914)| completely wrecked the referencing in SS Monroe. I like the ref=harv type as it keeps the text cleaner in edit that long, long chains of Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). where there may be multiple references at the end of a line. Unfortunately it seems to have no way (if there is I'd like to know) to handle references with and organizational "author" as are most official and many news sources. At the moment the bot is scrambling references badly! Palmeira (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Palmeira: It wasn't a bot edit. That aside, this is how Trappist the monk left it. What is "broken" or "wrecked" about it? All the essential referencing information is still there, all the shortnotes link to the proper newspaper refs, and the dates are no longer duplicated. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope, not a bot. That edit was me. I made the edit for several reasons
  1. duplication of information in a citation is duplication of information
  2. names and dates in any of the |author= parameters corrupts the citation's COinS metadata – dates are not authors
  3. the short-form citations in §References look odd when they read: New York Times (22 April 1914) 1914.
  4. the link from Colton 2014 to its matching citation in §Bibliography was broken
  5. there was and is again an accessdate error in the Forty-Second Annual List of Merchant Vessels... citation; I added link, now gone
  6. |date= and |year= are for the most part redundant; where both exited, I removed |year=
Because I bent the usual rules for {{sfn}} templates, I could leave the result close to what you had originally done. The result was functional and improved the display. Nothing broken, nothing wrecked, nothing scrambled. It is acknowledged that not all sources have identifiable authors. That is why we have {{sfnref}}. It creates a CITEREF anchor that does not rely on the content of the various parameters in a CS1 template. I recommend it over doing what you are doing so that the citations' COinS metadata aren't corrupted.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. I was in the midst of editing, adding cites and testing each new and random old cite behavior so maybe I was seeing something that wasn't there. Clicks on the reference were not highlighting the full cite in that test and then I saw completely different cite formats. What happens when one assumes! "Bending the usual rules" may have solved a problem and indeed I may like it better than my work around. When I am doing something from scratch or taking a stub with one cite, like so many of those DANFS copies, I like the order of having all cites in one location in case of dead links and other fixes rather than searching text for the in line cites. Further, the shorter, more formatted sfn references make for easier editing than a huge citation block that can look a lot like text. A lot of my references are large documents, so having the document with page= in the sfn rather than main citation is a huge advantage, as it is with multiple bits from one issue of a newspaper. The problem is with periodicals and newspapers where articles and stories are not attributed to a unique author that is required in sfn last=|year= operation. Your change may be the way out of that problem. Thanks. May test & try in the still short Monroe page that besides the wreck probably has little to add. Palmeira (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A Small Help Request Pls[edit]

Dear There, I could see that you have done a good number of Lua modules here. We have a small issue in Malayalam Wikipedia (ml:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation) where we are not able to accommodate the Malayalam literal for Gregorian calendar month names to the Citation. The dates are coming as not recognized. I was testing something in these lines in one of the testing Lua Modules ml:s:Module:TestingModule. It seemed that the String Matching works only for the English Letters. Can you please help to see if any other way around this problem? Can you please advice? Any help is much appreciated! and Hope it will not be much of a trouble for you. Thanks --Manuspanicker (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For unicode characters you can try using something like mw.ustring.match (date_string, "^%d%d %a+ %d%d%d%d$")
The documentation for mw.ustring.match is here.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I will try that and see. :) Thank you once again.--Manuspanicker (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)