User talk:Andrewa

G'day! This is Andrew Alder's user talk page, you knew that. Welcome!

If you're tempted to go below the top three levels, you might like to read User:Andrewa/How not to rant first

Psalm 150 (paraphrased)

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

List of current IPL team rosters listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of current IPL team rosters. Since you had some involvement with the List of current IPL team rosters redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).

Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources

As I noticed you on the talk page, please check this out and let me know what you think.

2012 Yale University systematic review and Harmonization

A Yale University review published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology analyzing CO2 life cycle assessment emissions from nuclear power determined that.

"The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies."

It went on to note that for the most common category of reactors, the Light water reactor:

"Harmonization decreased the median estimate for all LWR technology categories so that the medians of BWRs, PWRs, and all LWRs are similar, at approximately 12 g CO2-eq/kWh"

The study noted that differences between emissions scenarios were:

"The electric system was dominated by nuclear (or renewables) and a system dominated by coal can result in a fairly large ranging (from 4 to 22 g CO2-eq/kWh) compared to (30 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh), respectively."

The study predicted that depending on a number of variables, including how carbon intensive the electricity supply was in the future, and the quality of Uranium ore:

"median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050."

Merger Proposal

You've got mail

Hello, Andrewa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Road Case/Flight case merge

Agreed. I think that someone looking for encyclopaedic information on this topic would not differentiate between a flight or road case and would want all the information available in one article. Indeed, it would make Wikipedia more concise to merge. A visitor may not know there's any difference anyway, and not look for the other article at all.

What is the procedure for getting a merge to happen once it's been flagged on a talk page?Black Stripe (talk) 14 July 2013.

Cuban missile crisis or Cuban Missile Crisis

There is currently another vote taking place on the talk page of Cuban missile crisis whether to recapitalize the name or keep it in lowercase. You participated in the 2012 vote, and may want to voice an opinion or comment on this one. I'm writing this to the voters from 2012 who may not know about this vote. Randy Kryn 19:04 13 January, 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Andrewa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paracas culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cerro Colorado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Page hits

I notice your dislike for the page view stats, particular with regards to RM discussions. I'm very dubious of them as well. I think there is the potential to gather data to demonstrate the fallacy around relying on them. I did a small experiment with Plymouth during/after the last RM on that topic, which seemed to show near zero harm from having the "wrong" title at the base name. I can discuss that further with you, and thrash out ideas for other experiments, if you are interested. If so, on the talk of your Page View essay?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My dislike is for the misuse of page view stats. They do have some use, but in my experience like all statistics they are generally misunderstood and therefore misquoted by all but the specialists in the field, and often also by the specialists! Your contributions on the talk page would be very welcome. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The big problem being "A has more than B, therefore A is primary" (and similar crude arguments)?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably the biggest problem, yes, but even A has ten times as many as B so A is primary is not always the full story, see the examples section.

See also User talk:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views#Empirical evidence. Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And the reverse is true as well of course (eg B+C > A, so A not primary). I've described my little experiment there now. :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My test: does everyone who knows of B also know of A? If yes, then A may be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; if no, then definitely not. For a recent example, see Talk:Poppy#Requested move from Poppy (disambiguation) to Poppy, which got WP:SNOWed. Narky Blert (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That's an excellent test IMO, and should be included in the guideline. It might have reversed NYRM2016, assuming that there were no as-yet-undisclosed COIs involved (the whole thing still really stinks IMO). And it's got more teeth than are at first obvious... It would confirm base name DABs at Corvette and Other, almost trivially. But I suspect it's too sweeping to get up! It's almost as good as abolishing PT.

The RM is good for a laugh and a cry. Love the image. Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I remember New York and Other (both 2017). I hadn't come across Corvette (2018). I'm thinking of posting once I've read the new and the old discussions.

I've nodded sagely at some of your comments in RM discussions. We seem to have similar views on overuse of PT. One factor worth bearing in mind: WP:DPL is on the way to becoming a maintenance task (see WP:TDD Table 1); so that major link-breaking moves may in future cause fewer outbursts of profanity.

There's a related problem in WP:FIXDABLINKS. It's grossly unfair to require an RM closer to single-handedly fix all the links after a major move. It's also unfair to dump the whole problem onto WP:DPL (some of whose members are also admins). My suggestion: the closer should invite the !support voters to lend a hand. They are likely to know the topic, and so find it easier to fix the links than WP:DPL generalists.

I too thought the poppy pic excellently-chosen. Narky Blert (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree.

Particularly agree that It's grossly unfair to require an RM closer to single-handedly fix all the links after a major move. Frankly, sometimes I just don't. I always have a look, and have occasionally posted lists of links that might need fixing if I didn't have time to look at them, taken before the move(s) removed the chance to use What links here to find them and pasted into the wiki.

But if it's a choice of doing that or leaving an RM which has a clear consensus in a large backlog (which hasn't been common lately, thankfully) and which requires a lot of admin-only work even without fixing the links, I do sometimes do the move(s) and leave the link-fixing to the Wikignomes.

And I have in such circumstances pinged some or even all of the supporters. I do always Wikilink to any saved list(s) of incoming links from my closing comments. But not for a while. And one of the pinged supporters once (only, so far) threatened me with de-sysop action for doing it, but they took it no further AFAIK. It's in my talk page archives somewhere, from memory. Andrewa (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:FIXDABLINKS is both idealistic and unrealistic.

"Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links and repair them."

How? By creating a thousand or so redlinks to a page which doesn't exist yet? Narky Blert (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. But This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (my emphasis)

The goal is to write the best possible encyclopedia, which doesn't mean writing a perfect rulebook, see User:Andrewa/Rules, rules, rules. Maybe we can improve on that one, but it's not my top priority right now. Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere near my top priority, either. Whatever gets the job done, i.e. helps readers. Robert Watson-Watt's motto (needs sourcing) – "Second best tomorrow".

(The day I broke 250+ links by a move creating a DAB page in violation of WP:FIXDABLINKS but complying with WP:IAR was (of course!) the same day that some BoN clown vandalised Wiki and landed me with an IP {{block}} which took me a couple of hours to get lifted while I was in the middle of fixing those links.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Never a dull moment. Andrewa (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The 'what readers type in the search box' test is overstated in my view. My theory is that most users come to articles through Google, which already shows them disambiguators and takes them straight to the right article. And of those who do start typing into The WP search box, many will click on an article from the drop down rather than ending up on a dab page. Page view stats tend to mostly corroborate this theory I think.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)title,

Exactly. See User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#Easier searching, which applies both to Google, DuckDuckGo etc and to the Wikipedia search box. Andrewa (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think we've had that discussion before, and I wouldn't personally go that far, at least not while the format of article titles is "Page name (disambiguator)". It just opens up cans of worms about which exact disambiguator is used (see Talk:Sarah Jane Brown for exactly such a long-winded debate), which in most cases is unnecessary. I don't know what percentage of our article titles have to be disambiguated against some other title, but I reckon it's small. The vast majority are just straight titles, with only one topic, and thinking up disambiguators for each and every one would be a mammoth task. That said though, Britannica online does do exactly that, through the "subtitles" system. Every article uses it's main name, but there's a subtitle in smaller text below, explaining in a bit more detail about it. That serves as disambiguator too, and looks neater on the page than putting parentheses after the title.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, I think there's a major misunderstanding there that might explain a lot. The vast majority are just straight titles, with only one topic, and thinking up disambiguators for each and every one would be a mammoth task. I never meant to suggest that (or if I did it was a bit of a brainsnap that I will happily revoke). If a straight title is unambiguous, then there is no need to disambiguate it. Agreed.

Where did you get the idea that I was proposing such a thing? Because I've obviously been very misleading there, and I'm very eager to clarify it. And it might explain some of our past discussions! Andrewa (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see, whoa accepted. Thanks for clarifying and sorry, perhaps I was being dense as well in thinking you meant that. Well that makes some sense then. I probably still do like primary topics myself notwithstanding that though, but I can see where you're coming from, at least we only have to think of disambiguators for a smaller number of articles then. Michael Jackson (American singer) for example...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I wonder, are there others who think that's what I'm suggestin? How can I clarify things?

Michael Jackson (singer-songwriter) would be my choice, and I've just created it see its talk. But in a way I'm cutting my own throat by doing so... such redirects would remove one of the justifications for abolishing PT. But they also suggest a better way of implementing the change if it ever does gain consensus... Yeah I know, pulled by a team of flying pigs... Andrewa (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Small group (Christianity) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Small group (Christianity). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Mount Macedon Memorial Cross

I've tried egging on a Melburnian friend to write this needed article (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Mount Macedon Memorial Cross), but doubt he ever will. I think an Aussie should write it – not me, nor any other Pom. There's some stubby info in Mount Macedon and Mount Macedon, Victoria. Is this within your area of interest, or do you know of another editor to pass the task on to? Narky Blert (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been there but didn't take any photos... emotional experience as it was possibly the first memorial in Australia to explicitly mention my age-mates who died (521 in all, mostly of my age) in the Vietnam War, which in Australia was politically denied to be a war of course and returned servicemen were for example denied the right to march on Anzac Day but were given tax concessions as having served in a war zone. Still a political mess here! I've boldly redirected Mount Macedon Memorial Cross to one of the sections you mentioned. Better than nothing IMO. See its talk. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added {{R with possibilities}}. Narky Blert (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, should have done that myself! Andrewa (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the English Wikipedia • Subscription list for the multilingual edition

Did you know?

Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?

Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.

If you enable the Beta Feature for "⧼visualeditor-preference-visualdiffpage-label⧽", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence. An arrow indicates that the paragraph changed location.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

• The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments. They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing. The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January. Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor. Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits. More information will be posted at mw:Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
• The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs". The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges. [1]
• Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor. [2]
• The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. This tool has been used at the English Wikipedia for a long time. It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be tricky for admins to set up. Other wikis can have this service, too. Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.

Let's work together

• The team is planning a presentation about editing tools for an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
• Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
• The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. This has already been enabled at the English Wikipedia. If you want columns for a long list of footnotes on this wiki, you can use either <references /> or the plain (no parameters) {{reflist}} template. If you edit a different wiki, you can request multi-column support for your wiki. [3]
• If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

—User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

An excellent panel close

TonyBallioni, SkyWarrior and Primefac, you have just completely torpedoed my belief that panel closes are not a good idea. The close at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move 8 February 2018 is excellent. And I hope and believe I'm not just saying that because I happen to partly agree with the result... in fact I'm very disappointed that it's a no consensus close, but that is your call entirely and you've made it well. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. I too was disappointed that it was a no consensus result, however I agree that was the best reading of the discussion. I consider a "rough consensus to not move" could have been read by a reasonable closer, but there is no substance to the difference. I was disappointed that the options born and nee, which in my opinion were perfectly satisfactory options, were not broadly supported, but that's how it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • To me rough consensus not to move is a significantly different decision to no consensus. I'd have been a lot happier with it! No consensus is never a good or stable situation. The two decisions have the same immediate result, but that's where the similarity ends. Andrewa (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    • True, that a consensus to not move would have been a cleaner result, but I'll disagree that "No consensus is never a good or stable situation". It is a good decision if it is the correct decision. Stable? The decision will be stable if proponents respect the decision. I argued for a moratorium until something significant changes. I think if we asked everyone: "Shall we leave the page titled as it is, subject only to something significant", I think consensus will be "yes". Finding consensus can mean altering the question to make it easier for everyone to answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I think we need to disagree on this. To say It is a good decision if it is the correct decision just begs the question; Of course it is! But it's a correct close only because we sometimes fail to reach consensus. It's always best to avoid this, but not always possible, because we are human and all fallible.
      • It's just a matter of which words we choose to describe it, but that can be very important, as your discussion of how the question is asked seems to indicate too. And I'm deliberately choosing very different words. Andrewa (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Muddy waters

Muddy the waters redirecting to poisoning the well is unfortunate, as the article title has a clear negative POV, whereas "muddying the waters" is more neutral. Others putting information forward in anticipation of a request by B2C may help or hinder the reception of his request. Whether helping or hindering, I think it is bad, because it makes it more difficult for B2C to take full responsibility whatever he does. I think if anyone wants to give him advice, they should do it privately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, SmokeyJoe, but in linking to that article (title and all) you perhaps expressed yourself extremely badly, and if so I'd suggest you clarify that on the relevant page. Poisoning the well has, as you say, an extremely negative connotation, and could be taken as an uncalled-for insult by those of us who have participated. On the other hand, if the comments discourage B2C and/or that is the intent, that would indeed be poisoning the well.

I think if anyone wants to give him advice, they should do it privately. I agree to a point. But where do we draw the line? Which posts exactly do you find unhelpful?

I have made four recent recent edits to the page in question, one of them minor... three posts in all. This was the first, and I think it was entirely appropriate. Any problems there?

Then came this, replying to you. I guess you disagree with it. Is the problem just that you wanted the last word?

This is the most recent. I guess you disagree with it too, and you have a right to say that... just as I have a right to say things with which you disagree.

Or if my posts were OK except that I (twice at least) encouraged others to post things that weren't helpful, which posts (by others) do you find unhelpful?

Have a look at this reply to my earlier post on B2C's talk page. B2C can be quite reasonable. An indeff was the call and we run with it. But it will be a great pity if it becomes permanent, and the closer explicitly suggested it might not be. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Posts of general support or sympathy would be fine. The posts that are decidedly unhelpful to him would the the ones speculating on how he might negotiate an unblock. Also unhelpful or at least unkind are posts that respond to, that counter, a hypothetical appeal that he might make. I don't call your posts unhelpful, I disagree with a particular point, that most of the other posts are helpful and to be encouraged. Openly speculating on what he might do on his talk page is, in my opinion, not helpful to him reflecting on what was said at WP:AE. Consider my post to be measured response to some of the encouraging comments. I see DB wrote "Not a single person has requested he simply stay blocked". Is that a challenge for the several posters at WP:AE, including me, to write on his talk page, in anticipation of an unblock request, that his remaining blocked is perfectly satisfactory and that we are disinclined to believe any promises? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point I think but it may be overreacting. You're guessing what he might find helpful, and that's always dangerous. I fear that I might have more in common with B2C than you do (which may not be a good thing) and in his position I think I'd find others telegraphing their intentions helpful, although like getting shot at it's hard to tell how you'll react until it happens, and I hope not to find out! Andrewa (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Overreacting? I made one post because I think some discouragement of speculation on his talk page was appropriate. Am I putting too much effort into explaining little things? Sometimes, I find it takes a lot more effort to explain something not that important, and not clear cut, as compared to explaining something important. Also partly, you are good to chat with. I don't think I am guessing what he mind find helpful, instead I think he has to make a big decision, and others laying out paths robs him of the change to make the decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In B2C's position, I think I would find such comments helpful in general. I hope I would read them eventually, but take an enforced Wikibreak (but nowhere near two years) to consider whether I really found Wikipedia rewarding enough to attempt a comeback. Whether or not I were considering such, I hope I would lurk as a reader in the meantime. Then I'd ask to be unblocked in a very small way, maybe on condition of editing article talk pages only, three posts from me maximum per thread and no RMs, something like that. A new direction, as someone else said. If this worked, sometime later (and probably after the two years) I'd ask for a completely unconditional unblock, acknowledging that I'd always be under extra but non-specific scrutiny for any sort of disruption, and I think I'd then get it. But I would have changed, and the community would have changed.

It is, as you say, a big decision. I think you and I would we would approach it in different ways, and perhaps B2C will approach it in still a third way and we'll both be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)