User talk:Lfdder/old

Criticism of NTSB by ALPA

Please come to Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Criticism_of_NTSB_by_ALPA to voice your opposition to removing this controversy from the crash article. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

{{IPAsym}} first

As you know, I appreciate your contribution in this. On the other hand, in trying to catch all these IPA tempates in one, I cannot support you. I suggest we (you):

• Strive to live for {{IPAsym}}

Which needs: finalise the error handling

• Later on, atop of that live module: {{IPAlink}}, {{IPAblink}}, {{IPAalink}}, {{IPAslink}}, {{IPAsoundbox}}, {{IPAsoundfile}}, &tc. It cannot be done in one change. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we replace everything at once. I just got a little carried away coding for the future. — Lfdder (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A great topic it is! Let's proceeed as suggested. Will work well, maybe days not hours. -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So we do {{IPAsym}} → {{IPA symbol}} first. Whatever the cost. Might take a day. -DePiep (talk)

Don't get disappointed! It may take time, but we are building a great meta module. The meta-module to serve all other templates. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward to a bit of innovation after this part of it is live. — Lfdder (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Current sub-templates (templates that use {{IPAsym}}) are spaghetti coded in wikicode (by, including, me). But hey, that was wikicode. These weeks we work for a good metamodule in this. After this one gone live, we can feed the children templates with a parent. Just for encouragement. -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

{{infobox language family}}

Could you update the template for SIL links? I don't really have time now to figure it out. (See my last edit for what I have in mind.)

Originally, SIL family codes began w 17- for E17, or ended in -16 for E16. I wrote it to link to E17 in the first case, and to E16 in all other cases, as well as auto-cat so that I could see where the out-of-date links were. After updating the articles, there are 3 remaining infoboxes which link to E16, which is fine because those nodes were abandoned in E17. However, E17 has now changed their format: Now the node URLs are the family name rather than a number, and the superior page has changed. So, we need to link to E16 if the SIL entry ends in -16, to the old E17 address if it begins with 17-, and to the new E17 address otherwise. (The old E17 format should probably be retained for when E18 comes out and these pages are archived.)

(While you're at it, you can restrict E16 links to a single field, since multiple field were meant to covers errors at Ethnologue, and there's no longer any reason to link to E16 errors in our info boxes.)

See Category:Language families with old SIL links. There should only be three entries there; Caspian languages should link to the new E17 address and not trigger the cat.

Thanks, if you have the time. — kwami (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

After a long and arduous battle with wikicode I think I've got it working. — Lfdder (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Are silnote, silname, sil2, sil3 used/needed? silname is shown in place of the code which I don't think is desirable? Maybe merge silname with silnote? — Lfdder (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time with that! I know what a headache it can be.

Ethnologue has long had problems with its trees, which are auto-generated. I've found language families split up into as many as three nodes, usually because different language articles use different spellings (or sometimes names), but sometimes because different families got mixed up. Most of these problems in e16 have been repaired in e17, but it's possible that new errors have been introduced. SILname and SILnote performed different functions: the first giving the names of the various nodes, and the second other explanations, such as warning that the node contains languages which don't belong to the family. To see if they are still used (they may not be) I'd add a temporary tracking category, but I don't know if they'll be needed for e18. We don't need them for E16 links, where it looks like you retained them, as I can't think of any reason we'd want to point out errors in the old edition: the purpose was merely to help the reader navigate the current edition. — kwami (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, will just leave them all in then except for e16. — Lfdder (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

When I enter "?" under "speakers", it no longer produced "(unknown)". It did until a few days ago. Yet I can't see any recent edits that would have affected that. Can you see anything? — kwami (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you mean infobox language? — Lfdder (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be it doesn't work when |date= is set to 'na'. — Lfdder (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Weild. I've added that to the doc. — kwami (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 331

Please see the talk page for the reasons why the tag is appropriate. LGA _talk^edits 01:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet table

Hi. Regarding User:GeorgianJorjadze's editing of the Georgian alphabet article, he's attempting to create a table with information about all three (historical and modern) Georgian alphabets. This was in response to a discussion at WP:TFD about the usefulness of an existing template which contains all three Georgian alphabets but doesn't include any explanation of them. I realize there may be some short-term issues here while GJ is trying to make a new table — but if you would be willing to be patient, or perhaps even get involved with the TFD discussion and/or the creation of a new, unified table, I believe the net result will be an improvement to the article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The new table doesn't belong under 'Transcription'. I would suggest to ask on the article's talk page about how it could be integrated. — Lfdder (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Actually, I think GJ still needs to do some more work on the template before it's ready for prime time — and I've said so in a message on his talk page. As for where the info (whether it stays in a template, or gets put directly in the Georgian alphabet article, since that's probably the only place it'll be used) should be placed in the article, I do think it belongs farther up in the article. Originally, the big thing about the existing table was to highlight the various, contradictory transcription schemes that have been used for Georgian; if the table is going to be expanded to be more of an all-inclusive thing, it should definitely go somewhere else rather than in a section called "Transcription". But I think the most important thing right now is for the new table to be cleaned and polished as a separate entity (such as in a template that, temporarily, isn't being used in any article) — and later, once it's ready, we can add it gracefully into the article. You appear to have more experience working with templates than I do; does what I'm suggesting here sound reasonable to you? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

'What does that mean?'

I've completely forgotten the context. Could you link the comment to which you're responding? Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I still don't think that they should be deleted — superseded or obsolete template components are useful for page histories, since without them some old revisions of pages would be more understandable than they would be if I deleted them. Moreover, I see no way in which these old subpages are causing problems; it's not as if they're getting in the way. Of course, if you can show me that they're causing problems, I'll reconsider. You could take them to TFD, but right now I'd still suggest that we just leave them alone. Finally, please note that I'm about to leave the house and won't have Internet access until tonight my time (it's right about 9AM for me right now) or perhaps not until tomorrow, so I won't be able to give you a quick reply. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Template components that were once useful are not cruft, and your response makes my response more certain: this is not a simple housekeeping request, so you must send them to TFD, where I will oppose deletion if I get the chance. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Undid my Edit Without Comment. Why?

Why did you undo my edit without comment in the reason? This is unacceptable and you know it. I say again, and demand to know why you did this as you did not take the time nor show any courtesy to a contributor and all that may consider the history of this edit. I get the sense there is a Wikipedia mafia as my original edit years ago went unchallenged until now. The truth is the truth not matter how outrageous. I provided direct citation that you entirely ignored. Please read the article talk page for my comment regarding this. I am left to highly suspect that those that are undoing my edits are gaming Wikipedia policy to silence and censor the truth. Please prove me wrong. I really want to be wrong on this and would prefer to eat my words, but the evidence is way too strong.MelvinPS (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh

User:BijoyChakrabarty has repeatedly violated 3RR in the past few days. He removed an important link to the Partition of India, kept on repeating links to East Bengal in the same sentences, removed the point about geographical separation between East and West Pakistan, reinserted unreferenced info about secularism in Bangladesh being one of the first, and inappropriately rearranged sentences in the third para to suit his narrow interests. Here are the versions of his edits and mine.

Moreover the guy's user page professes what's considered by most people as a misguided nationalist agenda, something about "Greater Bangladesh" (and he's not even Bangladeshi!). He's frankly in huge conflict of interest, and you can't expect anything from neutral from the guy since the very reason he says he's on Wikipedia is to promote nationalism.--Bazaan (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The user Bazaan is trying to do WP:PA WP:BITE to me. and misconcepting me! বিজয় চক্রবর্তী (Bijoy Chokroborti) ✉ 08:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)