User talk:RexxS: Difference between revisions

Would you know where to shut down references in the {{Infobox person}}? I would need this in sl.wikisource, where they are not needed (see sl:s:Harriet Beecher Stowe). --Janezdrilc (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Janezdrilc: Unfortunately, I don't speak Slovene, but I've tried to figure out where the references came from. As far as I can tell, the sl:s:Modul:Wikidata adds references by default when the formatStatements function is invoked. You can turn them off by supplying |references=false in that invocation.

(Step 1) That would need an edit to sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata and each of the derivatives: sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p106, sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p109, sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p18, sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p19, sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p20, sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p27, sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p569, sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p570, and sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p856 to add a parameter like this: |references={{{references|}}}.

(Step 2) Once that is done, you would next edit sl:s:Predloga:Infopolje Oseba to add |references={{{references|}}} to each use of {{wikidata ...

(Step 3) Then you edit sl:s:Predloga:Avtor to add |references={{{references|}}} to the line below {{Infopolje Oseba.

(Step 4) Finally in a page like sl:s:Harriet Beecher Stowe, you can add |references=false in order to turn off references for that article.

Optionally, if you know that you want to turn off references for every instance of sl:s:Predloga:Infopolje Oseba, you just use |references=false in Step 2, and forget about steps 3 & 4.

Sorry that is complex, but that seems to be the chain of calls on Slovene Wikisource. Let me know if there's anything more I can do. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It works fantastic (I skipped step 3 and 4)! Still, places of birth and death are showing references (sl:s:Harriet Beecher Stowe). Is there something missing in sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p19 and sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p20? --Janezdrilc (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Janezdrilc: unfortunately, your version of sl:s:Modul:Wikidata doesn't actually suppress the references unless they are called via formatStatementDefault, which those templates don't use. There's also a problem that the module treats |parameter= (i.e. empty) as if it were false, but allows an omitted parameter to have a default value. In infoboxes |parameter= really needs to work the same as when parameter is omitted.

Anyway, I've made a modified version in sl:s:Modul:Wikidata/sandbox and briefly tested it by pasting

{{#invoke:Wikidata/sandbox|formatStatements|property=p19|claim-module=Wikidata/Places|claim-function=formatPlaceWithQualifiers|value=|conjunction=, |plain=|references=false}}

into sl:s:Harriet Beecher Stowe previewing it. Changing it to |references=true or |references= or omitting |references shows the references. There's still one linked superscript, but you can suppress that by setting |plain=true. See if that works for you. --RexxS (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I copied your sandbox version into the Module:Wikidata. Now the infobox doesn't show reference superscripts as wanted, but references appeared back again in the article. --Janezdrilc (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Janezdrilc: I created sl:s:Predloga:Avtor/peskovnik, sl:s:Predloga:Infopolje Oseba/peskovnik, sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p19peskovnik, and sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata/p20peskovnik. Each one calls the sandbox version of the others and eventually sl:s:Modul:Wikidata/sandbox. I haven't included sl:s:Predloga:Wikidata as it's not being called from sl:s:Harriet Beecher Stowe at present. Anyway, once I used sl:s:Predloga:Avtor/peskovnik in sl:s:Harriet Beecher Stowe, the references disappeared. It seems that the other calls rely on the difference in behaviour of parameters when they are empty and when omitted. Oh well. I've now restored the original behaviour of the parameter parsing and just implemented turning off references when |references=false. Check sl:s:Harriet Beecher Stowe now and perhaps try some others to see if the fix works everywhere. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A huge thank you for your effort. It's so much better now I "dis-introduced" infobox references on sl.wikiquote too. Since only Wikipedia deals with biographic facts I supposed other sister projects really don't need this unnecessary "notes". Thanks again. --Janezdrilc (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Module:String2

Module:String2 has been nominated for merging with Module:String. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Module:URLWD

Module:URLWD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moar sigs

Hello big dino, assistance requested as usual! Bishonen wrote something to a user called @Levivich: and I noticed his fine broken-off sig, and copied for myself. Can be seen at the bottom of User:Bishonen/Sigs. With less rotation than original, because bish is longer than ich and perhaps might push down into the next line. Now the problem is I wanted to also insert iconic darwincolors, red and lime as in my current sig, but it got very complicated. Dino help? PS, bad people deleting dino's modules? Want me to wander over and bite them? darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 17:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Done can be changed easy. Small makeover remove naughty font tags before RedRose64 see them. People OK, just hard merge-module when admin delete it before merge happen. --T-RexxS (rawr) 18:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you helpful dino! Easy to change colors now — good thing, because red + lime turned out surprisingly ugly! I'm borrowing great zilla's color scheme instead, for now. Tried and tested, that. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 19:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hehe, new sig activated! Pretty! darwin bish 21:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Ahnentafel

Hi, any thoughts regarding use of {{Ahnentafel}} from an accessibility point of view? Especially for mobile reading and in a default collapsed state? I've seen someone using it a fair bit recently on Indian articles and have several issues with its use, of which a gut feeling about accessibility is one. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush, hope you're well and not overdoing it! The template doesn't work for anyone using a screen reader, although it's okay on mobile as it's rendered uncollapsed. I've given a more detailed commentary at Talk:Bhagwant Das #Ancestry section. HTH --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Even the scrolling was an issue on my mobile but that may be because of impatience. I've had 3 friends die on me in 4 days and am probably reeling a bit. - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Official website

Hi. This change seems to have broken Template:Official website. Nick Number (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second edit seems to have fixed it. Thanks. Nick Number (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick Number for the quick notification. I wish we had a transparent way of knowing what modules are dependant on a given module, so I could check those as a matter of course when I implement changes. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Credit to TarkusAB on Discord for finding the module causing the issue. Nick Number (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Module:Linguistic

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Module:Linguistic, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pppery, the demodulator 22:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Prior" consensus to infobox on FLT

From a bureaucratic POV, void of any context, you are correct in claiming the right of adding that box, but I want to inform you about a previous held discussion at the TP of Project Math, inclined to "not using this box". Even setting aside this fact, I am convinced of my right to revert the addition, and to require a discussion for reaching a consensus on the article's TP. Upsetting the BRD-process for my not explicit referral to a discussion elsewhere seems wrong under any circumstances (even your deterrent "welcome"). Purgy (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) there are good and bad aspects in WP:BRD. I works when you can revert something bizarre ("bold") and demand discussion. Adding an infobox, however, is not bizarre but a quite common edit, so doesn't even fall under that guideline. You can spread this news, because it's ignored often. To demand that such a normal edit be discussed before making it (which you can find in many composers' articles as a hidden notice) borders the absurd and is not compatible with collaborative editing, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Purgy Purgatorio: I'm sorry, but I don't recognise the right of any WikiProject to make content decisions that are binding on editors, and neither does the community as evidenced by WP:CONLOCAL:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

The relevant community-wide guideline is MOS:INFOBOXUSE:

"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

That has been affirmed as a finding by ArbCom, and you breach that at your peril. Therefore I insist that where no prior consensus exists in a particular article on whether it should have an infobox or not, then it is not reasonable to revert the addition of an infobox without addressing the actual issue of having an infobox. Certainly, it is not within policy to try to insist that the addition of an infobox can be reverted merely because nobody has discussed it previously.

Your right to revert depends not upon your whim, but on your mustering of reasonable arguments to support the reversion. Your revert with edit summary "I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so" is a perfect example of an revert without foundation. You have no right to demand "established consensus" before an edit, where no previous consensus exists.

I'm going to suggest that you acquaint yourself with WP:ARBINFOBOX2 #Remedies, in particular that discretionary sanctions are in force on discussions concerning infoboxes, and I'll drop an alert on your talk page as a formal reminder. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here.

What is a systematic review?

Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.

Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help?

File:Schittny, Facing East, 2011, Legacy Projects.jpg

2011 photograph by Bernard Schittny of the "Legacy Projects" group

Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen.

Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.

Links

Evidence-Based Practice: Appraise, resources page from Duke University Medical Library & Archives.
What should Cochrane do next?, Bad Science blogpost 5 November 2014, Ben Goldacre.
Cambridge (UK) Science Festival event, How do scientific discoveries become clinical medicine?, ScienceSource workshop for ContentMine 23 March 2019, with systematic review process diagram. Also on Eventbrite for tickets, taking place in Makespace, 16 Mill Lane.
PROSPERO database of PRISMA, for registration of systematic review protocols.
Process wonkery thread, wikien-l mailing list, September 2006.
Meta-Analysis, xkcd cartoon.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we thank you

Thank you for article improvements in February, and analytical explanations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox biosphere reserve

Template:Infobox biosphere reserve has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plain text

Re [1], that edit arose from this AT discussion, in which an editor was confused by the term "plain text". They made a fair case that it's somewhat ambiguous. The meaning of the term there doesn't seem to bear much connection to Plain text. You and I know what the guideline means—we have a thorough understanding of the rationale for it—but it needs to be written for those who don't have that understanding. While I take your point, I'm unconvinced that "plain text" is the lesser evil. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mandruss. My perspective on which is the lesser evil is skewed by more than one experience of editors who won't accept that text in infoboxes is "already reduced". If the guidance were changed to that, we'd have twice as many uphill struggles to uphold the guidance. I also don't like "plain text" and have opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Font size wording to see if anybody can come up with something better. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of two functions from Module:String on the main page

Hi Rexxs. Regarding this discussion. It appears that {{str endswith}} is not being called directly from the main page. (At least I couldn't find it there). If it's being called indirectly through something else, doesn't that make your plan more difficult? You would then need to duplicate all the entities in the call chain leading to Module:String, in order to keep alive a special version of Module:String that wouldn't be included in the cascade protection of the main page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: That template is Template:Main page image, I think, in both cases. Also note that {{str endswith}} doesn't currently use Module:String, but instead has a closed-but-not-implemented yet tfd to merge it into Module:String. Also, even if it weren't used on the main page, it would still need to be fully-protected by virtue of its use in Template:No article text and therefore the system messages that depend on it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: we tend to use string templates as wrappers these days and put all of the functionality into the string module. The wrapper makes the functionality more user-friendly for the average editor, but isn't actually needed here because we could directly call the function in the module from Template:Main page image (ironically, a template whose protection-level is 'template editor', which cannot be edited by template editors). As a concrete example, calling {{#invoke:String-mainpage|match|s={{if empty|{{{width|}}}|120}}|^%d*|ignore_errors=true}} – where Module:String-mainpage is the theoretical main page version of String – instead of {{str number/trim|{{if empty|{{{width|}}}|120}}}} within Template:Main page image would be more efficient, would reduce template expansion depth and would make it clearer what is being called. None of that is vital, of course, but might be worthwhile if we looking at tidying up template usage. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You jarring swag-bellied miscreant

Rex, you remember the Shakespeare insult generator? User:Darwinbish/insultspout. A thing of beauty, originally, but not so much since something was changed in the way the site works which makes it necessary to click an extra time to clear the fucken cache. I think I complained at the time, and you said nothing could be done. But, really? Still nothing? Might there be a way to reconfigure it so that the cache-clearing is done as an action from inside the generator? If I'm making myself clear at all. It really is a pity. 😢 Bishonen | talk 10:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I've not been able to figure out a way, Chère. You are clear in what you're saying, but it can't be a solution. Any purge call originating from inside wikitext (the bit we can edit, anyway) is trapped by the MediaWiki software at a level higher than we have access to. If you have the little clock thingy enabled in your personal bar, that also does a purge, but from outside the wikitext, so it doesn't get trapped. We just can't get to that level from clicking something inside the main bit of the wikipage as far as I can see. Maybe one of the talk page watchers will come up with a stroke of ingenuity that can do the job? --RexxS (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's hope for them, and thanks for figuring. Talkpage stalkers ahoy! You rank common-kissing clotpoles! Anybody? @Johnuniq: ? Bishonen | talk 13:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You cannot skip the extra step without using Javascript, which is what the clock Gadget does (it auto submits the form that would otherwise be required). --Izno (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Izno, and of course we have no way of ensuring that every reader has the bit of JavaScript to do an auto-submission just for the insult spout. I somehow doubt we're gong to convince the gatekeepers to add it to MediaWiki:Common.js.

OK, so I just realized that if I click the clock, instead of clicking the indicated here button in Darwinbish's text, the new insults are generated without fuss. Like you guys have been trying to tell me. ;-) But then, the problem isn't that I need a smoother way to get new insults; it's that I want other people to be able to. So as soon as everybody installs the clock, DB can simply tell them to click on that.. yeah.. IOW, it's hopeless. 😱 Bishonen | talk 15:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe mighty 'Zilla make all little readers install clocky thing? --T-RexxS (rawr) 15:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the query string parameter action=purge the default is to request confirmation, and has been since about May 2016, see phab:T135170. Two gadgets that provide a purge link ("^(S) Add a clock to the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC and provides a link to purge the current page (documentation)" and "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache") were amended not long after so that confirmation step would be skipped. See history of mw:MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-purgetab.js to find out how they did it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I coded a user script a while back to remove the extra confirmation step on purge links. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know Bishonen didn't come here for a gobbledegook lecture, but the reason it is no longer possible to purge a page with a simple click is to avoid denial-of-service attacks on the servers. If we could construct a link that purges a page, the URL of that link could be copied to a troll website where hundreds of people would click it multiple times. That would use a lot of server resources. Therefore, there is now a need to click a confirmation link, or use a script. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Thank you, all. Darwinbish is disappointed, and you know what she's like when she's disappointed, But she understands. Bishonen | talk 04:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

No I don't !!!!! 👿 darwin bish 04:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 I know Bishonen didn't come here for a gobbledegook lecture, but the reason it is no longer possible to purge a page with a simple click is to avoid denial-of-service attacks on the servers. If we could construct a link that purges a page, the URL of that link could be copied to a troll website where hundreds of people would click it multiple times. That would use a lot of server resources. Therefore, there is now a need to click a confirmation link, or use a script. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 02:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 :OK, I see. Thank you, all. Darwinbish is disappointed, and you know what she's like when she's disappointed, But she understands. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 04:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC).
+::No I ''don't !!!!!'' 👿 [[User:Darwinbish|<b style="color:#0FF;">darwin</b>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:Darwinbish|<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(20deg);position:relative;bottom:-.4em;color:#E0E;">bish</span>]] 04:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC).