User talk:NSH001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


E-mail is enabled on my account, but before using it to contact me please be aware that:

  • I think that, on principle, all wiki communication should be open for all to see
  • Therefore if you send me an e-mail, you should assume that I will publish it on an appropriate talk page, in order to reply to it there
  • If you think there is a good reason to contact me, in confidence, by e-mail, you should first ask for my agreement not to publish it.
  • I will only agree to this for a very good reason, for example copyrighted material which cannot be freely published.

In any case, I am likely to respond more quickly to a request on my talk page than one by e-mail.

Don't worry if you want to send me an e-mail that has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia; if that is the case, then there is no reason why I should publish it here.

Oliver Kamm[edit]

I appreciate your comments on Oliver Kamm's talk page. Although I have other pressing tasks to attend at the moment, I'll eventually return to the discussion. Also, don't let TJive intimidate you. He's nothing but a bully. Sir Paul 06:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's ironic, though. I have long regarded Kamm as a pretentious fool who isn't worth a minute of anybody's time trying to read him -- which is why I've been reluctant to get drawn in. Yet I'm still wasting time on him...--NSH001 15:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation and referencing style[edit]

Introduction[edit]

Consensus at WPMED is to keep refs generally over one line. Please do not switch them to over many.[1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, I am thinking very long term here. Most larger wiki articles are effectively rendered uneditable by the presence of numerous long, horizontally formatted templates (LHTs); the only edits feasible on such pages are trivial changes such as spelling corrections, or automated edits where the script/bot doesn't care about the formatting. Of course this is just my opinion, but I do know several other editors share my dislike of long, horizontally formatted citation template clutter (LHT clutter). As well as making the wikitext unreadable, such templates also make it very difficult to find and correct errors in the citation templates, or indeed in anything else.
It doesn't surprise me that the Wikimedia Foundation finds it necessary to spend large sums on things like Visual Editor, given that the mess resulting from long, horizontally formatted templates makes directly editing wikitext so user-hostile. I want to see a wiki that is clear of all this clutter, but that is going to take several years to achieve. In the meantime I am effectively banned (without having commited any offence) from many, perhaps most, articles because of citation clutter. Hence I am (slowly) developing a private script to help in this task. I call the script "ETVP" for "Easy To Visually Parse", because wikitext should be nice and easy to read. I aim eventually to make it easy, using the ETVP script, to switch to short-form referencing, or to LDR, or to some combination of the two, or indeed to anything else that will reduce or eliminate citation clutter. It was not originally my intention to leave ETVP templates in-line, but when I first tried it I was surprised at how much more readable the wikitext became, so my current thinking is to retain it as an option (the main disadvantage appears to be that it is too easy to turn it back into horizontal formatting, as you have demonstrated!).
I am relaxed about not edit-warring with you on this, although I do think making the wikitext harder to read is irrational. Partly this is because the ETVP script is still a long way from being finished, but the main reason is that my focus is on the long-term, and edit warring on individual articles is of no benefit in that aim. I have always anticipated there will be some resistance to in-line ETVP templates, simply because people don't like change, or just get upset by unexpected change, or by anything surprising. I note that most WPMED articles are of a scientific or academic nature, where short-form referencing is the natural style. Once I've got the ETVP script working for that style, then I believe it could be very useful for the WPMED project.
--NSH001 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The majority of the editors at WPMED like the references over one horizontal line rather than over dozens of lines.
Yes there is a minority who like it over dozens of lines. I find having it over one horizontal line is easier to edit not harder.
What we need is an option / gadget so that those who want it over one line when they hit edit get it over one line and those who want it over many lines get it over many lines. That means win-win for everyone as everyone gets the way they find makes it easiest for them to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Look more carefully. ETVP is not "dozens of lines" (per cite). I think you might be referring to the (not very wonderful) "vertical" format that you get in the template documentation; even then (provided you eliminate the blank parameters), it rarely amounts to "dozens" of lines. The ETVP script has been carefully thought through to give you what it says on the tin: it uses the minimum number of lines and white space while still maintaining clarity. Roughly, items that logically belong together go on the same line, important items go at the top (title, authors) and references (for example, identifiers) go at the end (a bit like wikipedia article layout). The aim is to take advantage of the human visual system, which works orders of magnitude faster than the rest of the brain. This makes it very easy to spot errors, often instantly; in addition, you'll often spot errors you weren't even looking for in the first place. This is impossible to do if the template is strung out over two or more lines (by lines, I mean lines on the edit window, not the single line you're referring to), buried in a mass of other wikitext. I think one reason why cite templates are so badly infested with errors is precisely this difficulty of spotting errors in the horizontal layout. But what makes the horizontal layout even more annoying is the difficulty of spotting the beginning and end of the same template, especially if there are large numbers of horizontal cites buried within the same paragraph. With the ETVP format, the eye can again spot the beginning and end of a template instantly. So not only does the horizontal format make it difficult or impossible to spot errors in the cite templates, it also makes it difficult or impossible to follow the "flow" of the article text itself. To see this, try an experiment: (a) open in edit mode the version of the article before my edit, and try to read out loud the article text from the wikitext, then (b) do the same with the wikitext after my edit. Notice how much easier (b) is!
Take a look at Muhammad Najati Sidqi#References and Khazars#References. These are examples of the the work of the ETVP script on articles that were already using short-form referencing. Notice how easy and pleasant it is to read the citation templates there. Although I intend to implement LDR first, my aim (eventually) is to make it easy to switch articles to short-form referencing, with all templates in ETVP form. This is my preferred referencing style, and the most natural for scientific, technical and academic articles. But basically, the ETVP script will eventually let editors use any referencing style they like, as long as it doesn't involve long, horizontally formatted templates.
Note that ETVP is not the same as "vertical". Short templates are actually easier to visually parse if they are "scrunched up" (eliminating all unnecessary spaces) and kept on the same line. The ETVP script recognizes this, using a cut-off of 50 characters (this seems to work well so far, but it could be easily tweaked if necessary). Perhaps the fans of horizontal templates are aware of this, but then wrongly assume that it applies regardless of length. The general principle is that short templates are fine if they're kept on the same physical line, but the longer the template, the stronger the case for a vertical or ETVP format. For example, see this egregious edit, which I don't think anyone would want to defend.
One might also note the contrast with infoboxes, which are already, mostly, more-or-less in a vertical format, with one parameter per line. Editors don't have any problem editing infoboxes. So in my view, the difficulty some editors say they have with editing ETVP or vertical format is imaginary, not real. Probably they've just gotten used to the default that they get when they click the "cite" button on the edit window or from using most of the standard cite-generating tools. And why should they care? For most editors, adding cites is just a tedious but necessary chore, to be done with minimum effort; they care about the info they're adding, not the errors they're creating or the messy wikitext they're leaving behind.
--NSH001 (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. The idea of a gadget seems like a good one, except I'd want it to appear in an ETVP format, not the vertical one.

Notes on the Syntax highlighter gadget[edit]

Jonesey95 has suggested the syntax highlighter gadget as a possible solution to the near-impossibility of reading and editing pages full of LHTs.

Initial thoughts:

  • The default setting is far too cluttered; in particular, there is no need to highlight wikilinks. However it is possible to customise it so that only templates are highlighted. This works, and is actually quite useful.
  • However, this is moot for those who, like me,use an external editor for most of their editing.
  • It doesn't distinguish nested templates, in contrast to the ETVP script, which indents templates to mark the depth of nesting.
  • In any case, this problem is so fundamental that we shouldn't need to depend on a gadget to fix it.

Conclusion: better than nothing, but not really a solution to the problem. By providing a makeshift patch that papers over the problem, it reduces the pressure to get the problem fixed properly. It does mark the beginning and end of templates clearly (very good!), but the ETVP script also does that. The ETVP format also makes it easy to spot errors instantly, and the highlighter is of no help in that regard. --NSH001 (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Further thoughts:

  • The gadget doesn't work on diffs (and wasn't intended to), but templates in ETVP format are still easily distinguishable in diffs.
  • Not distinguishing nested templates is a major drawback, especially in Infoboxes where cite templates are common. Not a problem when using ETVP, as the script uses indenting to indicate nesting.
  • There is no need to highlight short templates (that's just unnecessary visual clutter). In my view only templates EITHER longer than about 100 characters OR which wrap around lines in the edit window need to be highlighted. Of course, the ETVP script takes account of template length, but it has no way of telling when a template is going to line-wrap. But note that templates in ETVP format are designed so that they usually won't line-wrap, except for long URLs or long quotes or exceptionally long article or chapter titles. Even then, the line-wrapping is restricted to the long piece of text, and does not affect the readability of the rest of the template.

I vaguely remember trying some sort of highlighter or edit-helper several years ago, and rapidly rejecting it as too cluttered and too distracting; if my memory is correct it also suffered from a lot of bugs. In contrast, I can see that I might sometimes use this highlighter, even though most of the time I will have it turned off. The author of this highlighter, Remember the dot, deserves some thanks and credit for the thought and effort he or she has put into this script. It's obviously useful to many editors, but it's not a solution to the problem of LHT clutter. --NSH001 (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC) and NSH001 (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's get the terminology right[edit]

I have seen other editors (not just Doc James), when taking about this infuriating problem, use the phrase "over one line" to refer to horizontal cite templates and "over many lines" to refer to other formats.

Yes, it is true that the annoying LHT format only occupies one physical line of the computer file. But to use "over one line" in the context of a discussion of the merits of the different format is very misleading. On the actual edit window that real-life editors use, it also occupies many lines. The difference is that the LHT format will line-wrap at unpredictable positions, depending on where in the text it occurs, what font size is being used and the width of the edit window, among other factors. At least the line-breaks in the "vertical" format are predictable (making it more readable than the LHT format), while the ETVP format is specifically designed to make it as readable as possible.

Incidentally, this problem of line-wrapping is one reason why, generally, I don't mind manually formatted citations; as long as they don't contain long URLs, or other long items, they will generally fit into one line of an edit window, so they don't disrupt the readability of the wikitext in the same way that LHTs do. (I have mentioned elsewhere that there are compelling reasons for preferring templated citations, of course.)

--NSH001 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What's so bad about long horizontal template clutter (LHT clutter)?[edit]

  • It violates every principle of sound coding practice. Any professional computer programmer who wrote code like this would soon be out of a job.
  • It obfuscates everything. Similarly, at school I was taught how to write English properly. If I had written an essay in such an unstructured, amorphous form I would have received a big fat ZERO as my mark for such an essay. If you (generic) write English without any structure, the result is incomprehensible. The same applies to wikitext.
  • It causes errors because errors are so difficult to spot and to correct in LHTs.
  • It sets a bad example. New editors will usually just copy the techniques they find already being used, so, not surprisingly, the result is a cancerous expansion of the usual steaming heap of unreadable and uneditable text.
  • Summary: it makes editing Wikipedia difficult, slow, error-prone and very, very unpleasant. The problem is so bad, so annoying and so infuriating that either LHT clutter has to be gotten rid of (preferably completely), or I will leave Wikipedia.

The paradox: if LHT clutter is so bad, then why are most articles using this style?[edit]

Well, I really don't know. It baffles and perplexes me that anyone could possibly tolerate this mess. But any strategy for getting rid of LHTs needs to address this paradox. Some possible explanations:

  1. Self-selection. The WMF has been worrying for years about the long-term decline in the number of active editors. Not that surprising really, when someone new to Wikipedia opens up a page in edit mode and discovers an amorphous, unstructured, incomprehensible and almost unreadable heap of steaming LHT doo-doo. So the small minority that's left, and which heroically persists in trying to edit Wikipedia, has, for the most part (not all, and certainly not including me), self-selected as those who can somehow tolerate LHT clutter.
  2. False perception of authority. People assume that, simply because it is so common, LHT clutter must somehow be "right", or "officially approved", or the "standard" citation and referencing style, although per policy (WP:CITESTYLE), there is no one, single, standard citation style on Wikipedia. All this despite the fact that LHT clutter is the worst possible citation and referencing style.
  3. Lack of exposure to better citation styles. So editors are simply unaware of better alternatives: they may dislike the clutter, but just assume it's something thay have to put up with. Or they may be aware of better alternatives, but then find it takes a lot of time and effort to change the citation style (plus they may then have additional battles based on WP:CITEVAR).
  4. Poor citation-generating tools. These have plenty of faults and shortcomings. Among their faults is that they offer only the LHT clutter style, or if they do offer a choice, it is between so-called "vertical" and LHT, with LHT clutter being the default. The "vertical" form, as given in the template documentation, isn't that great either, but it's still a huge improvement over LHT clutter. None of them offer an ETVP form as a choice, of course, since ETVP is a new concept. Since the default option is the easiest one to choose, the result is that the LHT dungheap just keeps on growing.
  5. Syntax highlighters. My first reaction to Doc James' request above was simply bewilderment and perplexity, since trying to edit LHT clutter is a physical impossibility (well it can be done, but only at the cost of a phenomenal amount of time and effort). Note that for serious editing, I use an external editor (but I do use the standard wikitext editor for small changes). So I pay little attention to developments in the standard editor or its gadgets. Well, syntax highlighters (if properly configured) do solve one of the most infuriating problems about LHT clutter, namely the extreme difficuly of spotting where an individual LHT begins and ends. I think it's clear that without syntax highlighters, LHT clutter would never survive as a citation style. But that still raises questions about what newbies do, since they won't be aware of their existence. And as I explained above, they still have some drawbacks, and in any case, the ETVP style renders them unnecessary.
    Basically, syntax highlighters are like a medication that alleviates (some of) the sympoms, but doesn't cure the underlying disease.
  6. Inadequate wikitext editor. The wikitext editor needs to properly support separation of citation templates from their inline antecedents, whether it be list-defined references, parenthetical referencing or short-form referencing. In one click it should enable a {{sfn}} template, or any of its siblings, including any of the harvnb family, to be inserted in the article body and at the same time the corresponding long cite template added, if not already present, in correct alphabetical order, to the relevant bibliographic listing. Similarly for named references and their corresponding entry in LDR. As an alternative my ETVP script effectively does this already by transforming a whole article all at once (it still needs polishing, though). The wikitext editor should also allow a single click on an {{sfn}}/{{harvnb}} or named reference to bring up the corresponding long template in a popup for easy editing.

--NSH001 (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, NSH001. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fucked up again + some more on how to get rid of LHTs[edit]

See Dyirbal people. I keep staring at it, making it conform to the others that are accepted and can't figure out what I did wrong. But then, I'm a bit weary-eyed today.Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, Dinna worry yer auld heid aboo' it! Yer ge'ing tae yoost tae pu'ing "p=", where {{efn}} merely expects some plain English. Well, except that the main point of using {{efn}} is that you can nest another <ref>...</ref> or {{sfn|blah|blah|p=123}} within it (the {{efn}} ), thereby getting round the restriction that you can't nest one pair of <ref>...</ref> inside another pair of <ref>...</ref>.
So what happened was that you wrote "p=154" instead of simply "p.154". Then {{efn}} attempts to parse the bit to the left of the "=" as if it were a template parameter, finds gibberish, complete with an opening parenthesis, and gets a bit upset. So now you know!
All part of the service, provided with great pleasure --NSH001 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Ahhh!!! I'd just switched this monitor back on after snaggen a filum, saw the fault wasn't fixed, sighed monstrously:'nane for thee a thochtie sparin!', added a bit, found an edit conflict - it wuz you fixen my gerryatrick mess,- and sighed with relief! Thanks mate. I'd throw a dozen barnstars your way if I woddn't a tad weary. Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I dinna thocht I grasped that explanation, but it worked beautifully this morning at Yidinji people. Whadda relief. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Jolly good, old bean. I'll have more to say on nesting one ref inside another ref (prob on your talk page) when I finally get round to systematically tidying up all your new Aboriginal articles. Might become a bit clearer then (or maybe not Face-smile.svg). --NSH001 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That means you'll never get round to it. There's enough mess there to keep Sad Sack on duty for the coming millennium. Unfortunately since I now calculate I have to do 500 articles in a year, I just rush through from one to another, without even stopping to reread what I've written. Still, I've done 83 in 2 and a half months, so the project looks possible, even if I'm bothering quite a few folks with clean-up tasks and jstor requests. By coincidence re cleaning, I dreamt last night of the word 掃海艇,mine-sweeper.I'm laying a lot of stuff under the wiki ocean. I'm glad you don't mind netting mine, ugh! as bad a pun as Arthur Capell's about semantics being 'some antics'.Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Fortunately I can automate a lot of the work (but the automation won't catch everything, and can never replace human judgment).
I call my script affectionately, but temporarily, "little baby" as she's not that little now, and she still requires a lot of education (as does her daddy). Her main job is to clear out long horizontal templates (LHTs), remove or reduce template clutter generally, and fix any errors that can be fixed automatically, and just make wikitext easier to edit.
What to call her when she grows up? My first idea was WP:42 for obvious reasons (plus I like short names), but that's already been grabbed. Maybe "ETVP", but that's too boring, or perhaps "Andromeda", as she'll be a star when she grows up.
The main ways of getting rid of long horizontal templates are (1) leave them in-line, but in ETVP form; (2) move them all to list-defined references WP:LDR; (3) switch to use short-form referencing, which is also my preferred method in most but not all cases; (4) some combination of the above; or (5) use parenthetical referencing.
(1) was done long ago (2) is also done, but I don't like the way I did it, so I'll probably re-write large parts of it; and I've yet to start on (3), probably the most important option. Then I'll need to make it much more robust, so I won't get inundated with people complaining about bugs. Then I'll need to turn it into a form that other editors can use (I can use it, but it's not reasonable to expect other editors to use it in its current form). Haven't a clue how to do that, but that hasn't stopped me so far. Then it has to be documented. So quite a "little" project! And that's just for one tool to make it easy to do the switch. Probably more tools will need to be written, or amended, or integrated into "little baby", because one of the reasons that long, horizontal templates (LHTs) abound is that LHTs are the default format produced by the main cite template-generating tools. Then we've got the whole project of persuading wiki to get rid of LHTs completely - that won't be easy either, given how ubiquitous they are. As I see it, only a slow and careful strategy will work. --NSH001 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought Aboriginal languages were difficult enough, having downloaded several grammars, but creating things like that looks just as complex. Given the slightly pleonastic albeit endorsed by tradition, provisory name, I guess, since it shortens references, that it will be almost true to the lyric: 'don't say a word (more than necessary)', a habit I should adopt. Best wishes for the baby!Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"Grossly offensive" (etc) messages[edit]

Thanks for the revert. Sometimes I think such comments by sociopaths are worth preserving, if only to evidence the fact that a lot of people who think they are normal are in fact sick. To think that an incapacity to do harm, and a profound empathy with the suffering that must in part motivate people who do evil is a sign of 'derangement' is to be deranged. But it is fairly commonplace. All the best for the upcoming year, N.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I think it is much better that a 3rd party revert that sort of attack. Worth noting that I preserve such attacks on myself in my "fan mail archive" (see the link in the archive box at the top), when I can – but the anti-vandal police hereabouts are so fast and efficient that usually the messages are revdel-ed before I can get to see them. Hals- und Beinbruch for your new year! --NSH001 (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

your local idiot calling[edit]

Several attempts to fix the redinked 'line feed character in |title= at position 57 (help)' in the ref section at Dundalli have failed. Could you deign to consider the puzzle for a nanosecond and pass on the to you, Mycroft, obvious fix? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The solution was indeed obvious [2] (for talk page stalkers, Nishidani is really quite brilliant, but likes to pretend he's stoopid Face-smile.svg). --NSH001 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I now see it, though I didn't the first time around. Buy the whey, you made a misspelling above, writing 'quite brilliant' for 'quit (being) brilliant' many years ago.:) Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Ernest Westlake of Quaker persuasion collected 13,000 stone implements remaining from the exterminated world of the Tasmanian aborigines, now the focus of scholarly attention. Nugatory payback for your pertinacious correction of my many slipups, to put that with the politer form of the substantive! There's always a connection. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
We've hit the 100 mark for the Aussie tribes today, (nbot counting 17 bios of anthropologist and linguists) and that must mean we've done somewhere around 20-25% of the work as projected, which is not bad considering 5 months. I've been slow the last month because of other, professional work needing to be prepared. Your careful control of minutiae is a constant source of joy. Thanks N.Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that, good to know. It's really the precocious infant who looks after the minutiae, I merely tell her what to do! --NSH001 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cities in Azerbaijan[edit]

Greetings.

Now that I have seen, that all the cities and towns in {{Cities in Azerbaijan}} are indeed listed in {{Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan}} which I have overlooked, you can redirect this template to that template or delete it - whichever method the administrators see fit to choose. --Sondrion (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but it's not up to me, it will be decided by consensus at the TfD, where I see you have already placed the above comment. But as a general rule (there are some exceptions), I think template redirects are a bad idea (they make life difficult for bot and script writers) and, in contrast to redirects in article space, should normally be replaced by their target and then deleted. --NSH001 (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

sfn[edit]

Hey, on Talk:Refugee you said sometimes sfn is not best. Not gonna argue, but I am very interested in this question. When is that true? Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

See the section on referencing style at the top of this page, and the discussions linked to from that section. There are about 4 or 5 different ways of getting rid of LHT clutter. My personal preference is for short-form referencing, but there are bound to be cases where one of the others is best. We also need to allow for WP:CITEVAR, and I don't mind very much what style editors choose, as long as it gets rid of LHT clutter. --NSH001 (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
If by LHT you mean sticking the whole stinking {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} or whatever templates in an article's body text rather than in a separate section at the bottom of the page – and that's what you want to eliminate – then I am firmly of the same mind. {{sfn}} has the added benefit of offering page numbers. I have not used other referencing systems in a reasonably longish while. I am no longer a fan of <ref></ref> or <ref name= "foo"> tags.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I define LHT in the section I referred you to. Please take the time to read it (a lot of thought has gone into it), and the discussions it links to. I also describe there the idea of ETVP formatting for cite templates, which makes them nice and easy to read (also a lot of thought), and not at all malodorous. The best way of understanding these ideas is to look at the examples I give. --NSH001 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll be offline but for the mo[edit]

I think one should reconsider putting the some words sections under language. I intended this as a wrap up note to tourists browsing up on the areas they visit in Australia, so that some might learn what the local indigenous people say for key things. It's a sort of 'curiosity' bit, and not meant to illustrate the language. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the articles have an academic flavour, and seem to me to be of interest mainly to historians, ethnographers, etc, even if only as a starting point. Not really a tourist guide. But feel free to put it back if you want. --NSH001 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I was very impressed by the exemplary neatness of your reformulatings in sfn side of the untouched sources in those articles. Unfortunately I thought it best to undo some of it, worrying I might give offence. You're dead right that the work of prior editors should be earnestly respected and removed only reluctantly. My own tampering looks a tad ideological or condescending (they ain't academics, etc.) The real reason was that I was (a) pretty sure quite a lot of these shire histories were being cited for irrelevant or dubious information or for (b) information from proper RS which I could access. Indeed for stuff I put in a provisory cn notice, I knew of the source, but hadn't yet had the time to fix the issues by drawing on my downloads, which are now quite comprehensive. Just to let you know that the work done was superb, and the templating in the biblio one I'm delighted to steal for a few things that are perhaps borderline but worthy of retention. Fanks, pal.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Not really, old chap, but thanks for the kind words. My obedient, but mythical, young lady is learning how to switch all cites (well, just the templated ones, not the manual ones) into short-form, combined with nice ETVP full citations in the biblio section. For now, I don't really care about the work of previous editors, I merely sit back and let her get on with it. I intend to make similar changes for all the existing articles in this series (i.e., in addition to the ones you've started from scratch), so that everything is in the same, consistent, citation/referencing style. Mind you, like all good women, the said young lady can sometimes become very stroppy and disobedient if I don't pay her enough attention (in other words, if I missed a bug Face-smile.svg). --NSH001 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, she's a beauty, and kindly send her the algorithm that indicates complete satisfaction for her services!Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikipedia Library User Group
  • Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
  • Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

List of peace activists[edit]

why take Rust out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardZ (talkcontribs) 14:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC))

He's known for that stunt he staged in Red Square. That's just making a point, not trying to make peace or resolving conflicts. Please read the criteria for inclusion at the top of the list page. --NSH001 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Dja Dja Wurrung[edit]

Are you sure this is how it should be done? The official government web sites and the Dja Dja Wurrung's own organisation's pages all use Dja Dja Wurrung as does the National Native Title Tribunal . Ian D Clark's Aboriginal languages and clans : an historical atlas of western and central Victoria, 1800–1900, Published: Melbourne, Vic. : Dept. of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, c1990. ISBN 0-909685-41-X, identifies numerous spellings of the word but settles on the AIATSIS use of Dja Dja Wurrung.Garyvines (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is no, I'm not sure, I was just responding to Nishidani's request on the talk page. Since no-one has objected in more than 3 weeks, and it seemed a reasonable request, I went ahead and moved it. At least, I thought, it'll provoke some discussion if someone really does disagree. I seem to have been successful in that aim! Any further discussion should be on the article talk page, of course, not here. --NSH001 (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Gary. As NSH001 advises, I'll respond on the talk page in a mo'.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
By the way young chief. I can't get the fucking url right for Clark Monash Paper 1998 at Bungandidj people. It defeats my powers and therefore I throw myself at the mercy of a superior to beg divine intervention and help me out of this existential impasse.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for all that Sad Sack mopping up my carelessness or failure to learn is causing you to take on. It's deeply appreciated, in any case. I'll never mend my oldtimer's ways, it seems.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
A pleasure, as always. No need to apologise. Plus it's good practice for the youngster. Face-smile.svg --NSH001 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

  • New and expanded research accounts
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

How do[edit]

no! not how do you do: we know each other. Um, how do you use the sfn template when you have an article co-authored by many (I am reading one in Nature with upwards of 20 signatories) I'm sure one can whittle this down to Joe Blow &Co in a template. I can accept an upper limit of 8, but beyond that seems ridiculous. I strain the bean at times to muck up a technical problem you can't answer and entertain the prospect of salivating with a dickhead's sense of triumph at thinking one's stumped a boffin - but I don't think this will do that? Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, simple, just enter the first 4 authors only! Well, just their -last names, of course. --NSH001 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodoh! But what about the bibliography? Can it keep to 4 or may it add a few other names, which won't upset the in-article template functionality? I.e. biblio having 8 names and the sfn in line cites using just the first 4? (Hope I'm not causing post-prandial dyspeptic symptoms with this niggling?Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani, normally | ref = harv is all you need (as usual). Or you can have anything you like with | ref = {{harvid|...}}, as long as the "..." corresponds with the {{sfn|...}}. But much easier to stick to the default. As for the authors in the bibliography, just enter them like you would normally - the only problem is it could get a bit tedious entering them all. An alternative is to use Vancouver style, which reduces the clutter in the edit window, but that is not so much of a problem when they're all neatly arranged by my nice wee girl in their own biblio listing. --NSH001 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
A more compelling reason for using Vancouver style is the display to our readers. If you've entered them all in the usual last/first format, adding | name-list-format = vanc will show them in the shorter Vancouver form. --NSH001 (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm learning an Aboriginal language, an chat to myself of a morning as age presses on and, like them, I face extinction. They're said to be difficult, but I don't find this one hard (except for the lack of words for 'refrigerator', 'tomatoes' etc.etc. I do find the above obscure, because I'm stupid, despite the evident lucidity. I think my best strategy is to ignore your brakes, and push on, praying that the guardian angel and his busy little muyup mayang(clever) parayt-parayt (girl) warta (follow) the thinang spoor, obedient to my mental command parayt-parayt! yanaka kuknyi-ngin. (Get to work, little girl). Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Enjoy your tomatoes. I find they taste better if you don't keep them in the 'fridge. Face-smile.svg --NSH001 (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I see I'm increasing my error rate, sorry. It's summer and you should enjoy a break from running this marathon too close to my erratic heels. Feel free to take a break, and take things up at your autumnal leisure. Here in Italy it's so torrid one can't step out into the garden without wilting like the plants, so I have ratcheted up my work plan, to try and get 5 stubs done a day for August. That way, we'll have 350 done in bare draft form, by the end of August, if I can keep it up (I mean the writing pace, not the other bald-headed chap). That would be more than half, and give me the sense I can now work leave the runner's stitch, and trundle through the remaining 250. I don't expect you should feel obliged to hew close to that rate of knots, to cut the Gordian entanglements my speed naturally causes in article construction. In the meantime, thanks, thanks indeed. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The amount of work it takes me isn't in the least little bit correlated with your "error rate". The script itself only takes a couple of seconds to run, and it doesn't care how many "errors" it has to fix. Things that take the time are obvious discrepancies that need to be investigated, like the date of that dictionary: google has 1993, while academia.edu has 2011; I still feel uneasy, as the ISBN is almost certainly for the 1993 version, while the version at academia.edu doesn't give any ISBN. That's the sort of thing that eats up my time, not your errors. The other thing that takes up time is finding and fixing bugs. I don't make many bugs, so I actually like finding bugs, since then (once I've fixed them), I can be sure it's robust. So don't worry about me, I'll do whatever I want anyway. And, of course, it's a pleasure reading your articles, which I suppose is another thing taking up time. And big congrats on your amazing rate of progress on these articles. Regards, NSH001 (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation matters[edit]

Thanks for the ping, I appreciate getting feedback. And always pleased if I may have been of service. Or can be; let me know if there are any discussions where I might help clarify matters.

I would caution that "citations as a subset of notes" is a little tricky. As a kind of content, yes, but they intermingle; I would not break them out separately. My preference is for separate (but equal) "Notes" and "Sources" sections.

Some interesting comments you have. I must take some time to study them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I'd forgotten about that, and just thought that you weren't too bothered. Thanks for the response. I quite like the setup I'm using now on Nishidani's new articles, and I don't anticipate changing it any time soon. The previous version was just something knocked up quickly to get my script working. Nothing's set in stone (except my extreme dislike of LHT clutter), but it would need a good reason to change.
If by "Some interesting comments" you are referring to the long LHT clutter thread at the top of this page, bear in mind that I have a massive update in preparation for it, which might take 3 days, 3 weeks, or 3 months to appear, depending what else I have on. I've had some difficulty restraining myself from getting into discussions elsewhere (where you often, but not always, seem to be involved), but I've had to, because they can become so time-consuming. For now, I just want to concentrate on development, and not to get bogged down in long discussions. That's not to say an occasional helpful comment isn't appreciated. It's been a massive amount of work to develop my script (including learning a language entirely from scratch, not to mention regexps and a few other things), but you can see the payoff on Nishidani's Aboriginal Australian articles. I've been highly motivated to do it, because I can't stand LHT clutter, and rather than complain about it in endless dicussion, I'd rather roll up my sleeves and fix it. --NSH001 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. What is this script going to do? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
It's doing it already (in part). See the thread above, and all the Nishidani articles I referred to. The update will give more info. --NSH001 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
For example here it is removing LHT clutter from an article. --NSH001 (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, quite interesting. And I am taking some time to study your previous comments. Though usually when I haven't felt bright enough for other work, so I probably should self-tag my comments as "not of the first water". But perhaps an adequate start.
One point that struck me right off: terminology. Which bears on concept. This could use more work, as all of us interested in this topic do not yet have a common, well-defined terminology.
Another point is that at a couple of places you have multiple issues or items co-mingled. E.g.: judicious use of spaces to make the citation parameters more readable is independent of "vertical" or "horizontal" formatting. Likewise for whether the full citations are left in the text or moved to a separate section, and also whether the short-cites (or "short-form cites") are {sfn} or {harv}. Dealing with these separately might avoid some CITEVAR objections.
As to long discussions: well, the explanation as to why some discussions are so long is a long discussion itself! As a terse answer I would say: lack of skill by the discussants. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've changed my mind slightly, in that "Sources" is indeed better than "References", even though the latter is honoured by long-standing wiki practice. Since I want to see the total extermination of LHTs, even though it's common practice on Wiki to use them, it would be a bit silly to use the same argument for keeping "References". So I've changed my script accordingly.
Again, because I want to see the annihilation of LHTs, it's irrelevant to me what format they're in; they need to be eliminated, not prettified. But if you really want to know what I think is the best way of improving them pending their eventual demise, I would say put spaces around both equals signs and pipes (especially pipes); at least that will slightly reduce the annoyance, nausea and disgust they create. Please wait for the forthcoming substantial update to the main thread above before making any further replies here. Thanks. --NSH001 (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and one further point I forgot, since you mention terminology. I make a very strong distinction between ETVP and "vertical" formatting, as I hope you can see already from the thread above. --NSH001 (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
That something so ambiguous, so trouble-making, is "honoured by long-standing wiki practice" is in itself a problem. Which is another instance of "The paradox" you comment on above. We inch along. That might warrant an essay.
In the end horizontal layout versus vertical is about formatting. And while the inclusion of newlines is independent of the use of spaces, the latter are not irrelevant, as your script changes both. Favor or disfavor of one will affect acceptance of the other. We should discuss that. Also whether "vertical" should be absolute, with every parameter on its own line, entirely alone.
BTW, what is your distinction "between ETVP and 'vertical' formatting"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please read what I write. I specifically requested that you not reply until I had posted the update. The question about the distinction between ETVP and vertical is already answered in the thread above. Please read it. Most of the points you have just made here I have already noted from other discussions in which you've particiipated. My time is limited, and I don't want it used up in premature discussion. Now, please, no further replies until the update is posted. --NSH001 (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeezus, chief[edit]

Yes, I'll have to call the Lord's name in vain. I've made a comprehensive fuckup and even if I whistle or cooee that little Sheila you've fathered to bot and better the usual trash I leave in my compositional wake, this one's a job that requires the creative majesty of her pater. In sum, using a stupid Aussie site specializing in German missionaries, I created a stub entitled Ernst Alfred Worms. Now I've downloaded his articles, I see he signs himself Ernest Ailred Worms. So, without despoiling the leisure of these torrid weeks, having I trust rested over Sunday, can I prevail upon your wit and mercy to intervene with corrective digital surgery or sorcery and retitle that to Ernest Ailred Worms. (The name reminds me of the Japanese for athlete's foot, 水虫, mizumushi(water insect), but he's a wonderful analyst and deserves better than my patchy stuff.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, drat! I'd just finished typing out a reply, and my computer died! Hmm, I don't think it likes the warm weather. Or maybe it just needs dust removing from its cooling system. Anyway, I let it cool down a bit...
But, yes, it's easy enough to do your request, but can you first point me to a source so that I can check the exact spelling? You know, just so that I can be sure!
BTW, congratulations for spotting this error. I thought at first my wee girl was suffering from an obscure bug, but it turns out she's quite right. One template had initials for the first name, the other had the full name, so she treated them as different authors. Quite right, too! So I changed one of them to "Alfred", same as the other, both referring to a genuine Alfred, so now everything's fine, and they're sorting in the right order. --NSH001 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is how he's classified. I'm dead sure, because I've read several of his articles via jstor (haven't yet the time to add what I've learnt) and in all of them he signs himself 'Ernest Ailred Worms.' I too thought Ailred was a misprint for Alfred, but his articles are thus signed (see some in Baada biblio. e.g. here. catholic priests might not be good guides on things like the correct pronunciation of Ouagadougou - I'll forego the anecdote- but they were rigorous with orthography.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done as requested. --NSH001 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I owe you a batch of scones and pies, baked according to the best traditional recipes handed down through the clan. One day I promise I'll come through with the promise! Thanks, N.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)