User talk:P199

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

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Prager University[edit]

Since you participated in WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 31#Template:PragerU, you are also invited to weigh in at WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University, as the discussion has moved there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Legazpi Page[edit]

Please explain the reversions on the page of Legazpi, Albay. From what I understood of the term ünconstructive edit, it means an unhelpful edit or one that is not beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Right. Rewriting the references and changing the intro to a non-standard format is indeed unhelpful. -- P 1 9 9   14:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Then, you could have just mentioned that it is not in a standard format. Saying that it is an unconstructive edit, and completely undoing an edit, including a portion that is not really unconstructive, is rather impolite/rude for not stating the particular rule it deviates from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Daanbantayan etc.[edit]

That's a fairly loose interpretation of the word 'adjacent'. Really, it ought to be Madridejos to the west and Santa Fe to the southwest. Incidentally, I prefer using {{pipe}} (upright) to / (slant) as a separator.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 22:14, wikitime= 14:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Unbuttered Parsnip: I have often wondered how to treat larger bodies of water in the {{Geographic location}} box, but ultimately we have to consider the objective/purpose of the box: to navigate around. By linking Daanbantayan to Santa Fe (and vice-versa), we accomplish that purpose that allows someone to navigate across the Philippines. Obviously it is not an exact science, so I had to make some judgment calls that I think made the most sense. I have no opinion on pipe versus slant, but there is no benefit in redoing all the templates for this minute difference in preference. Regards, -- P 1 9 9   14:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I do like to get things right, or at least to break the rules in a standardised way, and to provide information concisely. What do you think of what I did to Daanbantayan?? OK or overkill? BTW where do you draw the line on adjacency? Any direction from any coastal municipality, you're bound to hit land somewhere. But I don't think there would be any benefit in for instance saying what is north / northeast / east of Daanbantayan. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 00:19, wikitime= 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Unbuttered Parsnip: Yeah, the distance is overkill (especially so big???), probably better adding that to a Geography section. Where to draw the line on adjacency? Well, I agree with you: you'll hit land eventually, so there is no benefit in adding places that are far away (only adds confusion). I only added municipalities where it was very clear or obvious (like small bodies of water), and where necessary for continuity of navigational links (like across straits, see for example Tingloy or Pilar, Cebu). Yes, where it would be confusing (like Laguna de Bay) I omit LGU's across the water. I have been very consistent in this approach, so in a way, the geo boxes are already standardized (well, there were consistent before someone removed the links ;-) ). -- P 1 9 9   17:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Getting coords from wikidata[edit]

I think the "official version" will be a long time coming. I was told that removing coords from the infobox entirely will cause automatic default to wikidata values, but this didn't seem to work when I tried it. I have developed a template {{parseWDCoords}} and test-implemented it on Madridejos, Cebu. What do you think?

I also think the facility to fetch data for another page will be an even longer time coming, so that for instance deriving the accumulated population of a group of islands, such as Camotes, will not be an automated feature "in our lifetimes". It could be done at page level, or it could be built into wikidata itself. As it is, I think it will be neither.

-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 19:27, wikitime= 11:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Unbuttered Parsnip: Kudos for trying to resolve this! You must have noticed that I have brought these issues to the attention of various talk pages before... As for {{parseWDCoords}}, if it is always meant to be used with {{#property:P625}}, why not hard-code it into the template so there is no need to add it as a parameter? For example, its use would be {{parseWDCoords|1}}, instead of {{parseWDCoords|{{#property:P625}}|1}}. And since this template has the potential to used in 100,000's of articles, I suggest to discuss this template at Template talk:Coord or Talk:Wikidata for more ideas and feedback. Regards, -- P 1 9 9   14:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Well I prefer some flexibility, because (a) there could well be more than one coordinate type statement on wikidata; (b) I hold out the hope that some time in the future it will be possible to get data for a different entity. What I could do is make it optional with the default of P625. This would mean reversing the parameter order so type comes first. Tomorrow – now coming up to midnight here. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 23:17, wikitime= 15:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I made changes along these lines. For auto-insertion, I think the infobox should invoke all 8 elements, even though some (e.g. arcseconds) may be absent. See Madridejos, Cebu, which has no arcseconds, and Bantayan Airport, which does. I think I'll run it past Frietjes and ‎Redrose64 first for comments before throwing it urbi et orbi. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 08:03, wikitime= 00:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • @Unbuttered Parsnip: Thanks again to tackling this. Looks like there is finally some action on it at {{Infobox settlement}} thanks to you. -- P 1 9 9   02:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Well Frietjes is doing something, not entirely sure what. Her plan is to bring in all wikidata in one fell swoop, but I think there may be difficulties, for instance with municipality seal / flag, which keeps getting removed maybe because it's not in commons. Hard to say, because Ukrainian editor doesn't answer calls. Meanwhile I think I'll press on with mine, but 'as and when' rather than a mass update. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 11:03, wikitime= 03:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Lapu-Lapu, Philippines[edit]


Hopefully we could update details for the Lapu-Lapu City Wikipedia Page. Some contents are outdated, and lacking. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


As a result of @BhlJRama: adding barangay maps to various (Bohol) municipalities, I have started looking at the barangays. So far, I have only looked at Ubay and its barangays (44 of them). My first puzzle is the coordinates on the article pages. It is not at all clear where these came from, but basically they have been there ab initio. The problem is that they do not at all concord with the maps published by NAMRIA. For instance Bongbong has 9°58′32″N 124°27′59″E, but my calculation from the map is 9°56'28"N, 124°27'15"E. It is pointless to try to verify with Google maps, wikimapia, etc., because they basically form a circular reference. My inclination is that in the absence of any other document, to use the values calculated from the NAMRIA maps. Incidentally these are readily available via Topographic Index Map 1:50,000. Unfortunately Ubay is spread over four sheets: 3820-I Alicia, 3821-II Talibon, 3921-III Lapinig Island and 3920-IV Mabini.

My second problem is with the maps themselves produced by BhlJRama. I think their colouring is not at all helpful, and to a large extent, with the lettering on top, contravene WP:CONTRAST. I am also uncertain of any reference points for these maps. I think they would be better as grey-shades or unshaded, with no lettering. Additions can generally be made at rendering stage. It would be relatively easy to develop a set of "location within" maps that way. I have tried contacting the user (3 times) with no response.

I know in the scale of things this is all basically trivial. However my feelings are that if anything is done, it should be done well, with reasonably true output.

-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 16:31, wikitime= 08:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Unbuttered Parsnip: You are raising some valid concerns, and I agree that the accuracy may be questionable. And interestingly, the maps at NAMRIA are also hopelessly outdated! They are based on "aerial photographs taken in 1947-1953 and 1979". Quite frankly, I don't see any purpose for the maps because they add no value or significant info to the article. But I respect the editor's contributions. On the other hand, it may be better to bring this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, because we can try to reach a consensus there whether or not the maps should remain, or what format it should have. BTW, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure before moving sections around. Regards, P 1 9 9   13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I think the amount of response we've got so far, we could have kept the conversation here! I've just added to the piece on Tambayan. There are all sorts of gross errors uncovered. It doesn't seem correct to maintain what basically is a set of lies. I think the barangay pages should all be scrapped, unless there is any notable.
      Incidentally, map maker (whose name escapes me) also went and blanked all the barangay talk pages, but I have recovered them. And it was he who resequenced some of the sections. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 21:51, wikitime= 13:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Belize Barrier Reef edit[edit]

Re: your recent revert at Belize Barrier Reef, the editor who added that content also added similar content to a couple dozen other articles - all sourced to the same commercial blog ( As that blog is selling a service it fails WP:RS and the repeated addition of associated urls to a variety of articles was spam. I will agree that my edit summary should have been more clear - rather than just spam, sorry 'bout that. Please review the reference used on that edit: [1] and explain how it can pass our referencing policy. Vsmith (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Vsmith: I hadn't noticed that the external site was added to dozens of pages, which, I agree, makes the motive of these edits appear to be purely commercial. But referencing a commercial website is not wrong in itself. In fact, many commercial websites have very reliable info, especially of specialized info in their respective field. In this case, the added information was on topic, didn't promote the business, and wasn't written as an advert (although not entirely WP:NPOV). WP:RS states that "e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available". -- P 1 9 9   19:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Ouch, just found out this is likely to be a major WP:COI. The editor in question may well be the same as this one ! -- P 1 9 9   19:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

PH electorate[edit]

You probably noticed I was adding electorate numbers to pages. However I have come to a stop on that, as some of the data is deficient: Bogo City has numbers for 14 of 29 barangays missing, and even Cebu City has 10 barangays missing. I've not looked further. This is from the official Comelec web site. Until the numbers are present, there is no point in using them, as they paint a completely incorrect picture. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 17:34, wikitime= 09:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I'll work on it <tomorrow>. But that's only at mun level, whereas Comelec promised to barangay.Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 21:02, wikitime= 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I've asked wikidata to add a new property PSGC code. I can't see any problems but it does take a week or so for it to happen. Meanwhile I'll wait. BTW a new property 'area' is coming soon, not before time. I think I'll also ask for income classification – settlement type is already held. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 11:48, wikitime= 03:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Unbuttered Parsnip: Great! I've wanted an area property for a long time. As for income classification, I don't care for it much, it isn't very useful... -- P 1 9 9   12:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Seem that PSGC has been there all along – P988. Not much encoding though, so that may take some time. It also implies a different use of P150, which I thought just contained a type but in fact needs a list of members (pages). See Ubay, Bohol. After which I can change a couple of templates to use it (cf {{conditionalURL}}), but not until.
Also, I found a better Comelec page which gives voter numbers, and in some cases a m/f breakdown. That could be interesting on the demographics page – seems like women (voters) outnumber men in most places, around 1.05♀:1♂
Income classification may not matter much in itself, but for me anything that can be moved off the bespoke page and become a candidate for automation is good. – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 10:27, wikitime= 02:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. When I get the chance, I will start adding {{PSGC detail}} to the infoboxes. Regards, -- P 1 9 9   13:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I tweaked that so that first of all it tries for {{#property:P988}} then if that fails uses {{{1}}}. But using the template is only half the story – the property has hardly been populated at all on wikidata. Not at all on Bohol nor Cebu, which is what I've been covering so far, so I guess most places not. After these I'll move on to more of the Visayas. BTW 'area' property was approved in June 2013, but has been waiting since then for a number. I think I'll try to shake something. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 17:16, wikitime= 09:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)