User talk:RexxS

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

Virtual Synchrony[edit]

Virtual synchrony has a TON of problems. Do you think it can be saved or is it better off being deleted.

Darklight Shadows 01:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

DarklitShadow, I suggest that you tag the specific problems in the article where they occur, and discuss them in detail on the talk page. That way the article's editors can see exactly what you perceive as the problems, and will be able to address them. Also, any visitor to the page will know where and what the problems are, and will be encouraged to help if they are able. If you think it should be deleted, you should give specific and valid reasons in more detail than "a TON of problems" The subject at first glance appears to be sufficiently notable, it is not a controversial BLP, there is a lot of information, however badly it may be formatted. What would the reason for deletion be? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The most important lesson I learned in Computing II was "knowing when I've spent enough time on an assignment." (We were allowed to turn in a write-up about the problems and solutions for the that assignment for full credit)

I looked closely at how to best tag the article. However, from my perspective, it seems like trying to fix it /could/ eventually end up going nowhere. I might be wrong though.

Darklight Shadows 14:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Having read the talk page, I agree that there have been complaints for years without any resolution.
To improve the article, I would recommend concentrating on the one aspect that is most in need of improvement - in this case the real problem is lack of in-line citations, so that it makes the job of anyone trying to verify the content much more difficult. The first step, IMHO, would be to read through the body of the article (not the lead) and tag statements that are bald claims with {{citation needed}}. If parts are unclear, then tag them with {{clarify}}.
I've now placed the {{connected contributor}} template on the talk page to set the context of Ken Birman's contributions, and made clear my position in the talk page section Talk:Virtual synchrony #Problems of verification, along with the policy I'm relying on for the clean-up. If you're interested in detailed clean-up, I've done the first section, Virtual synchrony #Detailed Discussion, and you may wish to try some of the other sections yourself. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata thoughts[edit]

Your talk page edit notice hypnosis is very annoying! It almost made me forget what I came here to talk about. :-)

I hope the following won't be too rambling or too long, but I'd appreciate some thoughts on this from someone willing to discuss this.

On Andy's talk page, I asked this question. The key bit is this: "Why can't the Wikipedia editing page actually display the Wikidata value being pulled over, so an editor knows what is there?"

More general thoughts. I can see the value of Wikidata when working with massive databases. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is actually a good example of such a database (though there are plenty of others as well). Have a look at {{Commonwealth War Graves Commission}} for an overview of the topic if needed. There are two main templates that call on CWGC ids, both set up a long time ago: (i) {{CWGC}} for casualties in their database; and (ii) {{CWGC cemetery}}. The latter has an associated Wikidata property (CWGC burial ground ID (d:property:P1920)), but the casualties one has not(?) been set up properly yet (the sidebar link takes me to Q7745463).

There are some 1.7 million casualties in the database (the vast majority will never be needed for anything other than tagging photos taken of the gravestones; it was total luck that I noticed that we had a photo of a particular gravestone on Commons and I added it here), some of which may warrant mention on Wikipedia pages. A couple of examples from my editing are: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; and so on). I wish I had been more consistent in the use of my edit summaries so I could find all the examples and replace them with the template. According to the external links special page, there are 1,271 uses of that link with that URL and 1,708 using the old URL format (total of 2,978), so with only about 86 transclusions of the casualty template, there is the potential there to use the template a lot more. The uses are in lists (of Victoria Cross people for example) in articles on actual people notable enough to have an article (or for example on lists of generals killed in WWI), and finally a probably much larger subset that could be used on the articles of those people who lost children or other relatives in the wars (that is mainly what my examples above are).

There are over 23,000 burial sites, though many of these sites are existing cemeteries in the UK and other countries. The number of purpose-built cemeteries built worldwide is about 2,500. Most are unlikely to have articles, but lists would be useful. Most of my work has been with the memorials (though I am gradually becoming more familiar with the cemeteries). The list articles are in the template I linked above.

One thing that would be incredibly useful is a way to update the casualty commemoration figures when that is updated each year by the CWGC. The numbers change as new information comes to light and reburials are made and so on. This list is particularly out of date. It would be really useful to be able to use Wikidata in some way, but I suspect that in most cases downloading the data from the CWGC site and sorting through it is easier than trying to do the same through Wikidata. The key seems to be to use Wikidata to call on the most useful elements of the data.

Photos are another area. There are thousands and thousands of photos on Commons (mostly in Commons:Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries; see also Commons:Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission gravestones and Commons:Category:Monuments and memorials of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission). I am part-way through a rather big project (not sure how useful it will be) that has ended up with a gallery of a particular architectural feature (the Cross of Sacrifice) over at Commons:Crosses of Sacrifice. There are currently around 300 photos there (I estimate there are well over 2000 Crosses in total). What I would love is to be able to associate each photo with its cemetery, and to pull data like when the cemetery was built (i.e. identify the post-WWII cemeteries).

That's probably enough for now. I think one thing that probably deep down annoys editors who work with information from large databases like this, is the feeling that their knowledge of and use of such databases is in someway threatened by machine-like mining of the databases, generating instantly lists that they might have laboured for many hours to build (with great care). Sure, it is good that it is possible to generate such things quicker, but careful checking is still needed (and the learning of new skills it seems). I would hate to see less technically proficient editors being left behind or feeling forced to learn how to use Wikidata when what they really want to do is integrate and present the information in useful ways (or be told how to do that, by people who understand how to explain things).

And I am still very queasy about anything that will make citations more opaque. I actually think that whenever a citation is made, it should be preserved in the article history in full as it looked at the time (with all data calls output in full). The risk is too great that remote manipulation of citations from another site (Wikidata) will mess things up and those who know the subject area will be left with a mess to clean up. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

RexxS: Three's a related discussion on my talk page, please feel free to reply there, to avoid a fragmented discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Henri Fouquet[edit]

Hi RexxS,

Some days ago I created this page from the French fr:Henri Fouquet (médecin) ; unfortunately I made a mistake when I wanted to link the new English article to its French model and I don't know how to repair. I know there's a place to ask for help but really it's too complicated for me to reach the right page for that. Your intervention would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance to take the time to solve the matter. LouisAlain (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, LouisAlain (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Louis, I looked at the template on the Talk:Henri Fouquet talk page and it looks fine to me. The only thing I can see is that you linked to a version of the French page dated 18 March. Was that the mistake you mean? Would you like me to change that to the version of 9 August, perhaps? --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem wasn't with the talk page but with the interwiki links. I first linked to the French disambiguation page fr:Henri Fouquet whereas it was meant to lead to fr:Henri Fouquet (médecin). It has now been fixed, probably by someone I asked some days ago but since there was no answer I thought the user must have been on wikislow, or on vacation and fear I would forget this tiny thing, I came to you. Now, I have to remember who was the user I addressed to in the first place to thank him. That person intervened on my TP some months ago. Hmmm... shall I retrieve his name? Sorry I made you lose your time RexxS ; LouisAlain (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that any time was wasted, Louis. Interwiki links are now stored on Wikidata and after your post, Andy (User:Pigsonthewing), who often keeps an eye on this talk page, merged the two Wikidata entries on Henri Fouquet (Q1605827) and tidied up the interwiki links, so all should be working well. That's probably not coincidence! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad to learn this option exists: it will spare me the embarrassment to knock at some random doors to beg for help Face-wink.svg LouisAlain (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion at the ANI talk[edit]

RexxS: Robert McClenon has made a point that your use of the word "lie" was too strong. I have pointed out to him that he was in error when he said you did not try to discuss the decline and he has acknowledged that error but would like you to retract the word "lie" as it obviously offends him. See this edit. Would you be willing to apologize for using the word "lie" and soften it to "mistake" in the interest of smoothing ruffled feathers? I think it would be a good idea. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, Koala Tea Of Mercy. McClenon's "mistake" wasn't just once, but twice:
  • The original poster didn't even try to discuss the decline with LaMona. Robert McClenon 03:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As noted above, there wasn't any effort to discuss with her prior to coming here. Robert McClenon 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I'd be happy to retract the word "lie", as soon as McClenon acknowledges that he was "mistaken" in implying that I hadn't previously raised the issue with LaMona, and/or that he hadn't read my original post, which made it clear I had. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Your nice edits at Jane Austen[edit]

Those were nice edits you placed for the Austen images which helped quite a bit. The interest now at the current FA assessment which you added some comments to has now moved to the references and citations format with some comment that they were developed by 6 different editors over the last 7 years including the late Wadewitz. Most all of the references are formatted and serviceable to readers needs, though the formats do vary given the number of editors and years involved. Could you glance at the FA assessment to see if this is a concern. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a concern. FAC reviewers invariably pounce on any inconsistencies - real or perceived - in the formatting of references. I even made a joke alluding that that practice at 'Shonen's talk page, if you recall. When 6 or 7 editors work on an article, they inevitably use slightly different styles if the references are done by hand. The only way I've found of ensuring consistency over time with references is by using cite templates, and I'm loathe to do a wholescale change on a stable article without getting some agreement from the main authors. Wadewitz is no longer with us; Simmaren hasn't edited in almost a year; Churchh has only made a few edits this year, but may be able to give an opinion. Otherwise, it's effectively your call. Jonesey95 has volunteered to do the updates, but it's a big job, and they would probably need help in figuring out some of the short notes in the Jane Austen #References section. I've left a brief comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive2. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Just saw your edit on the Austen Talk page and if you have strong feelings on this issue you might consider running an Rfc on that Talk page to determine if there is consensus for switching over since there are multiple editors supporting you. The original edits using MLA were made long ago from ten years ago, and the original editor who made those early edits is sadly no longer editing for over three years. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Adrianne Wadewitz was a much-respected Wikipedian and died in 2014 from a rock-climbing accident. It's natural therefore for those who worked with her to want to preserve her memory - and her contributions as much as possible. She was the editor who did a lot of the development of Jane Austen from 2007, and she inserted the hidden note "LISTS OF WORKS ARE IN MLA — PLEASE FOLLOW — THANKS" to the Bibliography. That has a lot to do with why there is such strong feeling to use MLA - which unfortunately misses the point that MLA is fine for the long citations, but sadly isn't suitable for the short citations for the reasons I've outlined at Talk:Jane Austen #MLA. Sorting out citation styles is an endeavour that I've been beavering away at for years here, and it may be that I'll need to fork the CS1 citations to allow a switch for different presentations of the same material. That may take a little longer, but should not stop any of us working to improve Jane Austen to the best of our abilities in the meantime. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
That was quite a nice comment from you about the late Wadewitz. It has just occurred to me last night when you mentioned the Sandbox option on one of the Talk pages that there might be another useful approach to do this whole thing if you could create a Sandbox-version or a Draft-version of the full Austen page on a separate Draft page and then go ahead with the full conversion there as if it were good to go. This would present what I think would be a sea change in the discussion if editors could see that the completely converted article is already there and good to go as soon as there is consensus. I think Prairie would sign-up for this as well (although its up to Prairie to decide) to help, and I would also provide the full citation information on a one-by-one basis if needed. That might be better than backtracking and rehashing old ground. What do you think? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It's already done, Fountains-of-Paris, I made the change on the main article last night and self-reverted, but anybody can look at how MLA-style would appear in the Bibliography by looking at Special:Permalink/736061849 #Bibliography. It's only the books, but I can create the corresponding {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, etc. templates easily. I'll should make a draft in a sandbox so that others could play with the functionality to test it out. --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be something I missed overnight... you and Ling were about to agree it seems (on the Talk page at Austen) that your own consistent cites version might be acceptable to him and that it would significancly reshape the forwards movement of the discussion if not bring it towards completion. If you can put aside and block out the other baiting targeted at you by other editors, then I think if you concentrate on Ling alone you might have it completed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Wide image template[edit]

Hi RexxS, Are you familiar with {{Wide image}}? If so, is it OK for accessibility? Do you think it should be used for things like the decompression schedule graphics in Hyperbaric treatment schedules? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter, yes, I'm familiar with {{Wide image}}. It's accessible and quite useful for images bigger than the normal browser width (say 1000px and up). For smaller images it simply moves the horizontal scroll bars from the bottom of the browser window to the image container, so I don't see that offers any advantage of a frameless image. Try narrowing your browser window and see how these three examples behave:

Thumbnail image[edit]

Use: Treatment of decompression sickness where relief is obtained at or less than 66 fsw. -> floats outside the window

  • Obsolete
  • Oxygen is not used
  • Maximum pressure 100 fsw (30 msw)
  • Run time 3 hours 37 minutes
US Navy 1943 100-foot Air Treatment Table

Wide image[edit]

Use: Treatment of decompression sickness where relief is obtained at or less than 66 fsw. -> image gets horizontal scroll bars

  • Obsolete
  • Oxygen is not used
  • Maximum pressure 100 fsw (30 msw)
  • Run time 3 hours 37 minutes
US Navy 1943 100-foot Air Treatment Table

Frameless image[edit]

Use: Treatment of decompression sickness where relief is obtained at or less than 66 fsw. -> browser window gets horizontal scroll bars

  • Obsolete
  • Oxygen is not used
  • Maximum pressure 100 fsw (30 msw)
  • Run time 3 hours 37 minutes

US Navy 1943 100-foot Air Treatment Table

I'm assuming you want to make them big enough to see the text clearly. Those are all using their default attributes. With any of them, you can change the default alignment and add or remove borders, so that's just a question taste. There's a link at the bottom of the page to allow you to see the site in mobile view as well if needed. Please let me know if you want any help with meeting the objections in the GA review. I might have guessed that a lay reader couldn't be expected to see that "Tissues in which an inert gas is more soluble will eventually develop a higher dissolved gas content than tissues where the gas is less soluble." is the definition of solubility! I often rely for general sourcing about deco theory on books such as Lippmann, John (1990). Deeper into Diving (1st ed.). Melbourne, Australia: J L Publications. ISBN 0-9590306-3-8.  and Powell, Mark (2008). Deco for Divers. Southend-on-Sea: Aquapress. ISBN 1-905492-07-3.  Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I was thinking of the middle option as it looks neater to me to not scroll the text. I would also welcome any assistance in sorting out the objections, and I think the review was done without due attention to the criteria. I would value your opinion, and have requested a second opinion on the GA talk page. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course I'm happy to help out, but I don't want to interfere. FWIW, it's simply not worth contesting a GA review. There are not enough GA reviewers and they are all pretty busy, so there's no real mechanism for a second opinion. Can I make a suggestion? Fix up as many extra citations as you can and ask Gene for help if can't find sources. Then resubmit the article. When you re-submit, ping me and I'll ask one of my wiki-friends, Montanabw, (who lives about as far as you can get from the sea and is unlikely to know much about the technical aspects of scuba-diving) to cast a fresh pair of eyes over the article for you. She also happens to be a great copy-editor and has written dozens of GAs, so she can probably give you a quick run-down of any obvious flaws she spots. Montanabw, would you be willing to do that for Peter at some point in the near future? --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello RexxS[edit]

If I may be bold here, may I ask that you help me to ensure that if ever we edit from opposing camps, as apparently can happen, that disagreement does not become disassociation; that would be a terrible end by any means. I hope you will always remember that I hold you in very high esteem. I have told you so in the past. I tell you so now, regretting that we have hit on some disagreement. Does this sound "fair enough"? I will abide. Best.--John Cline (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

John, I apologise. Thank you for your gracious admonishment. I've been too invested in the problem (as I see it) of hidden text forbidding something that hasn't been discussed. That has led me a merry dance over multiple venues and worn my patience too thin for my own comfort. Please rest assured that I do appreciate your work on Wikipedia, and when I become snarky in debate, it's not my intention to be personal; it's because I foolishly allow myself to become too combative in discussions, often because I genuinely can't believe the positions sometimes taken by others. As an olive branch, I've self-reverted my last comment. I agree it was not the sort of posting that on reflection I would be proud of. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation styles[edit]

This is no longer an appropriate tool for authoring citations

On talk:Jane Austin, you wrote:

I'm considering the idea of forking the CS1 templates to allow an editor to set the display of the long cites as MLA or Chicago or what you will, so that citations would be very easy to reuse between articles using different display styles, just by changing |display_as=MLA to |display_as=APA or whatever to match the style used in the destination article.

I have a slightly different idea (and somewhat less technical ability that you): Change the templates so that the output is a user-selected preference.

In other words, from the same (templated) input, I could select to see Harvard style, while you could select to see MLA, or whatever. We currently do that for coordinates, emitted by {{Coord}}, using CSS, but that, and the citation preferences, should be in a user script, later a gadget, and eventually the standard user preferences dialogue.

I touch upon this in Citations - the future. Work being done under the auspices of Wikicite should facilitate such improvements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. Nice as it would be to be able to select whatever style of output we desired, 95% of our readers don't have user-selected preferences (and another 4% don't know how to use them). So while we could write javascript to re-arrange the outputs of CS1 templates into pretty much whatever display we want, I'm not sure I'd want to invest so much time into a feature that hardly any reader would use. You could suggest it to the WMF devs; they have a good track record with ideas like that. Well, OK, in a perfect world, I'd definitely be in favour of the feature. By the way, the {{coords}} scheme of outputting both decimal degrees and dms and hiding one or the other via css classes would get really cumbersome if we had half-a-dozen different citation formats (APA, Chicago, Vancouver, MLA, Harvard, CS1 default off the top of my head)
What I think would be awesome would be to be enable an editor to add a "magic word" like __APA_REFS__ to an article reference section and have that "automagically" cause all the refs in that section to display in pseudo-APA style (or whatever style we have a definition for). In that case, we'd still need to have the Lua code written to switch output into one of a number of predefined formats, so it's worth developing CS1 that takes |display_as (which needs placing in each long citation) because however we would read the magic word, it would still require the relevant code to be triggered, either internally or via an external parameter passed to the function. I'll have a good look at Module:Citation/CS1 to see what the size of the job is. To be continued ... --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, as with {{Coord}}, there would have to be a defaults style for those who haven't selected one, or who are not logged in. I'd prefer we opt for one across the project, but if necessary it could be specified in the manner described by you in the above quote - the two ideas are not mutually incompatible. Your idea for a once-per-page setting would fit best in {{Reflist}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course. For default, I'd settle for the current CS1 default style (there's an option to display author names in Vancouver-style format already there) as it would yield the least disturbance to what most of us are used to. In other words, making this sort of change should be transparent in every article until an editor activates the extra features for that article. Would you agree? --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
When RA was around (still around with a rename at User:Tóraí), he did some work with the cite extension as proof-of-concept which would enable the entire page to display a certain style; take a look at phab:T24134. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that seems reasonable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: I was just discussing that very extension with Iridescent yesterday. I remember Rannpháirtí anaithnid had set up a test wiki to try it out. The major improvement was the speed of page rendering; doing all the work in php was so much quicker than via the mediawiki parser that it made some articles usable again. I showed SlimVirgin at the time that Israel (575 citations) could generate an editing preview (which forces a cache flush) in a few seconds if it didn't have to use the old citation templates that took over a minute to process. Once Scribunto was implemented, most of that advantage disappeared, and the proposal was forgotten about. Looking back at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion #Cite modifications shows how something as obviously advantageous could be talked down by the usual Luddite reactions and failure to understand. I see that we exchanged views briefly on that very page at Redux. Looking back at that section shows that nothing has changed in exactly six years, and really, I should realise that it's a waste of time trying to appease those who feel that hand-written citations are the only possibility for "their" best articles. Templates already offer so many advantages over hand-written citations that it shouldn't even be a debate. "There's none so blind as those that don't want to see." --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth I don't think the average reader cares what format the citations use as long as they work, so reverting to a default for IPs and logged out should logically not be a problem. In reality there will probably be the not invented here contingent. I would like a single method of adding citations which is easy to use but allows all the options, (along with world peace, justice for all and a solution to the population problem - why not aim high?) Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Lua on cywiki causing problems[edit]

Hi Doug. Usually on cywiki we can copy and paste templates from en / br or de into cy. However, when I attempt to copy cy:Nodyn:Location map template (which basically deletes the old code and inputs Lua) the lower of the two map will not work. I reverted to the old 2014 code. As we have no Lua techies on cywiki, it might be better to revert to a Lua free wiki? The problem I'm trying to solve is twofold and found in this infobox: 1. The coordinates have become elongated (great techie word!) and therefore the infobox is too wide and 2. The wording 'Lleoliad o fewn Brittany' needs to be changed to 'Lleoliad o fewn Llydaw'. If you could spare a minute, I would be very thankful. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robin. For some reason that I haven't fathomed out yet, the title display is rendering next to the inline display, so you get both. For the moment, I've reset the default for |coordinates_display= in cy:Nodyn:Infobox French commune to just "inline". That seems to calm things down a bit. I'll look at sorting out the location "Brittany" next. How many French regions have a Welsh translation? --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably caused by some missing or incorrect styles - check the CSS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
OK - next bit: There's a file called cy:Nodyn:Infobox French commune/regmap which contains a lot of place names in English alphabetical order. You'll need to change each one that has a Welsh equivalent :( The order doesn't actually matter. You'll probably have to purge the pages you're looking at to see the updates (doing an preview in edit mode usually works). Have fun. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Merlin and John Dee all rolled into one! Diolch Doug!!! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest[edit]

Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. Face-smile.svg  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


If Trappist's mode=ma is fully functional, why don't we resolve this tiff at Jane by adding it to every reference? Discuss at talk page first, of course.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to :D. See demo at Special:Permalink/736061849 (I self-reverted 2 mins later) and Talk:Jane Austen #Restoring earlier version. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


Following on from User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Wikidata Descriptions - am I to understand that there is a proposal to "import" in mobile view unverified data from Wikidata? One thing I detest about wikimedia development is that so much of it takes place out of sight of the people who use the software... (visual editor anyone?) Please let me know if there is an easy spot for someone like me to go to protest this. Also, while I'm here - I've been seeing a lot of edits like this from my watchlist - is there a bot going through mindlessly adding the infobox image for an English wikipedia article into the image field on wikidata? Because if there is... it probably should have some exclusion criteria since in that edit (and a lot of similar ones) it's adding an image of a building to the wikidata image entry for a medieval person who we will never have an image of. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: There's a proposal to import the 'description' from Wikidata as a subtitle for mobile view on all Wikipedias. It's at mw:Reading/web/Projects/Wikidata Descriptions. For talk-page watchers, it's this:
The problem, of course, is that the 'description' is wholly unsourced. It's meant as a sort of disambiguation because entity labels are not unique (e.g. lots of places all called Newport). However, when it's a living person and somebody uses a sensitive descriptor like ethnicity, you open up a can of worms. You can make your feelings known at mw:Talk:Reading/web/Projects/Wikidata Descriptions.
I don't know of any bot doing the job you describe, but there's no shortage of editors adding images to Wikidata manually. Jklamo, who added the image of the Château de Tancarville, is an experienced editor, so I'm sure he'll understand your concern if you drop him a note. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Been busy most of the weekend (got the druid from 22 to 50) but did want to thank you for this reply. I'll try to drop notes in the next few days. And I was serious about wanting to know about book grants ... if WMUK offers one, I'd love to know details. Or anything else. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm never keen on levelling a druid unless I have a pal to level with (for the variety). Solo, you know you're going to go kitty for speed, so it's just like a slightly under-powered rogue. Anyway, thanks for any input you can make on MediaWiki. As for books, events, etc., grants from Wikimedia UK are outlined at wmuk:Project grants. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)