User talk: Tom.Reding

Please continue conversations on the same talk page that they started.
Click here to start a new conversation. Thank you!

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation, January 21, 2012.

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Congratulations, Tom.Reding, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for all the great DAB work you've been doing recently, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep it up! :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your incredible WikiGnoming over the past few months. I am in awe. A2soup (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :)   ~ Tom.Reding & his 200-some-odd lines of regex (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  02:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You have nearly single-handedly eliminated the minor planet notability problem, which had stood for seven years before you decided to tackle it, because nobody wanted to do the massive amount of work required. If this doesn't deserve a barnstar, I'm not sure what does. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

Hello, Tom.Reding! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference fixes

Please note that in some cases your automated edits to citation template parameters converted "|title=[Letter to the editor]" to "editor=..." - here. Shyamal (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

MoMP revision

Hi Tom, long time no edit. Are you disposed to edit the MoMP-table-header tpl a bit?

As far as I can see, the basic task for the Meanings of minor planet names and its partial lists have all been done.

I have now began to revise the citations with their references (a "prototype"/pilot MoMP revision is done for Meanings of minor planet names: 2001–3000). In order to finalize it the {{MinorPlanetNameMeaningsTableHeader}} should be amended.

Currently, the table header looks like this (partial example):

Number–Name	Prov. Designation	Source of Name
2601 Bologna	1980 XA	Bologna, Italy DMP
2602 Moore	1982 BR	Patrick Moore, British amateur astronomer DMP
2603 Taylor	1982 BW1	Gordon E. Taylor, British amateur astronomer DMP
2604 Marshak	1972 LD1	Samuil Marshak, Russian poet and writer MPC
2605 Sahade	1974 QA	Jorge Sahade, Argentinian astronomer MPC

Which should be changed in order to:

• add a new column Ref · Cataloge, and to
• add a back to top     as in {{List of minor planets/header2}}

Named minor planet	Provisional	This minor planet was named for...	Ref · Cataloge
2601 Bologna	1980 XA	Bologna, Italy	DMP · 2601
2602 Moore	1982 BR	Patrick Moore, British amateur astronomer	DMP · 2602
2603 Taylor	1982 BW1	Gordon E. Taylor, British amateur astronomer	DMP · 2603
2604 Marshak	1972 LD1	Samuil Marshak, Russian poet and writer	MPC · 2604
2605 Sahade	1974 QA	Jorge Sahade, Argentinian astronomer	MPC · 2605

The |top-link=no is already present in all partial MoMP pages. For the new column, I propose to use a parameter such as |refcol=yes as well, so that both old an new table-header versions can coexist.

Context: Basically all MP-citations can be found in at least one of {{JPL}}, {{MPC}}, {{DoMP}} (preferentially used in that order, i.e. using {{JPL}} whenever possible, and only using {{DoMP}} when the other two do not provide any citation-text. This preference has to with copyright concerns). For newly named MPs, this distinction is irrelevant and the JPL template will always be used.

When looking at Ref · Cataloge it would maybe look better if Catalog · Ref was used (i.e.inverted order to have a nicer vertical alignement), but that would not be consistent with the LoMP-table (here, with its Ref · Meaning header, that need to be compatible for toggling between MoMP and LoMP, which is one of the goals of this revision).

What you think? If you are on a wikibreak or rather occupied with other things, then no problem. I will implement these changes myself. Best, Rfassbind – talk 14:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, yes, it's been a few months, eh? Maybe I should put a WikiBreak banner up. I'm definitely available on request though; I'm just not sure how much self-induced/inspired work I'll be doing for a while. Next week I think I can look into this/make the necessary changes. Will ping you then!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Great, here are some further possible improvements (for reference):

1. The year the citation was published in the M.P.C. could be added based on the curricular's reference number and a mapping date range from MPC's publication archive (which goes back to 1977). Of course this needs to be parsed and mapped for (20) thousands of NamedMPs and potential IP blocking by the MPC requires extra work (using the more complicated {{DoMPN}} source for example). For low-numbered (up to 1500) MPs, the The Names of the Minor Planets reference could be used, leaving a gap for those MPs named between 1959 and 1977.
2. Colorize table rows based on the type of naming (e.g. people, places, mythology, and others). People should have a date of birth/death, places a country, while others have neither of them. This could lead to a potentially interesting structure for table rows where the number of cells are not even, so a set of specific table-row templates could be used for all these types.
3. the minor planet designation in the first column could only be linked if there is an MP-object article, and not linked if it is a redirect to LoMP. This concept, however, might be too difficult for most editors (so they would link a redirect anyway).

These are just a few thoughts for the long-term and irrelevant at the moment. Rfassbind – talk 09:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Rfassbind, I've got some time now but it looks like you made all the required changes? I am tempted to edit the /doc to reflect those changes. However, I just went through every page that transcludes {{MinorPlanetNameMeaningsTableHeader}}, and I found that each template call now contains |refcol=yes (I noticed that on March 1 this was not the case but I didn't have the time to help complete the transition). I'm also tempted to make |refcol=yes the template's default behavior and remove the need for this parameter. If you agree, I can do so later this week.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Rfassbind, I don't see a downside so I think I'll do this later today fyi.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding those 3 proposals:

1. I don't see how this could be of frequent-enough interest to be included in the table, especially given the difficulty in performing the addition, and the added bulk to the already-bulky pages.
2. That would be nice to see, similar to what you did on the LoMPs :)
3. Agreed; also similar to the LoMPs.

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thx Tom for the removal of the obsolete parameter |refcol=yes. Good to have you around again. Since my last post a few weeks ago, I came to realize that most naming citations in the partial MoMP tables need to be thoroughly revised before any new feature can be implemented. There are missing citations, a lot of WP:OR with hidden html comments, dead/unhelpful external links, missing internal links, excessive redlinks etc. But I acknowledge that the naming citation's year of publication may not be considered a useful addition to the table. Till soon, Rfassbind – talk 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Mason Carter Article

My friend Tyler Mason Carter, who is Mason Carter the army officer's great-great-grandson, wonders if any other descendants were involved in the creation of or maintenance of the entry for the major. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdmoss (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Kdmoss, sorry, I'm an unrelated editor.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Template and mass edit

Dear Tom, here are two proposed edits, concerning mass-change edits and intrinsic template programming, for which you are definitely the man:

1. Edit {{Infobox planet}}: in the infobox'es designation section, the label for |alt_names= is currently "Alternative names". This has to be changed because it overwhelmingly contains (provisional) designations, not "names". I propose "Alternative designations" or something similar that does not use the word "name". As long as this amendment only applies to minor planets (i.e. |minorplanet=yes), this change is uncontroversial.
2. In the infobox, section designation, parameter |mp_name=: most if not all named minor-planet object articles do not display a parenthesis in their name. The label "MPC designation" is clear and uncontroversial: all named minor planets need to be displayed with a parenthesis around the catalog number. Example: 1296 Andrée has already been corrected. There are a few thousand articles that need such a change...

What ya think? Best, Rfassbind – talk 20:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Rfassbind, sounds good; I'll take care of both.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Thx Tom. Just to let you know: Minor-planet object articles that I'm revising since my first post above, do already include a parenthesis as described in #2.Rfassbind – talk 14:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Rfassbind, I'm working through these and I'm finding many exceptions. One of them is...the MP page doesn't even have an {{Infobox planet}}! Thought you'd like to know so you can bump these up on your overall revision schedule :) I'm missing 1 atm and will add it to the bottom after I'm doing adding |mp_name= to all the remaining infobox'd pages.

MPs missing an infobox 

1. 1023 Thomana
2. 1025 Riema
3. 1033 Simona
4. 1034 Mozartia
5. 1037 Davidweilla
6. 1044 Teutonia
7. 1178 Irmela
8. 1180 Rita
9. 1552 Bessel
10. 364 Isara
11. 456 Abnoba
12. 458 Hercynia
13. 460 Scania
14. 461 Saskia
15. 462 Eriphyla
16. 464 Megaira

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm also thinking of changing |mp_name= to |mpc_name= since it's much more intuitive, matches the displayed text, and won't be mistaken for |name= by inexperienced editors. I'll make a new topic on the {{Infobox planet}} talk page informing ppl before I start that.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thx Tom for listing those 16 remaining, low-numbered MP-object articles with no infobox (I added them to my previously incomplete list) and thx for adding any missing |mp_name= parameters (hope there aren't too many). Also, renaming this parameter to |mpc_name= seems fine to me (as stated on the templates talk page). Thx, Rfassbind – talk 05:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Revise unhelpful potatoes MP#R

Hi Tom, here's another suggestion for a mass-edit, which you might be interested in.

• In 2010, user PotatoBot has created large numbers of MP#Rs such as Rozhdestvenskij. These are redirects that just use the minor planet's name without a number. All redirects have a {{R from short name}} template on the first line. There might be hundreds of these redirects.
• Many of these redirects have change their targets over time. Those that now redirect to the list of minor planets are highly unhelpful.
• I have collected some of these LOMP#Rs. There are definitely many more of these (with superseded #X01-anchors).
• I propose to summarize these created PotatoBot redirects, and amend the target/formatting of all those that now point to LoMP.
• A better target would be MoMP, so Rozhdestvenskij would point to {{MoMP}}, i.e. Meanings of minor planet names: 5001–6000#360.
• In addition I also propose to create a redirect template, in analogy to {{NASTRO comment}}, that explains that it is a name of a minor planet, and what to to/how to amend (e.g. to change target to a biography etc. if exists, of turn it into a {{Disambiguation}} page.

What you think? Rfassbind – talk 13:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Rfassbind, I just finished going through all pages which transclude {{R from short name}} and contain the regex minor planet|asteroid|list of|\[\[\(?\d+\)?\s+'?\w. After removing obvious non-MP pages, and cross referencing the remainder with the MPC's MPNames.html and with the unnamed unnumbered asteroids on WP, I found ~6644 potato'd MP#Rs. ~6085 of the potato #Rs have a unique match to the MPNames list and can be handled relatively straight-forwardly. ~435 of them are provisional designation pages, some of which may by now be numbered, and should probably point to the appropriate provisional list/article and LoMP pages, respectively. The remaining ~125 have multiple MPNames hits and need further scrutiny.

The ones that point to (or should point to) the MoMP can be treated with {{R from short name}}{{NASTRO comment|do-not-cat=yes}}. The (probably) small # of ones that point to (or should point to) actual MP articles can have something like {{R from short name}}{{NASTRO comment|do-not-cat=yes|r-templates=off}}.

However, given the history of the MP#Rs and the large # of afflicted pages, yeah I think it's best to do as you suggest & make something like {{PotatoBot}}, which produces the equivalent of {{R from short name}}{{NASTRO comment|do-not-cat=yes}}, and {{PotatoBot|article=yes}} which produces the equivalent of {{R from short name}}{{NASTRO comment|do-not-cat=yes|r-templates=off}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx, Tom. Good job. Can you post your results on this page? I do not understand how provisional pages and names go along (those 435 items, you mentioned). Also, since my first post in March, I was also thinking about just using a {{NASTRO comment}} with new custom params (instead of a dedicated template). And, I will formulate a custom redirect-message-text and post it on the above mentioned page. Best, Rfassbind – talk 10:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do.

On the topic of to-NASTRO-comment or not to-NASTRO-comment:

1. If all that's being added are the r-templates (i.e. |potatobot=yes would append {{R from short name}} & {{R unprintworthy}}, and maybe an additional #R template), it would only be a minor addition to the {{NASTRO comment}}. The |do-not-cat=yes parameter & message would be needed for & be seen on each potato #R. |potatobot=yes, however, would be nested under |do-not-cat=yes, so the typical P#R would have {{NASTRO comment|do-not-cat=yes|potatobot=yes}}, which implies the existence of {{NASTRO comment|potatobot=yes}}, which would not in fact exist. This makes it less intuitive for future editors and increases chances for error.
2. If {{NASTRO comment|potatobot=yes}} did exist, then that would make the template code (and documentation) much longer and more complicated.
3. The interaction between |r-templates=off & |potatobot=yes would be similarly complicated.
4. These short-name P#Rs are in no danger of accidentally being turned into articles, so the justification for using/changing {{NASTRO comment}} directly is that much weaker.
5. I see the desire to combine/track all of the |do-not-cat=yes #Rs in 1 place. If {{NASTRO comment}} is used within {{PotatoBot}} (or whatever), then all of them will show up when looking for 'what transcludes {{NASTRO comment}}'. A custom message would preclude the use of {{NASTRO comment}}, however. But we can mollify this by mentioning {{PotatoBot}} in the {{NASTRO comment}} documentation so anyone looking for all the MP#Rs would know where to look.

Given these issues, I think the simplest solution would be to make a separate template. How should we proceed?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thx Tom for posting the list of all concerned pages on the project page. I respond to your 3 posted lists separately in #1, #2 and #3:

1. For the 6085 P#Rs with a unique match in MPNames.html, please proceed as you seem fit best (I was just worried about the longevity of such template). So if you want to use a dedicated template for these redirects that's fine with me. I wouldn't name it {{PotatoBot}} though. That's only circumstantial (and there are other reasons as well). A better name would describe what the template is about, namely a redirect that only uses the name-part of a minor planet's final/permanent designation. In short {{Partial minor planet designation}}". If you come up with a better name for that template, please go ahead and thx for the effort.

2. For the 435 potential provisionally named P#Rs . This is another topic. They are those tertiary redirects (ter#Rs) of unnumbered provisional designations, for example:

• 1981 EU20 (tertiary #R; created: 19 April 2010) that is the unnumbered version of
• (8627) 1981 EU20 (secondary #R; created: 22 February 2010‎ ) which has been moved to
• 8627 Kunalnayyar (primary #R) upon naming on 30 November 2015‎.

Theses tertiary #Rs do not fit into the potato-R-from-MP-name-only task we discussed above. They have nothing to do with a "name" and are completely different. I propose to create a {{R from superseded designation}} [replace strikethrough text with: used {{R from former name}}] for this specific group of ter#Rs and add it to a good fraction of secondary #Rs as well (those sec#Rs that were created by a move upon naming by the MPC).

Here are some details:

• Per your list there are 435 items ("potential provisionally named P#Rs"). On your redirect candiate page I once listed all the possible variation of secondary redirects (double redirect).
• Until now, I have simply used a "R from move" on the sec#Rs when I moved them upon naming by the MPC. Unfortunately "move" is circumstantial, it describes what happened, not what it is. I don't think these ter#Rs can be handled in the same manner, as they have been created after the secondary already existed, so a "R from move" would even be wrong.
• We may want to create such a "R from superseded designation" and use {{R from former name}} instead and "R from move" along with the category-shell, "R avoided double redirect" (if they are #Rs-to-LOMP). If created we should use it for those sec#Rs that were created by a move action as well.

3. For the 124 P#Rs with multiple matches in MPNames as you said, they need further scrutiny. Currently I don't know what "multiple" matches they are (article names or text in articles?). But in any case they are likely to join #1 as they are all "MP-names only" Thx, Rfassbind – talk 15:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

{{Partial minor planet designation}} created! I will populate it over the next few days. Good name choice :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Good documentation. I think an additional comment in the "boilerplate message" and examples in the documentation will be helpful. Thx for the effort, Rfassbind – talk 02:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Rfassbind, I added {{Partial minor planet designation}} to the vast majority (95.1%) of the 6085 P#Rs with a unique match on MPNames.html (I didn't touch the 297 with diacritics). Nor did I touch the 124 nor the 432 potentially provisionally named MPs because they require a keener eye and more time than I can provide right now. Please try to finish these off. I may do some of these in the future, or I may not. If I do, I'll strike them off as done.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thx for your reminder. I amended {{Partial minor planet designation}} with a custom message (tentative) and started to revise those easy, tertiary cases such as 1989 WE1 which have no "name" as mentioned above under (#2), using an {{R from former name}} (instead of "superseded") as well as an {{R avoided double redirect}} in most cases. Rfassbind – talk 09:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

follow-up: if you could do a search and give me a list of all MP pages containing the (hardcoded) html-comment <!-- Do not categorize this page, to avoid duplication. --> would help me to expanded/enlarge my revision I just mentioned above. Rfassbind – talk 10:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Luckily, I'm going to download the latest enwiki database and scan all redirect for something else I'm looking for. I will also scan it for all instances of <!-- Do not categorize ....   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘   435 potential provisionally named P#Rs (task #2) documented at User:Rfassbind/Revision minor planet single-redirs from short name § Provisional redirects.

Tom, I'm now on task #3, 124 P#Rs with multiple matches in MPNames. I just noted that {{Partial minor planet designation}} does not display those automatically added templates as it should. For example:

• Adamries with |article= set to "yes" should not display "listentry, anchor, and up", while
• Leoconnolly pointing to MoMP, with no parameter set, does not display these templates, although it should.

  I have amended {{Partial minor planet designation}} in order to fix the problems mentioned above. I also amended the template's message box and its documentation (I removed {{R unprintworthy}} from MP#Rs that redirect to MP-object articles). Rfassbind – talk 11:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  124 P#Rs with multiple matches in MPNames The project page documents in what type of redirect these 124 pages with multiple matches turned into. Half of them turned into {{disambiguation}} pages, which took many hours to compile. Rfassbind – talk 11:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  297 P#Rs with a unique match and diacritics in MPNames.html, most of them redirect to MOMP, 2 or 3 were incorrect names, a couple of dozen had articles, and one or two I decited to redirect to a non-MP article or DAB page. By the way, since all the redirects had unique matches, what was the reason to exclude the diacritical names from the mass-revision you did on the non-diacritical ones? Rfassbind – talk 21:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Another search question

Hi there. I want to search for all instances of:

{{Colbegin}} {{reflist}} {{Colend}}

in the insource search bar, with an without capital letters. I'm not having any luck with the dashes. Maybe you know a better way? Thanks --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Jennica, insource:/\{\{[Cc]olbegin}}[\r\n ]*\{\{[Rr]eflist}}[\r\n ]*\{\{[Cc]olend}}/ should do the trick. Only the first sets of { need to be escaped to \{, since unmatched } don't need to be escaped (though you could escape } if you want if unsure). The [\r\n ]* takes care of white-space characters between the templates (carriage return, new line, and space, respectively). I only found 1 result :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

As a reminder to myself (and others), the regex character class \s contains all whitespace characters, but it does not work as intended in WP's insource: search function, so you have to enumerate them.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	thanks for helping me with the search codes! Jennica✿ / talk 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

MoMP Revision: removal of column "provisional"

The column "provisional" in all the 500 partial pages of Meanings of minor planet names should be removed as it serves little to no purpose at all. Rarely a minor planet's name was inspired by its provisional designation, and if that's the case, it can easily be mentioned in the description (if not already done so). What do you think? Rfassbind – talk 01:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Details

• Empty sections with a comment "There are no named minor planets in this number range" must have their |colspan= attribute reduced from 4 to 3.
• The removal of column "provisional" should neither cause "double spaces" nor "touching double-pipes" in the source code.
• The template, {{MinorPlanetNameMeaningsTableHeader}} needs to be amended and the width of the first column could be somewhat increased.

Hmm, I think the Provisional column is non-trivial, though not by much. A better argument would be when/if there were more columns that could be added that are more useful than Provisional.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem I see with the entire Solar System/minor planet project is that there is so much redundancy, and so many tables with unhelpful extra information that are neither complete nor maintained. This is bad. Rather than excessive redundancy and details, we need more/better linkage between the various tables, article and categories and focus on the core aspects. In that respect we have already achieved quite a bit, such as, for example, the interconnection between the corresponding LoMP and MoMP records, and since they are now tightly bound to each other, I see no point in having the provisional designation in both these tables. Rfassbind – talk 23:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Rfassbind, if the column needed constant maintenance then I'd strongly support removing it, since the cost/benefit ratio would be high. As it is now though, my opinion is 'meh' (not worth the effort).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That's OK. Revising the content of all partial MOMP-lists is more important anyway. So no need for structural changes right now. As of May 2017, I think the overall revision of all partial lists will not be finished soon, so it's quite possible that I will come up with new ideas for additional features that might also change the table's structure before the revision is finished. Thx for your feedback, Rfassbind – talk 12:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Alias of template Dwarf planet

Some of the minor-planet object articles seem to use an alias for the footer template {{Dwarf planets}}. I found one article that uses {{Plutoids}} rather than {{Dwarf planets}}. If I'm not mistaken, that would be a perfect "search & replace" task for someone using AWB:

• http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Template:Dwarf_planets

What you think? Best, Rfassbind – talk 10:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Rfassbind,  Done, only about 50. And I realized this towards the end - this sort of fix, at least on a small scale, is probably ok, but on a large scale fixing template redirects is considered a 'trivial edit' by AWB.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Mass-edits adding new templates to minor-planet redirects

Tom, @Paine Ellsworth:, I propose two mass-edits on minor planet redirects (MP#Rs for short):

1. Add {{R from former name}} to all provisionally designated (secondary) MP#Rs that have since been named. For example (6444) 1989 WW is the unnamed version of 6444 Ryuzin. As with (6444) 1989 WW, most provisionally designated MP#Rs of named minor planets already possess a {{R from move}}, since they were created first and then moved (some years later) to the named version. So {{R from former name}} often goes along with {{R from move}}. I think both templates are needed and are not redundant, as one describes the what (circumstances), and the other explains the why (relation). {{R from former name}} can be considered a synonym for "R from provisionally designated minor planet". The template should be added to any provisionally designated MP#R, irrespective of whether the named version is an article or another redirect (to the List of minor planets).
2. Add {{Talk page of redirect}} to all Talk-pages of primary MP#Rs using |othertalk= set to the main/parent Talk:List of minor planets. This facilitates discussions about minor planets that have no article on wikipedia with a talk page that is not frequently watched by others. For example Talk:48411 Johnventre is currently one of very few Talk-MP#Rs that has such a template, but its target is its corresponding partial list which contains 1000 minor planets for its number range. Since there are hundreds of partial lists, it would make more sense to chose Talk:List of minor planets as a single target for all MP#Rs. Note that, per convention, the talk pages of primary MP#Rs themselves, do never redirect to the List of minor planets (per convention). Also talk pages of secondary redirects, e.g. Talk:(48411) 1985 RB3, are of no concern for the addition of {{Talk page of redirect}} as they simply redirect to the primary MP#R's talk page, e.g. Talk:48411 Johnventre. Also, instead of "Talk:List of minor planets", User:Tom.Reding/Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates could be used as an alternative target page.

Hope this wasn't too painful to read. I tried to be as clear as possible. What do you guys think about the two proposed changes? Rfassbind – talk 08:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Both appear to have a lot of merit if I understand them correctly. For #2, consider having an {{#ifexist:...}} function or equivalent so that talk pages that do not already exist will not be created just to put the Talk page of redirect template on them. Also, your edits to centralize discussions do make sense; however, I've noticed two things that concern me at Talk:(48411) 1985 RB3: (1) you redirected that page to Talk:48411 Johnventre, which is a soft redirect, so you now have a form of double redirect to a page that should have no future discussions. That results in extra clicks for readers who are trying to find a place to ask about or discuss something. Talk:(48411) 1985 RB3 should redirect to a usable talk page, shouldn't it? and (2) you removed {{R from move}} evidently to keep the redirect from being categorized as an unsynchronized talk page redirect. That talk page is the result of a page move and should be categorized as a redirect from a page move. Before we change anything, though, I want to see if I can figure a way to add another exception for these in the R from move template, so as to keep all of them out of the unsynched category.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thx for your valuable feedback. While (#1) seems to be uncontroversial, you raised questions about (#2). Let me reiterate two things, so that we're on the same page. I'll stick to our example:

• First, the chronology of the two pages for this minor planet (creation, move and redirect):
  • on 4 August 2011‎ – (48411) 1985 RB3 was created by Merovingian
  • on 17 August 2011‎ – Talk:(48411) 1985 RB3 was created by Shirt58
  • on 8 February 2015‎ – pages were moved to 48411 Johnventre and Talk:48411 Johnventre, respectively, by Eibenag
  • on 27 December 2015 – 48411 Johnventre was redirected to List of minor planets by Boleyn
• Second, terminology. As of 2017, there is no article for this minor planet (MP). 48411 Johnventre redirects (#R) to the List of minor planets (LoMP). We call it a primary redirect (p-MP#R) which contains a notabillity-comment and several categories. The old version with the provisional designation (instead of a name) is called a secondary redirect (s-MP#R) and always has a {{R avoided double redirect}}, no categories, and a warning.
• Third, why not to synchronize talk-pages: Secondary MP#Rs of the type of the example above are a pain in the ass. The talk-page of these s-MP#Rs seem utterly useless, but they were created some time in the past and continue to exist after the minor planet was named. (If I was an admin, I would probably have deleted these secondary talk pages). No one links to them. Their content was moved to the p-MP#R upon naming. They really serve no purpose. That's why I simply put a #REDIRECT [[Talk:48411 Johnventre]]. This has the advantage, that no further amendments will have to be made in the future, irrespective of whether or not 48411 Johnventre will be turned into an article one day. Conversely, if we'd synchronize any of these two talk-pages to the LoMP-list, then future amendments seem likely to be necessary (as the example shows, talk pages are often forgotten by editors). That's why the extra clicks for readers are really not worth to be considered.
• Fourth: I don't understand your "#ifexist" remark. Note: there are no primary MP#Rs with a missing talk-page (please check). And I doubt that there are >1% of s-MP#Rs talk-pages that are "missing" (well, since I consider them useless, they aren't exactly missing, but I created them for consistency nevertheless). Can you elaborate more about your concern?
• Fith, I didn't know that {{R from move}} and its removal has anything to do with being/not being categorized as an unsynchronized talk page redirect (Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects currently shows 6 unsync'ed talk-pages such as Talk:(6875) 1994 NG1). Well, that was probably just sheer dumb luck on my side, as we would have otherwise had this conversation much earlier. Don't you think? Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 18:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• To Rfassbind: Well, okay then, to begin with the third above, I'm not averse to centralizing discussions, and if the primary redirect may one day become an article, I see nothing wrong with redirecting to the soft double redirect, which will then lose the Talk page of redirect template and become an article talk page. If the secondary redirect remains a "hard" redirect, that lands it in the unsynchronized redirects category if the R from move template is used, and it should be used since the secondary redirect is the result of a page move. In regard to your fourth above, you can disregard what I said about the {{#ifexist:...}} function. I suggested that because I didn't know it wasn't needed. Now to your fifth above, yes, it is R from move that passes the code to sort unsynchronized categories so they can be fixed. A few weeks ago that category had more than 10,000 entries. Many were fixed by the exceptions, which are mostly the talk pages of template sandboxes, documentation pages and testcases pages that are redirects from moves and that centrally redirect to the main template's talk page. The rest were fixed just by synchronizing the talk pages to the subject pages (or vice versa if that was appropriate) just as I did at Talk:(48411) 1985 RB3 with this edit. There is of course no rush to figure all this out, and I'll get to it soon to find a way to make the secondary redirects exceptions to keep them out of the unsynchronized redirects category. Just sayin' that removing the secondary talk page redirects from Category:Redirects from moves may not be the best solution.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Rfassbind & Paine Ellsworth, I'll work on #1 since we're all in agreement.

Regarding #2, if I've read everything above correctly, adding {{Talk page of a redirect}} to all named p-MP#Rs is still uncontroversial/no discussion needed? "Named" being the operative qualifier here, since those p-MP#Rs are under no threat of being moved/renamed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is no controversy surrounding the placement of {{Talk page of redirect}} on primary talk pages. What would you think about converting the secondary talk page redirects by replacing the REDIRECT code with Talk page of redirect and perhaps any project banner(s) that is appropriate?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We (WP:AST) definitely don't want banners nor astronomy-related categories (i.e. a tracking category is probably fine) on the secondary MP#Rs, only the primary MP#Rs. The primaries are much more important, relatively speaking of course (the p-MP#Rs are themselves the lowest importance on the project scale).

I support adding {{Talk page of a redirect}} on s-MP#Rs and I'm agnostic about other changes to them, but I'll help make whatever the desired changes are.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Task #1  Done. Using {{NASTRO comment|do-not-cat=yes}}, I found 231 provisionally designated pages. Of these, 223 needed {{R from former name}}, and 8 already had it. If anyone knows another/better way to find these provisional s-MP#Rs, I'd love to hear it!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your help:

• Paine Ellsworth: Thx for your feedback. OK, I agree with you on the talk-pages of secondary MP#Rs (let's name it: taks#3; as it is different form #1 and #2 mentioned above), such as Talk:(48411) 1985 RB3, where I removed the {{R from move}} and thereby (unintentionally) "resolved" the problematic issue of the page being listed as a Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects. Alternatively, deleting s-MP#R-talk-pages is fine with me, and as I just realized, the example I used above, Talk:(6875) 1994 NG1 (click on it), has in fact just been deleted recently. However, new secondary MP#Rs will be constantly created on a monthly basis due to a moved-action (maybe 100 moves per year or so, slowly decreasing in number over the next, say, ten years). So this issue of non-synchronized and (most likely) unhelpful secondary talk-page MP#Rs will always show up. Please just let me know what you want me to do with these pages.
• Task #1: adding a {{R from former name}} to all provisionally designated (secondary) MP#Rs, such as in, for example, (48411) 1985 RB3. Thx Tom for evaluating how many there are (a total of 223 s-MP#Rs). If you'd ask me for a criteria to find them, I'd say: any redirect that possess a {{NASTRO comment}} with a |do-not-cat= and a title/name that contains ( and ) in the pagename. Sorry if this is an obvious or unfeasible search criteria. Maybe less trivial might be the fact that whether or not a "move" template exists is not helpful for finding this type of s-MP#Rs. Does this task still seem uncontroversial to the both of you? To me it does, and I need your scrutiny because on the long term, I will created thousands of such redirects to already named MPs articles or redirects (without a corresponding talk-page, of course, see preceding point of my response).
• Task #2: adding a {{Talk page of redirect}} to all talk-pages of primary MP#Rs, for example, such as in Talk:48411 Johnventre. However, unlike the example, we would use |othertalk= and set the target to Talk:List of minor planets, which is the parent talk page of all LOMP partial lists. This is the best alternative to synchronizing the talk page of primary redirects (see above for my rationale "why not to synchronize primary MP#R-talk pages"). To Tom.Reding, whether or not the p-MP#R is a named or unnamed MP is irrelevant: if an unnamed p-MP#R is moved, the {{Talk page of redirect}} template will also be moved (along with the {{WPSS}} and {{WPAstro}}, as well as any exiting post on that page) to the named version. So {{Talk page of redirect}} has to be added to any primary redirect (i.e. a category- and {{NASTRO comment}} containing redirect). This task (#2) is uncontroversial to me. Please confirm/answer back, and also say whether:
  • (a) Order: should {{Talk page of redirect}} be added above (on top) or below the WPAstro/WSS templates (I favor a position below the WPAstro/WSS templates and above a potentially existing {{Old AfD multi}}, such as in, for example Talk:1274 Delportia.
  • (b) Target:: Is Talk:List of minor planets really the best target page? I think so, but a dedicated talk-page similar to Tom's list might be more appropriate?

Hope I didn't miss anything. What do you guys think? Thx, Rfassbind – talk 14:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Rfassbind – I'll cover these in the order presented, and first your task #3 above... I see no reason why speedy deletion cannot be attached to any of these if they have no discussions, which they wouldn't if the discussions are moved to the primary talk page. I also would favor including Talk page of redirect, since that effectively makes the talk page a soft redirect. Task #1 still seems uncontroversial to me, so whatever you two whip together should work for me also. Task #2 also sounds uncontroversial, and as to the order, I usually favor placing the Talk page of redirect at the very top to immediately notify whoever sees it that the subject page redirects, where it redirects and the talk page where discussion about the redirect should take place. I think Tom also mentioned that the secondary redirects' talk pages really don't need project tracking. If a target is changed by the |othertalk= parameter, it doesn't really matter where as long as they all land editors on the same centralized talk page. Having said that, it seems that that the talk page that would most serve the community for centralized talks would be the list (LOMP) talk page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth. OK. So we agree on #1 and #2. In case Tom wants to do the edits, I would let him decide where exactly he wants to put {{Talk page of redirect}}. As for task#3, could you make at least one speedy-deletion edit of a secondary talk page (listed in the Unsynchronized category), so that I can follow your example in the future? Also, sorry about the edit-conflict, I hate that when it happens to me. Best, Rfassbind – talk 11:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

To Rfassbind: I figured to use G6 "housekeeping", but Twink asked for a rationale. Rather than rack my brain, I decided to slap Talk page of redirect on all of them. So they're out of the unsynched category.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

MP infobox > parameter "image_size"

Most minor planet articles with an image in their infobox should have a parameter |image_size= to define the size of the image. Currently, most non-default image sizes are defined together with the image-path in parameter |image=, e.g. as [[File:Vesta_in_natural_color.jpg|260px]]. Also see this edit that fixed the issue. If you want to do the amendments, please do so, otherwise I'll do them in the weeks to come. Best, Rfassbind – talk 16:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Rfassbind, the {{Infobox planet}} documentation is missing |image_size=, and using either |image=[[Image:Blah.jpg|300px]], or |image=[[File:Blah.jpg|300px]], or |image=Blah.jpg|image_size=300px works.

I'll add |image_size= to the documentation, leave it for a week or so, then go through the ~447 MPs I found that contain |image=[[Image:Blah.jpg|300px]] or |image=[[File:Blah.jpg|300px]]. Some of those 447 have additional parameters after the pixel size; I won't touch those and will put them in a shortlist for manual completion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, looking more closely at the documentation, I'm not comfortable making such a change because the pixel-size-in-image format is the prevailing format for not just |image=, but |symbol= & |orbit_diagram= & the top-most text inside the infobox examples, and |image_size= doesn't appear anywhere in the doc, and not using |image_size= doesn't break anything.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I based this post on TAnthony, who described this pixel-size-in-image format as a "deprecated infobox image syntax" (see example edit). I think he knows what he is doing (although he did not provide any link to a policy where this is stated clearly). My intention is to proactively add |image_size= in order to keep the customized image sizes before they are lost, but if the pixel-size-in-image format is not deprecated than, of course, this is not needed.

Maybe @TAnthony: could enlighten us? Rfassbind – talk 17:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the deprecated syntax I was talking about is of course |image=[[File:Example.jpg]], not specifically the custom sizing. The use of this syntax in the |image= parameter of infoboxes places those articles into the maintenance category Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax. When I first started these "corrections", we were only dealing with specific infoboxes, like {{Infobox book}}. In that particular case, custom image sizes are unnecessary 99% of the time, as infoboxes have a default image size when using the bare filename, and the image proportions for book covers are pretty standard. More recently however, the implementation of bare filename syntax to Module:InfoboxImage has basically affected every infobox template, and we are finding that some of these templates, like {{Infobox military conflict}} and {{Infobox election}}, need specific updates or have non-standard image sizing that needs to be taken into account. With this in mind, I've been preserving custom sizing most of the time, in particular for templates with which I'm unfamiliar. The |symbol= in {{Infobox planet}} is not currently detected by the module change, but it looks like a specific image size parameter for that should be created in this template in anticipation of a future time when it is.

In the case of my edit used as an example above, I did remove the 250px sizing of the image because it seemed unnecessary to me as marginally different from the default. I did put it back with |image_size= after Rfassbind's objection, and this partially informed my preserving custom sizing moving forward. Still, if {{Infobox planet}} has a default size, I'm not sure why we are sizing standardly-shaped images. Per WP:IMAGESIZE we should not be using fixed custom image sizes, but rather relying on user image size defaults (primarily for accessibility). I was under the impression, though, that |image_size= was already available in the majority of infobox templates, but the gradual correction of this syntax is revealing many templates in which it is not.— TAnthony^Talk 19:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: thank you for your explanation. There is a large variety of images used in {{Infobox planet}} that have a completely different aspect ratio. A custom-sized image might be also relevant for an article's layout, as the default width of {{Infobox planet}} is rather small (in my opinion), and the number of displayed data can make it very long (and even longer if the size of certain images is not reduced (e.g. see 9906 Tintoretto vs. 9921 Rubincam). To me, it seems necessary to preserve any custom size whenever possible. My question: is it better to use |image_size= rather than the pixel-size-in-image format, in order to prevent the loss of such defined custom sizes due to future mass-edits? Which one is the better syntax in your opinion? As for the symbol-images, sorry, I have no opinion (only a very small fraction has them, while an infobox-image might be available to thousands of minor planets in the future). Best, Rfassbind – talk 18:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Tom.Reding if this discussion on your talk page is becoming bothersome! Rfassbind, |image_size= is really the only choice, since what you call the "pixel-size-in-image format" is deprecated. I've just created an AWB settings file to run through the transclusions of {{Infobox planet}} so over the next few days/weeks I will update the syntax and preserve the hardcoded sizes. FYI, |symbol= and |orbit_diagram= are not enabled for bare filenames yet anyway, so I will update only |image=. I'll make a note and at some point I will have this template looked at for updating. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 21:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Rcat shell bot isn't perfect

Hi, just a heads-up, here's an edit where you added the Rcat shell around one template, but left the other ({{R to section}}) outside. -- intgr [talk] 09:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do a complete retroactive search & fix for this and apply it going forward shortly.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed! I found ~50 edited pages with this & other predictable errata.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! On behalf of your fellow editors—and the millions of readers of our work—I sincerely thank you for your contributions that have improved the encyclopedia for everyone. Senator2029 “Talk” 08:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Redirect shells

Sure they make sense when you've got multiple R from... templates, but surely it's unneeded in cases like [1]? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The reasons the documentation give are independent of the # of {{R}}s {{Redirect category shell}} contains (namely, #R standardization, automatically sensing, describing and categorizing protection levels, and to help editors learn more about redirect categorization by use of the manifold sort), and the documentation explicitly states that it can and should be used with single-{{R}}-redirects, and even to use it when no {{R}} is present (to auto-populate Category:Miscellaneous redirects).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

So why do this manually, rather than by bot? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Easier to just do it myself. Should I stop?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue it's certainly less of a waste of your time to get/demonstrate consensus, get a bot to do this (which you can probably run yourself as TomBot or RedirectBot or whatever), and let it loose while you sleep. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands such redirects. There's also the many benefits of those being flagged as a bot edit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll isolate the multiple-{{R}} #Rs and do those at least, and submit a bot request at some point for the singles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the multiples are also very bot-friendly, and those ones certainly have community approval. Again, there's no rule that you can't do this manually, but near-mindlessly clicking "save" 140492 times must be awfully tedious. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb, I just put in an RfA for TomBot. Thanks for remembering it :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful when you make edits like this that you don't create duplication. The {{Redirect category shell}} template automatically detects the protection level, so if you leave {{R semi-protected}} in place, it displays twice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you. I'll remove protection-level {{R}}s from edits I've made and going forward.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

7 pages found & corrected with redundant protection-level {{R}}s and their aliases.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Breed name redirects

Hi again! I see you're going around doing something to the hundreds of animal breed redirects of the form Laticauda (sheep). Perhaps it'd more useful if you just removed the {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} from any such redirect unless there actually is an error? There's nothing wrong with "Laticauda (sheep)", for example. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm just adding {{Redirect category shell}} to redirects with multiple {{R}}-templates, not judging/evaluating the validity of each {{R}}-template. However, Laticauda (sheep) does indeed seem undeserving of {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, and if you can provide a list of all such redirects (I only found ~34 of my edits which end in "(sheep)", as opposed to the hundreds you mention), I can remove the offending {{R}} if warranted.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Here's a list, only very cursorily vetted, but a glance through it doesn't reveal any errors.

Also, I haven't checked each one individually to be sure that they actually carry the template, rather than simply transcluding it via {{R from alternative disambiguation}}. If I've made mistakes, complain or something! Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, they all contain {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}. What I'll do is remove that template iif the title of the #R matches the target after removing the #R's parentheses. When I'm done I'll separate the list into those I did and did not edit.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I've created the code to do this, but after looking at {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}'s documentation more closely, it does seem valid because the #Rs in the list above are of a format that does not follow Wikipedia convention; the only difference being the absence/presence of parentheses, a Wikipedia convention.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

What convention is that? There's no consensus on how these articles should be disambiguated, though there was a lot of argument about it a couple of years ago. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The convention is to not put the animal's common name in parentheses. These redirects don't follow that convention (which is fine), and therefore require {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, per the documentation. Look at all of the other non-animal examples in Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is, where do think you see such a convention? Usage in the actual articles is mixed. No consensus was reached in the interminable arguments at the time, nor has it been since. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The easiest way to find a/the formal convention is to ask the largest associated WikiProject(s) (WikiProject Agriculture in this case). Similar to WikiProject Astronomy's naming convention for minor planets, they will point you to where it is written; and if it isn't written somewhere you can determine consensus there.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, a large set of standardized page titles trumps mixed-use in the respective articles when it comes to determining the prevailing convention.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand. There's already been interminable tedious discussion of this topic (see Talk:Teeswater sheep). No consensus was reached. The very last thing any sane person would want to do is to start all that all over again. Anyway, please forget I asked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm quite unfamiliar with the goings-on over at WikiProject Agriculture, so perhaps some exposition would have been useful, no? I can make 4 observations:

1. Going solely by the closing admin's statement at Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, and not knowing whether any intervening discussions occurred on this topic at that WikiProject: there is no consensus.
2. Going on the fact that, after a cursory search, I find many fewer articles which include (<common name>) (like Wensleydale (sheep)) in the title than <common name>: there is no consensus or there is consensus +/- a few unfixed outliers.
3. The larger convention in question appears to be whether or not to even include the common name after the breed (with or without ()) - for which there are examples of (Beltex et al. on Talk:Teeswater sheep). The best way to find out which one is more prevalent is to simply count all the breed articles with and without their common name in the article title and set some threshold for 'prevailing'. Consensus undetermined/unclear.
4. Perhaps this consensus exists: if the name of the breed is unique among Wikipedia topics, don't put the common name (i.e. Beltex et al.) because it's redundant; if the name of the breed isn't unique among Wikipedia topics, put the common name (i.e. Welsh (pig) in your list above) because disambiguation is necessary.

Given this state, and especially #4, please:

1. don't remove {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} until such consensus has been reached, nor solicit others to so for you, and
2. undo your removals of {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} and {{Redirect category shell}} (at most ~108 by my count as of ~4 hours ago), the latter of which should be on all redirects, regardless of how many redirect templates they have, per documentation. If you prefer, I'll do this semi-automatically in the near future.

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Redirects from unnecessary dab

Hi Tom, thanks for your housekeeping of redirects. I notice some of them are being marked up as redirects "from a page name that has a currently unneeded disambiguation qualifier". I should perhaps explain why I created some of these. I translate a lot of articles from German Wikipedia. Occasionally they are disambiguated in German because they have several articles with the same name e.g. "Polenz" is the name of a river and also of 2 settlements. In English Wikipedia the settlements don't have articles, so "Polenz" is the title of the river article. But translated articles referring to it will often have "Polenz (river)" (the translation of the German link). Allowing these links speeds up translation (because the link automatically works) and prepares for the time when the other articles are created. I often do this down the line. So I'd say that, while these redirects are not strictly necessary, they are still useful. Bermicourt (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree; keep it up. After a quick look to find an {{R}}-template that matches your situation, {{R from another language|de|en}} looks relevant. Namely, the second bullet's text This redirect leads to its target in accordance with the naming conventions for titles in other languages and can help writing and searches. Consider placing these on the redirects you've created and that fit this criteria. If you produce a list, I can help add the template semi-automatically.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Bermicourt, in case you missed my response.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's really helpful, Tom, thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Curious

Just wondered what happened with this edit and how widespread it might be, since you were using AWB.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That's definitely a weird one...I'll take a look.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, towards the end of my list I relaxed some of my skip-settings that auto-skipped pages with > 1 #REDIRECTs and/or > 0 {{Redirect category shell}}s so that I could take care of a small subset of redirects like this. I forgot to reinstate those protections after I was finished, but it was towards the end of my run. Also, my edit was a case of garbage in, garbage out, since it already contained 2 uncommented #REDIRECT statements. Both of these factors combined to produce a very rare error. I looked through all of my edited pages which currently have > 1 #REDIRECT and/or > 1 {{Redirect category shell}}, and I literally found nothing! How did you find it?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That's all good to hear! I found it because I monitor the Miscellaneous redirects category, and the lower version of the {{Redirect category shell}} on that page had no templates inside it. I'm glad it turned out to be just a small thing, and thank you very much for checking!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Redirect shell

From the discussion at the VP, it seems fairly unlikely that you'll get consensus for single redirect templates, but the way I read it, I'd say there is consensus to use the shell when there are

• Multiple redirect templates
• Single redirect templates, when they have some form of protection
• Some other non-cosmetic change (e.g. when fixing double redirects?)

There seems to be no need to update redirects otherwise, either semi-automatically, or automatically. Would that logic be fine with you? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb, as far as auto & semi-auto edits go, yes. There still seems to be agreement for using the shell on #Rs without any #R-templates, but only if they're done manually. Even the 3rd bullet should probably be caveated with "if the cosmetic change doesn't affect a very large # of single-{{R}} #Rs" or something along those lines (to please the largest # of people while displeasing the least).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

From my reading manually here means "added organically by editors" rather than added "semi-automatically on large scales", since that would effectively be the same thing as a bot, without the benefits of a bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Anatolia Observatory

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you behalf of Eastern Anatolia Observatory (DAG) directorate. First of all, we thanks to edit DAG page on wikipedia. But we are kindly asking to you correct some statement about DAG if you can make. In second paragraph part of "... with the scientific and technical coordination of TÜBİTAK National Observatory and financial support of the Ministry of Development..." is not correct. Could you please remove this part? Thanks in advance, for further information, please mail me: tugrul@atasam.atauni.edu.tr

Sayın beyefendi/hanımefendi,

Doğu Anadolu Gözlemevi (DAG) adına sizlerle iletişime geçmiş bulunmaktayım. Öncelikle DAG hakkında wikipedia girdileriniz için teşekkür ederiz. Ama yanlış olan bir kısmı düzeltmeniz için sizden ricada bulunuyoruz. İkinci paragrafta "... with the scientific and technical coordination of TÜBİTAK National Observatory and financial support of the Ministry of Development..." kısmı taxmen yanlış olup tarafınızca kaldırılmasını rica ediyoruz. Şimdiden teşekkür ederiz. Haberleşebilmek için lütfen mail yazın: tugrul@atasam.atauni.edu.tr

IP, in the time it took you to write this, you could have made this edit yourself. Just say something like "does not appear in the reference" in the edit summary, if that is indeed true. All I've done is improve a reference on the page.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Hello Tom.Reding, your BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TomBot) was denied due to lack of community support. Should you want to propose new tasks in the future, please file a new BRFA. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

rcat shell vs. Redirect category shell

Regarding your edit on 0 (year):

What exactly is the problem with the redirect {{rcat shell}} compared to calling its target {{Redirect category shell}} directly? Is there some general policy or guideline that discourages the use of template redirects? Is there a catastrophic (as opposed to minor) caveat for the performance of the MediaWiki software? Or is it just a readability issue?

I have been categorizing redirects using "rcat shell" for many months. Have I done something bad? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Upon reading further, I guess this may be related to the denied BRFA mentioned one section above. (I see that you used AWB, but under your main account, for the edit in question here.) My questions still stand. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@SoledadKabocha: There is no problem at all with invoking a template via one of its redirects. It behaves in exactly the same way. If AWB is being used to bypass redirects (template or otherwise), this is not just against WP:NOTBROKEN but also WP:AWBRULES item 4, possibly rule 3 as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)