This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user is a WikiGnome
This user operates a bot, Tom.Bot.
This user uses HotCat to work with categories.
Trout this user
This user is a WikiSloth.

User talk: Tom.Reding

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


Original Barnstar.png 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![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png 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![edit]

Working Man's Barnstar Hires.png 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 (talkcontribsdgaf)  02:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif 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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For dealing with the minor planet clusterfuck as efficiently as you have! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing quite like cleaning up a good, 'ol-fashioned clusterfuck. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, this isn't just for the recent banner tagging, but for the shear amount of effort involved in cleaning up the mess for the past year or so. Possibly longer. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg 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)

Barnstar awarded[edit]

Redirect Barnstar Hires.png 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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you very much for helping and editing the Joe Campos Torres article, your assistance put a BIG SMILE on my face!
Vwanweb (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure; that was a satisfying edit :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you![edit]

Bio barnstar2.png The Bio-star
In recognition of your recent contributions to the Life Sciences on en:Wikipedia, analyzing and helping to improve the quality of articles, based on scientific data. Your efforts demonstrate tremendous potential into enhancing the scientific accuracy of The Free Encyclopedia.

I am tremendously appreciative of your efforts, especially on the preliminary Taxonomic analysis.

~ Mellis (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your constant positive demeanor. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I am always on the lookout for potential Editor of the Week candidates, for editors that fly under the radar, whose efforts are unknown except to a few. They don't make a splash, they don't emit a 'notice me' kind of behavior; they just quietly tackle the hard jobs. Tom.Reding is that kind of editor. A while back he "thanked me" via the Thanks Notification for awarding the Editor of the Week to a fellow editor. So, I looked into him and found an editor that does many important WP improving things. He is a working editor (535,847 live and undeleted edits) that fixes, populates, corrects, standardizes, cleans, parses, tries, peruses, adds, formats, listens, expands, updates, corrects, creates, assigns and (my favorite) "consistifies". A member of Wikiproject Astronomy and Wikiproject Tree of Life, he has recently been granted the page mover user right. He provides a human eye and understanding to "bot" problems that arise. In the area of redirect categorization he willingly puts his head together with other editors to work toward solution. A deserving recipient.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg
Project Med Foundation
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning January 28, 2018
Quietly tackles the hard jobs. 536000 live and undeleted edits. A page mover. Understands "bot" problems. A deserving recipient.
Recognized for
work in redirect categorization
Notable work(s)
Wikiproject Astronomy and Wikiproject Tree of Life
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

! XD <3 TY!   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  20:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The AWB Barnster[edit]

AWB Abfallwirtschaftsbetriebe Köln logo.svg The AWB Barnster
Fixing many depreciated syntax on infobox images. Iggy (Swan) 22:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Olympic rings without rims.svg Olympic Barnstar
For your excellent work in getting the bot up and running to tag biographies for the Olympic Wiki Project. Thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, my pleasure :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Authority control[edit]

Hi! I see that you've been adding {{Authority control}} to several pages where it apparently serves no purpose – Giovanni Natoli‎ is an example. So I wondered why you were doing that, and if it was based on community consensus? If not, and you're using AWB to do it as is suggested above, you should perhaps put that task on hold for a bit. As we have seen, repeated "inconsequential" automated edits that make no difference to the rendered page can annoy other editors, sometimes to the point that remedies are sought. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, template documentation states this template should be added to all biographies, whether or not there are authority control identifiers in Wikidata already. You're welcome to discuss at template talk to change it. In the meantime, I'll restrict addition only to where an ID exists on Wikidata.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! It's clearly helpful in those cases, not obviously so in the others. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: like all such templates that potentially link to Wikidata, it is useful to add them even when there is not yet a Wikidata item, since it's unlikely that if a Wikidata item is created over there, the editor will come here and add {{Authority control}}, so it's better to anticipate it here. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note to self: 'Please confirm classification' sorted[edit]

These ~400 have finally been sorted as stubs where appropriate (to my understanding), with only ~20 exceptions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  22:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Another tracking category issue[edit]

Please see d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject taxa with no Wikidata statements. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 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 02:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Omie Wise: murder ballad[edit]

Hi, @Tom.Reding: I'm editing the List of the Child Ballads as well as related Murder Ballads and noticed you removed Category:Murder ballads from the song Omie Wise. I have numerous citations indicating the category is appropriate, and the song's Wikipedia article also clearly identifies the song as a murder ballad. However, I didn't want to revert without checking with you. Here are two of many citations of note: Fresno State Ballad Index and Peggy Seeger. I look forward to your reply. Thanks... Allreet (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Allreet, by all means, put it back. I'm not sure what caused it to be deleted... Will investigate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Allreet, tracked in T193243. I will pull the category contents from an older database dump and make sure no others were erroneously removed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, kindly...Allreet (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Allreet fyi it was a duplicate category on the page, so my removal was ok.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  02:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

VIAF entry for an elephant[edit] Seems to be an error at VIAF but perhaps you know something about this. Shyamal (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Shyamal, VIAF appears to link to the the correct elephant, Jumbo. What seems to be the error?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure about the validity of the transcription, especially the VIAF attribution of the elephant as the author (and not the subject) for the books mentioned. Afaik - the scope of the VIAF entries is for people - per Template:Authority_control. I am not sure I have seen any other VIAF authority control templates for non-human authors. Shyamal (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Shyamal, yeah that's beyond my understanding - authority control identifiers can definitely apply to more than just people, but I don't know if that's also true for VIAF. However, it just sounds like a database input/transcription error at VIAF. Other than article or template talk, you can also check the history of the Wikidata item that {{Authority control}} is drawing from to see who added VIAF and ask them.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  18:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Greg J. Marchand[edit]

Tom.Reding Thank you for the edit! Since you read the page, do you think you would want to weigh in on the Articles for Deletion discussion? GuinnessFreak (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Western Governors University[edit]

WikiProject Georgia Tech

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know that I've started WikiProject Western Governors University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of WGU. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Paul Smith111977 (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Automating parent categories for "Xs described in YEAR" categories[edit]

Hi, you offered to run a bot to fix some of the "Xs described in YEAR" categories, in particular adding a standard header template.

I've been thinking about this, and came up with an idea I'd like to run past you first before a more general discussion.

At present, for a category like Category:Fish described in 1989, we can use {{Category in year}} as

{{Category in year
| year = 1989
| cat = Fish described in
| parentcat = Fish described in the 20th century
| parentyrcat = Animals described in

to add the two parent categories, Category:Fish described in the 20th century and Category:Animals described in 1989. So my first thought was to have a specialized version of {{Category in year}}, e.g. {{Category described in year}}, which would include the standard header, and then ask you to look into adding this template to the "Xs described in YEAR" categories with a bot.

However, doing just this would still allow editors to make some years have different parent categories to others, and would still need a bot to change the parent categories if this were agreed in future. So another idea is to code the new template in Lua, reducing the required parameters to the year and the name of the group (e.g. {{Category described in year|1989|fish}}), and have a "configuration" module which given "fish", for example, sets up the parent categories (for fish by centuries but for other groups by decades, and for fish "Animals" but for other groups "Plants", "Fungi", etc.) This would make it much easier to maintain consistent categorization schemes, and is simple to program in Lua. We would need bot runs to add the new template, removing any manual stuff.

Thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Peter coxhead, I like it, and for using Lua. It can be done via template syntax too, but it would be quite tedious to write and maintain for all the different groups, potentially with different caveats for each group. We can go 1 step further, though - "fish", etc., and year can be grabbed from calling category's name, and wouldn't even need to be passed as parameters. The calling cat's name would be checked for the format "X described in yyyy" and other variants before applying the necessary parent cats. Yeah the whole category tree can be maintained in the Lua module; excellent!   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm constitutionally against picking up information from the page title after working on taxoboxes! The automated taxobox system was originally designed so that you could just write {{Automatic taxobox}} and everything would work. For taxoboxes, it makes the code very complicated (because it has to handle disambiguated titles, monotypic taxa, hybrid names, subspecies, etc.) and very prone to breaking, particularly when the page is moved. So it all depends on how much would end up hidden in your and other variants. But I guess it should be ok in this case, given that in "Xs described in YYYY" only the first and last 'words' matter, so if only these are picked out, the titles could be changed to "formally described in", for example, with no problems. I'm busy with other things for the next few days, but can work up a draft module later, unless you have time to do it first. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Peter coxhead, heh well I literally just created a proof-of-concept template/module.down to the same minute even... Edit Category:Fish described in 1989 or similar, and preview {{Category described in year}}, but do not click save, to see the result.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  18:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sadly I have some much more boring work to do than programming this in Lua, so over to you! In the final version, I favour using a separate configuration function or even module that just gives mappings like "Fish --> century, Animals / Plants --> decade, Species / Spiders --> decade, Animals" so that it's easier to add groups or change their categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Peter coxhead, the template now works (still only as an exhibition, don't click save yet) for fish in the Category:Fish described in 1901 & Category:Fish described in the 20th century type categories (perhaps the latter century-cat was not necessary, but since one of the parents of 1901 is Category:Animals described in 1901, I felt the need to include the other parent; but I don't have a problem with this functionality being removed/dormant if not desired). The category map/configuration is contained within the map local variable at the top of the module. I think that's enough to get/show the gist of how it would function and the way the category structure would be represented and updated. What do you think about that, especially in terms of ease?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  02:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks good so far. I like the way the configuration is set up. I would be inclined to allow optional parameters for the information that can be picked up from the title, just in case. Do you propose to implement the navigation by year or decade within the module or separately? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Peter coxhead, nav templates can certainly be added for further 'hands-off standardization', which makes a lot of sense here. Different headers will also be available for each type of cat (year/decade/century), which I'll probably add to map to keep everything together and to be more self-explanatory.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Peter coxhead, done for Fish, except for any optional parameters. What sort of parameters/functionality do you anticipate? That is, passing the entire Fish tree is unreasonable, and passing parent cats would be redundant. I'm afraid that having parameters as well as consuming-all-header-and-nav-templates is going to be a possible conflict of purpose, since putting all of the extraneous info + cats requires that there be no ambiguity, and allowing user input would jeopardize the exactness required. An example would be helpful though, and it might be ok under very specific/controlled circumstances.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, I think that it's right to pick up the group and the year/decade from the name of the category, since this forces consistency on the category names, which is desirable (to most editors, anyway). Given that the new template will add the navigation bar, there's the issue of the lowest year to be displayed (|min= in the existing template). For zoological names, there's an argument that this should be 1758, based on ICZN Art. 5, but spiders currently allow 1757. For botanical names, it's 1753. I'm not sure about bacteria or viruses. This can also be set in the module and doesn't need to be a parameter. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done for {{Category in year}} & {{Category by decade}} in the module.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Looking at some of the Animals described in cats, I think it would be useful to have "default category tree style(s)" to save on unnecessary labor inputting them all individually into the module.

  1. If the vast majority of groups are to be of a certain style (i.e. without decades), and only a few dissimilar-oddballs (for homogeneous-oddballs see #2), then a prototypical tree can be fully fleshed out in the module as an example (Fish?), and only require further input for weird ones (i.e. Spiders). Is Fish a good prototype cat tree?a very strange sentence when taken out of context... And what are the remaining weird ones that deserve to be preserved in the module?
  2. Another option, if there are to be a few different-style trees (i.e several groups using decades, several without, with no dissimilar oddballs), is then a simple array of groups which are to be 'Fish-type' cat trees, and another for groups which are to be 'Spider-type' cat trees, which would be most user-friendly for this scenario.

I guess this depends on the outcome of your RfC too, but at least the basic programmatic framework I think is laid out, which should accommodate all reasonable eventualities.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue of decade cats is an interesting one. Some major trees have decade categories, like the top-level Species (e.g. Category:Species described in the 1780s) and Plants (e.g. Category:Plants described in the 1780s). I completed the Spiders tree, which had been patchily created by others, using the Plants tree as a guide. On reflection, I would not now create the decade categories. They result in small categories, with only 10 members, and cause confusion over the exact boundaries of centuries, which the MoS says run e.g. 1801 to 1900, not 1800 to 1899. So I agree that the default should be no decades. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Fish is now the default if the group doesn't exist in map, and I've applied the template to Category:Fish described in the 20th century and subcats only, for now. My placement criteria is very strict - i.e. {{Category described in year}} is only added after all of the elements it replaces are removed from the cat and the cat text is empty, so if any extraneous text exists, that cat is skipped for further investigation. So far, so good, with 0 skips.
I just noticed Category:Insects described in 1793, which might throw a wrench into the works, will have to play with it and see.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The logic of my proposal is that in the first instance all category systems that aren't essentially complete would be removed. Personally, I don't see the need to replicate taxonomic hierarchies in the "described in" category system; I would use "Animals" throughout. "Arthropods" is definitely going. I suggest you work on the 'conforming' categories for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
seeing that my watchlist has gone absolutely gaga - thanks for all the fish work (leads me to think of comments and works from the late douglas adams and various scenes of monty pythons meaning of life and mister creosote ((the fish do say lets get out of here I am sure before he ...)) ).

I have tried to understand the miniutiea damnned word of the conversation above with peter - and hope that where there are either main space series (insects or animals that have had inadequate attention on either main space or talk pages) - that the simplifications to the series andtemplates still make it possible for those prepared to go in under water to play with irregularities (which has happened less in insects and animals) that there is either enough air or you and peter are online whichever comes first...

The reason for concern with issues about irregularities was that the banned user earflaps did similar things in his ventures into festivalising wikipedia and when irregularities appeared or needed fixing - the average editor would not be able to modify or edit the creation - leaving a particular tricky situation where categories or text on the main space were not modifiable without referring to the creator of the template - I do think (I havent looked) that such templates need bells and whistle indications of how and where and who can sort out issues (when they arise). But if you and Peter say bugger off in monty python style - the templates are closed, it dont bother me - what concerns me is that though you might be around now - (the piano drops from the sky or the bus wipes you both out) what the recourse when something f's up - I would rather a manually created not automated individual tagged (I can rip into a few idiotic talk pages edits without fear or favour and would prefer that) than have to be confronted by an impervious automata with no recourse to manual adjustment JarrahTree 15:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

JarrahTree, I think what will happen next is that: 1) other already-standardized category trees, ones that will not see any change, will receive {{Category described in year}}, then 2) irregular trees will be discussed at either WT:TREE or the appropriate sub-WikiProject, which will either 3) summarily standardize any rogue catagoryographer's(sp) creations, or 4) more carefully discuss whether to standardize it, keep the existing irregular tree, or create/modify it to something more appropriate (probably in that order of likelihood).
When it comes to customizability, {{Category in year}} and {{Category by decade}} will still exist to provide any customization that might be required (though there really shouldn't be any need for that, or at most very few cases). Or, those 2 templates can be used to create a standard tree, which can then be converted seamlessly via this module when noticed, so I think everyone (except the odd rogue) can be satisfied.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I love it a new identification Category (not edmund gorey?) grapher (do we get engvar variant spelling for that?) -some of us are called gnomes - however my children and grandchildren are normal size for their ages (sic) - I think of myself as old rogue thanks for the explanation... so no options for over-ride when weirdness happens JarrahTree 15:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct, there will be no customization as far this module is concerned, as that can already be done via the 2 other templates, or just manually. If said weirdness has consensus though, and frequent-enough usage, it can definitely be incorporated into the module later, or not if it's very irregular (which it probably shouldn't be anyway), so it's best to consider real-world examples at this point instead of flights of fancy :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
so much for sleep - if I read peter's admonisitions correctly this whole category tree goes? JarrahTree 15:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That will be left up to the RfC, but probably.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your infinite tolerance and explanation - I suspect the bird, nsect, fish et al are sufficiently clear of weirdnesses - as the Australias late comedian who really was a New Zealander used to say in his early radio shows, rather than say good evening, he used to say I'll get out of your way now - I think I shall likewise. JarrahTree 15:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons cat detection[edit]

@Ahecht: I'm trying to detect whether or not a commons cat exists, like commons:Category:Plants described in 1753, and, if so, add a {{Commons}} link to the cat description via Module:Category described in year. I've tried using mw.title.makeTitle( namespace, title, fragment, interwiki ) like this: mw.title.makeTitle(14, 'Plants described in 1753', '', 'commons').exists, where 'commons' is supposedly a valid interwiki, but it always returns false. Do you know how to do this, perhaps?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  18:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: I could be wrong, but don't think you can do cross-wiki checks like that, because while the MediaWiki software knows how to convert [[:commons into [, it doesn't actually have access to the database. I do know that the #ifexists parser function doesn't work on interwiki links, so I imagine Lua would have similar restrictions. The best you can do is check if P373 is defined. --Ahecht (TALK
) 19:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Ahecht, thanks! I'm now using Commons category (P373) and I also look for a commons sitelink, and ignore duplicate values from both.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on joining the million edit club![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Congratulations on being the seventh editor on the English Wikipedia to do over a million non-bot edits! ϢereSpielChequers 12:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I never thought I'd do so much, but I just keep finding things to fix/improve :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

About Pola Nirenska[edit]

I would like to contact you about Pola Nirenska. I am a polish journalist, working on her biography: I would like to ask about some sources, not aviable for me in Poland — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You can ask me here - what sources exactly?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanaa Atabrour[edit]

Hi, I'm just wondering if you know why the AWB wiki gen fixes keep adding wikiproject athletics tags to Sanaa Atabrour. She's a taekwondo athlete not a track and field athlete. Red Fiona (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Red Fiona, she was miscategorized in Category:Olympic athletes of Morocco, so she kept showing up as part of this tagging request. I've removed the cat and the tag (also it was my script that tagged, not GenFixes; GenFixes only adds/massages {{WikiProject banner shell}} on talks).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew there's be an solution :) Red Fiona (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


I will stop disruptive editing. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Sorry about the category.[edit]

I was wrong. Thanks for reverting the mistake I made. Didn't know the 21st century began in 2001, you learn something everyday. I hope you can forgive me and hopefully we can be friends. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

It's ok if not a bit tedious. Everyone make mistakes. Editors that are here to learn tend to fare the best though, so that's good.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Suraj Mal[edit]

Hi, is there any chance you could check the integrity of Wikidata rubbish before adding the authority control template? Eg: the stuff it added at Suraj Mal was mostly irrelevant and the bits that weren't irrelevant are not great in other respects. If Wikidata is going to have any use on Wikipedia (doubtful) then this sort of thing does not help the cause. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You can't fix what you can't see, though. Adding {{Authority control}} allows more editors to more easily see Wikidata's contents, and make the appropriate corrections/additions/removals, as you've just described, making the project stronger.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost, sorry. Why can't you see it? I know that I struggle with the Wikidata interface (despite what it says in my contribution history, I've never directly edited the thing) but surely adding something without checking it is a no-no? And if you cannot check it then you should not add it? You're importing problems from Wikidata and that is one of the big issues that people such as Fram have been banging on about. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sitush, the information is behind the "Wikidata item" link on the left hand margin of the page, which isn't completely intuitive, especially when you're looking at a nav bar at the bottom of the page. I've suggested an improvement to aid navigation and thus help editors correct/add/remove Wikidata info.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Adding poor information with the excuse that we can then change it on Wikidata is one of the reasons many people don't like using Wikidata on enwiki. The purpose of using Wikidata on enwiki is to improve enwiki, not to improve Wikidata. "Adding {{Authority control}} allows more editors to more easily see Wikidata's contents" is a good argument to delete authority control, not to add it to 5 million articles. Fram (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
How is that a good argument for deleting {{Authority control}}? I guess if you think Wikidata should die in a fire, then yes, I suppose it is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
If the main reason you add is to improve the visibility of Wikidata and to get people to correct Wikidata, then yes, that's a reason to delete it. We add templates, external links, because they help our readers, not because they help the other site. Adding such a link which doesn't help our readers (as the info is wrong), and defending it because it may improve the other site, shows a serious problem with either the template (if that's its intention), or the editor defending the use of the template with that excuse, or both. That doesn't mean that I think "Wikidat should die in a fire", I don't think e.g. Findagrave should die in a fire either, but that doesn't mean that Findagrave is a good source for enwiki, never mind a Findagrave page which we know to be incorrect. Fram (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, well the point of adding AC is not to get people to improve WD; the point is to help improve the WP article. Neither WP nor WD are perfect and will require corrections/additions/removals, as wikis do. I understand the concern, but this is a wiki after all, and uncovering/exposing mistakes is the first step to improving it. I do think it would be good for someone to get statistics on what % of AC identifiers are wrong/bad vs. not, though if talk complaints vs. my thanks log is any indication, that % is small. Perhaps some of the WD bot ops which added (and possibly removed) AC IDs can give some insight; might do that later.
Re: Findagrave - useless/unreliable IDs can be removed from the template (i.e. so that they're not drawn automatically from WD, but can be overridden locally if/when desired) if there's consensus. We do the same with {{Taxonbar}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Space-Barnstar-1j.png The Space Barnstar
For your astronomic contributions! For taking up so much space!

With apologies for the puns, Ira Leviton (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vachellia farnesiana var. farnesiana[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Vachellia farnesiana var. farnesiana—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Leo (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thursday July 12: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ Jefferson Market Library[edit]

Thursday July 12, 5-8pm: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ Jefferson Market Library
Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group logo.svg
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg

Wikimedia NYC invites you to attend a Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon on Thursday, July 12th at Jefferson Market Library! Wiki Loves Pride is a global campaign to expand and improve LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. We are holding this year's event in July in order to support folx who want to contribute a photograph they took at one of NYC's many Pride events or edit an article about something they learned this June. Not sure what to contribute? No problem! We will have a list of articles that need your help.

5:00pm - 8:00 pm at Jefferson Market Library, 425 6th Ave

--Megs (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You are also invited to the "picnic anyone can edit", the Great American Wiknic NYC @ Prospect Park, Sunday, July 29!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Blood Order[edit]

Hello Tom!

I'm sorry to bother you, I see you contributed to the Blood Order article. I am having some difficulty with an editor who know claims that the Blood Order and the Golden Party Badge are "trivial" awards and are not to be linked to in other articles. As you contributed to the Blood Order article, I'm hoping you don't consider it a trivial award? My problem is that I don't see what is wrong with linking to a stand-alone article, like the Blood Order, in another article, such as the Ernst Röhm article, which I've been adding content to. I don't see what function a stand-alone article serves if you are not allowed to provide a link to it in another article? I also don't see how it is now, based on one editor's say-so, a "trivial" award? I have asked him why I can't link to a stand-alone article but have received no reply, other than it is now menial and not permitted to be linked. This has happened to me on many occasions, with many awards and decorations. I have asked for a list of so-called "trivial" awards so I know not to link to them again, have my added content deleted and wait for the inevitable aggressive warning (see my talk page). Again, no such list has been made available by this editor, so what do I do? Just add links to stand-alone articles and hope for the best or just stop adding links to stand-alone articles? The thing is, I have added many awards and decorations to many articles, but they still stand, so I'm at a loss as to why it's ok to provide links in some articles but not the ones that the editor in question is monitoring. I'm not asking you to take sides or anything like that, what I would greatly appreciate is your input on the Ernst Röhm talk page. If you feel stand-alone articles are not to be linked, fair enough. If you think it's ok, it would be helpful for the consensus of editors ruling on this. If you also don't view the Blood Order or the Golden Party Badge or any others as "trivial", which I'm thinking you don't as you took the time to add to the article, it would be greatly appreciated if you could say so. I just don't see the problem with linking to stand-alone articles. If they're not link-worthy, what function do they serve?

Thank you for your time

Troy Troy von Tempest (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

PS - I am a member of the Port Macquarie Astronomical Society, we recently were a part in the Guiness Book of Records for the most people observing the moon down here in Australia, 40,000!