Jump to content

User talk:Xover/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Wikidata weekly summary #187

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Wikidata weekly summary #188

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Wikidata weekly summary #189

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

"In" references

Your Help talk:Citation Style 1#Many-to-one references and various plurality issues caught my eye, as I had a similar challenge referencing independently written chapters in the IPCC AR volumes.

The method I worked out (see Hockey stick controversy for examples) used an intermediate level of reference:

  • short cites (using Harv templates in the form of {Harvnb|Hegerl et al.|2007} in the text pointing to
  • a full citation (using {{citation}}) for each chapter which includes only the chapter specific details, followed by "in" and a short cite (e.g., {Harvb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}) pointing to
  • a full citation (using {citaiton}) for the work; that is, the IPCC AR4 WG1 volume.

(The full citations being in a References section.)

This worked fine. Until T. decreed that all uses of 'citation' and 'cite xxx' (except 'cite journal') must have a valid |title= parameter, no exceptions, and |chapter-title= not an acceptable alternative, with a big red error message for your sins. Well, if you are not citing a chapter, you can use 'title=', and everything should work fine.

Other variations are possible. But (for the problems you raised, and others) I would avoid harvc like the plague; it is a bad piece of work. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #190

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

CS1 cite-template delays

Due to time delays after the update of the WP:CS1 cite templates, a cite error can remain for weeks in a page viewed 1,000 times per day so add "eissn=" into pages only after the parameter is live on Wikipedia, otherwise the page will trigger an error category and several users will likely remove it. I am working on a version of Lua script cites which will not generate errors for a new parameter. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI

To inform you that there is a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Outing? in which you may be involved. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe and Müdigkeit: Jeeze people: chill out! I have no idea what's going on here, and y'all may want to calm down and actually explain your concern before losing your cool.
Xxanthippe: The IP added a cite to a tweet by the person in question that complained of the text in the article that the edit changed and a followup tweet that said they had changed that text. This has nothing to do with WP:OUTING (seriously, have you read it recently?), and even if an argument could be constructed for that the issue wouldn't belong on ANI.
Müdigkeit: Dude, really; you're suggesting WP:OVERSIGHT is relevant anywhere here, especially on Xxanthippe's ANI post? If relevant anywhere (and I would be be fairly surprised if any significant subset of the community agreed that it was), it would be the IP's edit as that is what actually divulges any personal information. [Based on the discussion on your talk page I'm going to go ahead and assume that your edit summary was simply intended to convey that AN/I was an inappropriate forum for Xxanthippe's concerns and that they should follow the process at WP:OVERSIGHT instead. And since that seems an eminently reasonable suggestion to me, feel free to ignore this request for elaboration unless you have anything further you wish to add on your own accord. --Xover (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)]
So in summary: Calm the heck down and explain your concerns before going nuclear. --Xover (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Nota bene* I made a substantially similar edit on the associated talk page (the other party in the information in question). Since you've raised the concerns referenced above, I have temporarily removed that post out of an abundance of caution while your concerns are addressed. Please do not construe this as agreeing with your apparent assessment, it is purely based on the logic that iff the one edit was problematic then this edit would be equally problematic (and if you're off requesting Oversight, you need to add all four edits to your request), and out of an abundance of caution I have removed it from easy public view while discussion is ongoing. --Xover (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, after five days without any sort of response I'm going to go ahead and restore the relevant bits on the two talk pages. --Xover (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I note that your edits have been oversighted by an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC).
Note that following discussion with the oversighters, I have restored the edit that's at issue in this thread. --Xover (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xover/Archive_9&oldid=754897851"