User talk:Izno/Archive 6

Wikiproject notification of the source review RfC

Thanks for doing that -- wish I'd thought of that myself. The 30-day close is still four days away, but if we're seeing steady input from the projects we might ask the closer to delay a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Yeah, I left that note a week ago that we should do that but I didn't get around to it until today. 30 days isn't the required end date (per WP:RFC), it's just the standard end. --Izno (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

About your comment at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography

Hi there. Don't you think adding 11,000 bytes of markup (even if it is collapsed) to an already long discussion about something not directly related to improving the article whose talk page it is is a bit much? Don't you think it'd be better suited at the talk page for the Jennifer Lawrence awards and nominations article? Ss112 21:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: No, it is not a bit much. I am making a point with each of those tables that is relevant to the discussion because IJBall mentioned that page as a good example. I wanted to point out where it wasn't great how that other page was done because I'd like the SCD discussion to get us to a "better" place rather than just an "okay" place. It would be entirely out of context to propose that out of the blue at the talk page for the JLaw awards. Your suggestion would likely cause a WP:MULTI violation to boot. Bringing up the size of the change doesn't help your case here because it's mostly irrelevant. You can trivially see where the boxed content ends and begins in the wikitext, and it's not like you wouldn't get the point simply from reviewing the tables in full instead of presuming for some reason that I had decided to add 11k worth of prose... which would be entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my mistake on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Esports. I honestly have no idea how I managed to delete other people's comments. I'll try harder to make sure that doesn't happen again. Derek M (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Derek M: It usually occurs when you start an edit based off an old version of the page. Why that doesn't trigger an edit conflict, we may never know. It's no biggie here. --Izno (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Character infobox

Hey, regarding the infobox. I was actually working on researching the topic even before the template was nominated so I've got some insight into the differences between the different character type infoboxes. To be honest, they all are about 90% the same. Even those that seem to be different are using the "free" parameters to add in the ones that miss from their infobox but are present in other ones (see Template:Infobox Buffyverse character), and when one infobox does not give the parameters that an editor needs, they just use a different one (see Barry Allen (Arrowverse) vs Flash (Barry Allen)) or just create an infobox that suits their needs (see Template:Infobox Tolkien character vs Template:Infobox Tolkien character (2)). To add to that, you have scenarios where a character can be both a video game character and from another media in the same article. Then after all this, you need to take into account maintenance and updates. Since there are so many different infoboxes, some wrappers of others, and some separate entities, they all require separate fixes. Also, parameters such as the video |motionactor= can be useful for other uses while other parameters could also be useful to video games. --Gonnym (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I'm not worried about what infobox VG character does that infobox character does not. I am worried about what infobox VG character does not that infobox character does. Basically, Template:Infobox character allows for a whole bunch of garbage WP:WAF-failing parameters. Our infoboxes should be succinct and they should be primarily about the out-of-universe aspects. Template:Infobox character fails on the second account which causes it to fail on the first. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I disagree with the method. First, how I read it, the MoS you linked does not really disallow in-universe material, especially when that material is verifiable with good sources. Second, I really believe that even if it did, the MoS is out-of-touch with what the community actually does as FA articles have in-universe elements in the infobox. So my point at that discussion was that even if you are right, deciding that a single infobox will not allow parameters that other infoboxes that deal with the same subjects (so not WP:OSE) is just wrong (even more so, when the infobox itself links to other video character infoboxes which all have in-universe information and even the example given in the documentation does so). --Gonnym (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Those other modules are distinctly a compromise between full-blown WAF-failing items and the current infobox--most characters don't have them at all, because they are presently so limited. No, it doesn't disallow material that is more fictional than not, but it actually does disallow an in universe treatment of that content. In this case, the character infobox puts inappropriate weight on concepts like "family" and "title" and... so on. These aren't concepts that a generalist encyclopedia needs or wants when discussing its characters in the detail reserved to a specific article. single infobox will not allow parameters that other infoboxes that deal with the same subjects (so not WP:OSE) is just wrong How so? You assert without reference to policy or guideline here. At best, this is a vague reference to WP:CONLEVEL? The level of consensus that a guideline like the MOS or a policy like WEIGHT enjoys is above and beyond that of a template specific to fictional characters--so it perturbs me that there is a defense of the current infobox character here. --Izno (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What I meant was that all infobox character templates are of the same topic so I grouped them together into the same discussion, so this is not a case of WP:OSE where I say "But hey, Infobox medicine journal does this". And you are correct, I was referring to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which I think I linked to in the template discussion so probably felt it was needed here also. So if the original template and all other children templates of the same template allow "x" fields, yet one group of editors decide to create a new template of the same type to disallow those fields, for me that is a local consensus trying to add a backdoor exemption to the status-quo. Just to be clear, there are some in-universe fields which I think are pure trivia (which should not be added), some are mildly trivia (which I guess some people think have value), yet others I believe have actual value. To me family connections does give value as it lets the reader understand how characters from the same story are connected. Yes, it can also be done in prose, but that logic is valid for everything in an infobox (and if I'm not mistaken is pretty much a given that an infobox should not have any information not present in the article). --Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Their creation dates are separated by mere days, over a decade ago. Characterizing it as yet one group of editors decide to create a new template of the same type to disallow those fields is laughably off the mark. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Izno. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Games with "computer game" disambiguation

Hey Izno, I'm not sure if these articles are at the correct pages, as I know WP:NCVGDAB says not to use "computer game", but I'm not sure which name is correct. If you have time, take a look at these: Star Trek: 25th Anniversary (computer game), Kingmaker (computer game), The Punisher (1990 computer game), Friday the 13th (1985 computer game) and Micromanía (computer game magazine) if relevant. Thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: "computer game" typically isn't necessary not least because "video" includes the same kinds of output most computers would provide (some exceptions to that general rule exist in the early history of video games). There are some exceptions when it comes to disambiguation and NCVG goes into a few of them.

1. Star Trek: 25th Anniversary (computer game): This is disambiguated the way it is because WP:NCVG allows for "platform game" when there are multiple games in the same year. See Star Trek: 25th Anniversary. This seems fine.  Done
2. There is a similar story with The Punisher (1990 computer game) and The Punisher (1990 video game), which we should tweak. The Punisher (1990 video game) should probably be moved to The Punisher (1990 NES video game) (NCVG) and then The Punisher (1990 video game) redirected to Punisher video games as ambiguous (WP:DABTOPIC).  Done
3. Kingmaker (computer game) could just be moved per NCVG to Kingmaker (video game).  Done
4. Micromanía (computer game magazine): I would remove the disambiguation entirely as there is nothing at Micromanía, possibly with a prominent WP:HATNOTE to Micromania. (I'd also create a redirect at Micromanía (magazine).)  Done
5. Friday the 13th is unfortunately a bit more involved because it looks like Bignole redirected the target page which has history, in 2015, and then it was later recreated by an IP at AFC with subsequent promotion to mainspace by Surv1v4l1st. I don't think I agree with Bignole's original redirect there, but either way, I think what could be done would be to move the "1985 computer game" disambiguated article over the "1985 video game" title, restore the deleted revisions (as they are not parallel histories), and then decide to redirect again if desired. @Anthony Appleyard: Should/Could you do that?  Done

--Izno (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The F13 game page, even as it was apparently recreated, still does not really meet the GNG. That requires significant coverage, which it doesn't have. It actually consists of the IP's personal interpretation of the game, sourced (that's original research) to the most basic of their statements, followed with a few basic number reviews and nothing else to say about it. Even one of the reviews isn't even sourced, and the other goes to a page that doesn't exist. Even if you want to say that it does, there's barely enough information to support a page when it can all be included on the franchise page. That was the reason it was redirected back then and the reason it should really be redirected now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bignole: Yeah, I'm not real hard over either way--just letting you know since you were reverted at a different page. I would just recommend making sure what references we do have make their way into the redirect target. --Izno (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Pages 1985 computer game and 1985 video game do not exist. Please what are the full names of the pages that you are referring to? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Merge Friday_the_13th_(1985_computer_game) into Friday_the_13th_(1985_video_game) and restore all revisions. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Izno:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I've made all the moves. Probably the things left to do are to:

1. Sort out all the links to The Punisher (1990 video game) as being either for the NES page or for the computer game page (I wish I could run the disambig assist tool against arbitrary pages)
2. Decide what to do with Friday the 13th (1985 video game).

--Izno (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at AirAttack 2. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have reverted a newly created through AfC/updated article citing AfD which had the Keep result, not the Delete one for your information. Please do not do it again, or at least give me a good reason for what you have done. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jovanmilic97: Be careful templating the regulars, especially when you use an astonishing level 2 disruption template for what is really just a difference of opinion. (Especially when you caveat it with "explain to me what's going on".)

A keep result at AFD does not mean we keep the article and the entirety by necessity--it only means it's not deleted. We can still apply normal editing policies and guidelines to help us decide whether we should have that article or whether it should be covered as part of another. In this specific case, at least one user !voted to delete entirely, and I was swayed by the argument he put forth later even though I did not update my "keep" !vote. The sources used in this case are weak even if they are considered reliable. As czar noted, there is reasonable scope in the article on the first game to capture some of the discussion related to the second game. Of the sources used in the article accepted at AFC, only 2 or so were worth keeping at best. So overall, a continued redirect/merge to that article makes sense. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that, now that I read all, I will use templates more carefully. While I agree with some of your points, per WP:BARE, bare notability does exist, even you admitted only 2 were worth keeping minimally as well. Again sorry for using the template! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jovanmilic97: As before, just because a topic displays notability does not mean it cannot be covered, or better covered, as a topic in a separate article. This is especially true in WP:BARE cases and when we have a trivial merge target. --Izno (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Tracking categories

The Category:VIAF different on Wikidata is of great help. Can you create the same tracking categories for GND?

• Category:Pages with GND identifiers
  • Category:GND different on Wikidata
  • Category:GND not on Wikidata

Thanks in advance --Light Yagami (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Light Yagami: You need to make that request at Template talk:Authority control. --Izno (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Bit goings

Also, when are you going up for the bit, @Izno? czar 16:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Whenever I feel like the concern voiced at my 2016 ORCP are far enough in the rear-view mirror. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, are you volunteering to nominate? :) --Izno (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

2.5 years? Nigh time for another ORCP at least! There are some pretty rich comments in that 2016 discussion... Also ha, doubt that I'd bring much clout to a nomination as I avoid the behavioral boards. czar 17:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: I didn't just mean "time" (indeed, 2.5 years is a bit of time) but also "effort" in the mirror. The question about nominating was not quite facetious--it would be nice to have someone look at what I've done since the ORCP then to see if the same concerns would be dragged out. --Izno (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

re:bunny senpai edit

Hi Izno, I'm sorry that you were completely incapable of reading the (admittedly very small) typo correction I made in the Bunny Girl Senpai article. You see, the summary of episode 10 says that Nodoka moves in with Sakuta. This is incorrect, as she moves in with her older sister Mai.

I probably should have specified that in the edit comment, but I'm also going to be an ass about how you didn't spot a change that was actually there. I'm also going to put my edit back in with a comment so other editors with poor reading skills can actually spot the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.216.29 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems you're right. You need to assume good faith rather than call me names or insult me though. --Izno (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Companies

Hi, the A7 template lists companies seperate from organisations, and there are also different wiki projects for companies (mainly for profit) and organisations (mainly not for profit) so there is a distinction, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: I'll respond to the substance of this comment at WT:CSD#Companies explicitly called out in A7 (in a minute). The short comment I wanted to leave on my user talk page is that, while there is some scope for bold editing of PAG, you should restrict yourself to starting a discussion when your bold edit is reverted. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons cheer

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Izno, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Advisor

Hey, not sure if you knew it but Advisor works again (not every time somehow sadly). I changed the name from "Cameltrader" to "Ebrahames" in the control panel, as the page was moved a month ago. Just checked it today and saw it working again. Kante4 (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Izno, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas!

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

FFS

Merry Christmas! ;) Although per this, I'm right out of Christmas spirit right now! --woodensuperman 10:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Update to scripts by AlexTheWhovian/Alex 21

Hello! This is a generic message created and copied to all editors using scripts that I have created. As I have recently changed my username from "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21", any scripts that I have created that are listed at your common.js page may, at the moment, no longer be working. To fix this, simply update all occurrences of "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21"; see here for an example. All the best! -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

ARC

Seriously, what have you got against this historic game? Did you ever play it? Understand it? What's with your stupid suggestions? Govvy (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: Please don't employ ad hominem. Please continue to discuss civilly at Talk:Attack Retrieve Capture#Merge discussion. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Really, you haven't put any thought into what you're doing have you. Even your reply is all defensive and no essence of what's on that article. Govvy (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: I have put plenty of thought into what I'm doing. I've assessed the article against our policies and guidelines and found it wanting. I've suggested a merge as an alternative to deletion. Now, please respect our policy on civility and return to the discussion in question. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This conversation is becoming split up, Civility, pfft, an analogy if you can't take a punch get out of the ring. Can continue this at the ARC talk page. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: It's a policy. You shouldn't be throwing punches to begin with. --Izno (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I often say that Wikipedia was built by the weak!! Govvy (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for cleaning up references on Nobody's Friends page. Much appreciated. Joelionheart (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

citation or cite book?

Dear Izno, you corrected some referencelinks on Gabriele Evertz - i was astonished to see that all the books i named at the section "Further reading" now start with "citation" instead of "cite book". Could you be so kind to explain me the difference and whether it is in general better to use "citation" in the beginning of the reference or "cite book"? Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gyanda: Template:Citation and Template:Cite book use the same engine. They differ slightly in styling and functionality. See Help:CS2#Style. It looks like that page uses a blend of CS1 and CS2, so perhaps you could also consider cleaning the page up to use only one kind of citation style. --Izno (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. Will have a look at the link and try to make it better. Please be patient, i will be able to work on it mid february. Thanks again! --Gyanda (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gyanda: One of the differences of functionality Izno alluded to is that the {cite xxx} family automatically adds a final period; some editors consider that a feature. Inversely, if want add some information the the citation, such as calls for a comma, you have to add a parameter to suppress the auto-period. Also, if you use some form of the {{harv}} template for a short cite (a good idea, in my opinion) it will connect automagically to a full citation created with {citation}, whereas with the {cite xxx} templates you have to add the |ref=harv parameter. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I must confess, for me this sounds quite difficult but i bookmarked it and will try to understand. Thank you and kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

ill

Why do you remove working interlanguage links? They help readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I was confused by IznoRepeat, sorry. Please self revert where you removed the interlanguage links that work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: They are not allowed in multiple parameters of CS1/2 templates. I have no objection to them generally and you will see that I did not remove any instance outside of the templates. --Izno (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Always learning, and why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: They introduce bad metadata in the fields of interest--mostly the emitting of the little link for the [other wiki] text. --Izno (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

But can we do something other than create the missing articles? To know that an author is notable in a different language helps, especially if I can read that language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: You can put the other language link outside the template if the author doesn't exist here. Alternatively, you might consider commenting it out outside the template if you don't want a separate display of author text. --Izno (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I got it yet. We talk about the author in a ref, no? You mean, I should mention the author in the body? How would a hidden coment help the reader? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Something like <ref><!-- [[:de:author article]]-->{{cite...</ref>. --Izno (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

How would a reader see that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: They wouldn't. You could do something like <ref>[[:de:author article]]: {{cite...</ref> I guess. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd still use ill, not a direct link to another language, and find it somewhat not elegant ;) - thanks anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Yeah, I also don't think any of the workarounds are that elegant. YOU COULD ALWAYS WRITE THE ARTICLE THOUGH! :D --Izno (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No need to shout something I wrote above. Problem: how would I even know something got lost. I reached 42000 on my watch list, but of those you changed only three. LouisAlain is the greatest red-link filler I know. I do only one a day, today a Mendelssohn composition on the composer's birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I change the {{interlanguage link|xxx|fr}} into {{ill|xxx|de}} when I have no plan to translate the article (see Occam's razor principle) or simply delete any form of redirect template when I know I'll translate the article in the near future, such as Leandra Overmann z.b. I never use Leandra Overmann since there's no way to notice at first sight the article needs to be translated. LouisAlain (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

About America's Army

Actually, this article should be considered to be of mid-importance and be vital at level 5, because it has sparked many studies, which is uncommon in video games.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@RekishiEJ: Studies are not sufficient to show that an article topic is important. See WP:VG/A#Importance scale. In this case, I'd suggest that if none of the projects on the talk page can show this to be even a mid-level article, it should not be included in the Level 5 list. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Accessibility discussion

Hey, you probably don't want to enter this discussion, but I'd appreciate if you could add details to it regarding rowspans usage and if it is an issue or not. It would help a lot in solving our issue. --Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Which discussion? (You didn't link to it! ) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym and IJBall: He pinged me earlier this week. I just didn't want to get in the middle of it during the week. RexxS can help too, though I see he's been in the batch of related discussions too. --Izno (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of "|author=" parameter

Hi. I see you have been putting untemplated "authors" into templates. With which I concur, except for using the |author= template. I think we really should be using |first= and |last=. Are you okay with that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Indeed, by order of preference in CS1/2:

1. First_n/last_n
2. Author_n
3. Author with multiple people in the one parameter (Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list)
4. Authors (Category:CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter)
5. Coauthor(s) (Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters).

It's a lot of effort to change things to use first/last when I'm working on a tangential problem (Category:CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al.). Author is easier to drop into templates for some other gnome to 'upgrade' to use first/last as appropriate i.e. my regex skills are not strong enough to change to use first/last generally and I would prefer not to slow down on the above-linked problem. Usually when you do see a change, it hits either #3 or #4, but in either #3 or #4 the issue is that the separators between people's names are not consistent or overlap (i.e. commas to separate people and commas to separate first/last). --Izno (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Ttm is also working on the same category, perhaps because I started working on it. ;) --Izno (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

So you're okay with last/first, just not trying to be perfect all at once. I sort of wish we had an "authorx" (literal 'x', not as a digit) for flagging this kind of junk. Some day. Incidentally, aren't|coauthors=, |authors=, and |author= with multiple cases all deprecated? Like we should be not using them?

BTW, I could perhaps work out a first/last regex for you. Interested? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Yes, all of those are deprecated; that's why I linked the categories they would show up in. :D

I have a simple find replace, which right now is simply find in templates .;  and replace with . |author=, which was the best easy find/replace I could see (as semicolon is fairly consistently a person separator). A more complicated one would act on |author and |authors specifically; sometimes the issue is in |last instead (and that last just makes me sad). --Izno (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'd be interested in an actual regex for the issue, just in case that wasn't clear. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay. So the situation is that I am familiar with regex's, just not so much on Wikipedia. Is the context for this in a script? If so, perhaps you could explain to me how to use a script. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I'm using stock WP:AWB for the work I'm using, which uses .NET's flavor of regex. (See docs for regex; see the specific part of AWB at those docs.) --Izno (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but I thought you were working on that category because I was; or, perhaps it's just a case of great minds thinking alike because we both noted some other conversation elsewhere.

Extracting multiple human names from a single |lastn= / |authorn= / |editorn= ... (there are more) is not a task for the faint of heart; if a human name can be made that doesn't fit the various 'patterns' of human names that a programmer knows about, someone has probably already done it. There are obvious patterns like |author= assigned a value that is syntactically correct Vancouver format; easy fix: change |author= to |vauthors=. What about that same example using the same human names except that the name separators are semicolons? And if both semicolons and commas? And there is the common case where the first human name listed is in last/first order and all other names are listed in first/last order. Spend some time looking at the name parameters in Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list and you will see why it remains so large. I wrote a series of six or eight bot tasks (when I really didn't know squat about regex) that converted most of the now obsolete |coauthor(s)= parameters to |authorn=. I don't remember how many months it took me to do that and in the end how many weeks it took me to clear the last however-many-articles manually.

I'm not trying to discourage an automated fix, just trying to insert a little sense of reality.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: When I started my recent work on et al, it was at about 5200 pages. The conversation at User talk:Citation bot came around exactly because I had started my work a week or two ago; see the diff in the initial task report? That was IznoRepeat finally getting noticed.

Oh yes, I am definitely certain it's Herculean to work on either the authors or multiple in author categories. It's the kind of thing you'd need to do multiple passes on with a single regex each time just because of how many different formats that there are and the fact you don't want for whatever tool you're using (semi or fully automatic) to hit false positives on every page. --Izno (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping you were using something other than AWB, which I don't run. Dang.

I could wish for more stringent checking of author parameters at initial entry, but that runs into a couple of questions. E.g., to what extent are the various author problems historical, versus on-going original mis-entry? Which is what brought me here: I didn't realize that Izno's use of 'author=' is a partial fix. Which would be stymied if we had strict checking.

One idea that's been percolating in a back corner of my mind: how about a |badauthorN= parameter? Even if it was no more than an alias to 'authorN' it would still be useful in indicating, in the wikitext, a questionable usage, identified as such by a human editor, and not necessarily matching any of the existing maintenance categories.

A point of curiosity: where do we have human surnames using semi-colons as separators? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

{{[ping|J. Johnson}} Yes, I was pretty sure you had said some-when you don't use AWB. I assume you don't have a compatible operating system?

A point of curiosity I'm not sure I understand this question. But I have literally seen this form: |first=First1, First2, First3 |last=Last1, Last2, Last3; and occasionally the same with semicolons; and then there's the |author=First, Last Initial.; First2, Last Initial2.;--which is relatively sane but still causes one of the maintenance categories; and then there's the same with |authors=; and then there's the same without semicolons, as in |author=First, Last Initial., First2, Last Initial2.,--at which point we have entered the impossible; sometimes it's |first=First |last=Last |last2=First2, Last Initial2.; First3, Last Initial3.;... People are crazy. There are others out there that just make me shake my head. As I said, I'm happy with just |author=Last, First MI. or even |author=First MI. Last, which I suspect is much easier to separate into |first=First MI. and |last=Last...

That's aside from the corporate authors with internal-to-the-name comma separation, as in The Industry of This, That, and The Other; which are legitimate but which we don't have a good solution for at this time. Some discussions on that one on Help talk:CS1 I've even opposed the solution for. (To wit, the double round brackets to indicate a corporate author, as can be used today with |vauthors=.)

I don't think adding a BadAuthor parameter is going to help.

As for the problem, I think it's mostly historical. (I admit I personally struggle with Asian names, which can be ambiguous depending on where the person grew up--in Asia, Family Given is normal convention; elsewhere, Given Family.) The backlogs associated with the above craziness decrease slowly year-over-year. I think the various templatedata editors help/will help (since they're now integrating a similar functionality into the 2010 WTE that has been in the VE/2017 WTE, even if you didn't have reFill enabled, which was gadget-only).

Strict checking? That's a golden egg. There was a nice little blog article I read a few years ago about assumptions you can make as a developer being garbage. Not everyone has an address. Not every country has postal codes. Not everyone has a family name. And so on. Same applies here. --Izno (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I didn't mean the various creative ways editors use semi-colons (and that parallel "F1, F2, F3/L1, L2, L3" is a beauty), but rather: are there instances of real human names that use semi-colons? It seems to me that should be a flag.

Chinese names are not rough: usually the surname is one syllable, and personal names are two. So when in my collection of articles with Chinese authors I find an article that seems to be other way I start looking for those authors' webapges. And sure enough, there was an editorial irregularity!

Why do you think 'badauthor=' wouldn't help? Just as a flag (functionally equivalent to an embedded comment?) it says (right in the wikitext) "here's a problem that needs attention", and even "don't use this as a model!" And it would even say "this experienced editor isn't really screwing up". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(←) @J. Johnson: are there instances of real human names that use semi-colons Not that I'm aware of. The module today looks for more than one comma or semicolon. Are you suggesting that the module look for more than one comma and more than 0 semicolons? I wouldn't oppose that if you brought it up at Help talk:CS1. (The function in Module:Citation/CS1 is name_has_mult_names.) Have to dash. Will answer the rest later. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

As for badauthor, we could do that with everything. I think it would be better instead to get as many maintenance messages to being error messages instead (where it makes sense--things like the "ignore isbn" maintenance message is correctly IMO a maintenance message), so that everyone knows that something may have been done wrong, rather than only those few of us who have turned maintenance messages on. --Izno (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that maintenance messages are insufficiently visible. (And perhaps not strict enough.) But: the problem I see with error messages is where the errors are already in, so the message goes not to whomever was originally responsible for them, but to every editor that edits an article/section. Who (like yourself) might be doing one kind of edit, and don't want to be stuck having to fix everything else that's wrong in a given article or section. (I am thinking in terms of edit-time messages. Alternately, we turn on displayed error messages, and all of sudden we have tens of thousands of red blotches.) With something like "badauthor=" one can identify a problem without being forced to fix it. And others can see the problem without checking the maintenance category, or even having to edit. Yes, we could do that with lots of parameters, though I wouldn't bother except for the most pervasive errors. Implementing "badauthor=" could even be a test of the concept. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Example text is predicated on |author= needing fixing. It is not preferred, but it's also not deprecated like all the others; it's also such a low priority relative to everything else that yet needs fixing.

the problem I see with error messages is where the errors are already in If that's the problem (without judgement on whether it is), |badauthor= doesn't fix it. This one is fixed by a reader becoming an editor and trying to fix the problem, which should already be displayed (as you agree), or by a gnome trying to take care of the issues he knows or wants to fix. Introducing another parameter doesn't help the end goal, which is fundamentally fewer parameters... Something like |badauthor= might be helpful for the casual editor who doesn't know what to do with something, but I'm distinctly not one of them. Being able to surface |author= as sub-optimal should probably be in the documentation... That said, it's currently the documented preferred use for corporate authors. I wonder if we might need something like a |org-authorn= for that case. --Izno (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Remaining in the category

@Trappist the monk: It looks like we need display-interviewers and display-translators in the module for the remaining few in the category. --Izno (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I also saw another pattern that might be worth searching for, which is et alia. A Special:Search didn't see a whole lot of these in the context of templates but they were out there. --Izno (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Trickshot info

Moved to User talk:WalkinAlmanac#Trickshot info.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)}}

Help

Hey, Could you help me add content to the 2032 Summer Olympics page? Yellow alligator (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yellow alligator: Hello, I'm not interested in Olympics articles. Have you tried WT:OLYMPICS? --Izno (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing Cquote

What did you mean by saying "Cquote is for pulls and this is not a pull"? I did not get what did you mean by "Pull"?Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Justlookingforthemoment: "Pull" is short for pull quote, and {{cquote}} is for use only with pull quotes. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I got it Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabana_Grande,_Caracas has been vandalised by Jamez42. 100,000 characters have been deleted and several quotes/sources from relevant authors and academicians.

Please, I kindly ask you to review the article.

--QuinteroP (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)