User talk:Wugapodes

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Backlog

Transcluded from User talk:Wugapodes/Tasks

GAN report: mystery solved?

Wugapodes, you may recall that in the GAN report's Malformed nominations sections, an "Unknown nomination" link to the Film section of the page, but with no other information beyond that, showed up for this first time on June 1, 2019. It finally disappeared last night, and I have a tentative diagnosis.

I believe the nomination in question was for Rushmore (film), which was originally made on May 31, 2019, during the day and with a subtopic of "Film". It was clearly a handmade GA nominee template (people are supposed to substitute the GAN template): what I thought was the problem here was that there were no links for the nominator or their talk page, which I fixed. What I missed when I finally started investigating in mid-June—and what I think caused your bot to pick up on the error—was that the date/time field was malformed: all times are supposed to have two digits for the hour and two for the minutes, and this was formatted "8:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)" rather than "08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)", something I didn't notice until today, when I was trying to figure out what went wrong.

I think it was the problematic date that caused the problem, though there may have been something else about this nomination that caused it—this is a tentative diagnosis, after all, and it may be accurate, partially accurate, or not the actual issue at all. Still, this info might help you track down where in the code the error might have been generated, and why the link was to the section rather than the actual (problematic) nomination.

Hope all is well, and best of luck tracking this down. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yeah, that's probably it. The regular expression which parses the noms assumes that the timestamp has two digits for the hour, so that's an easy fix. Wug·a·po·des 18:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GANs to do

Talk:Park Avenue main line/GA1
Talk:Martin Scorsese/GA1 (unless someone gets there first)

New Years Greetings

I've noticed that some of these GANs directly above are either done or on hold. In case you might be interested, I've recently listed the biography for the film director Martin Scorsese as a nomination. He is nominated for an Oscar this year and I thought it might be nice if his article could be brought to peer review quality before the Oscars next month, if you might be inclined to look at it. CodexJustin (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sadke4 (06:47, 8 February 2022)

Hey, I find myself editing biographies occasionally as these tend to feel the most biased or contrived via PR companies. In terms of language I’ve had some trouble determining Wikipedia’s policies. Language like “resigned” vs “resigned in disgrace” was a recent issue I had, I believe the latter was a better description for a particular individual who resigned under scandalous circumstances but I can see how it could be argued that this is loaded language. My concern is that by dropping the term “disgrace” the article would fail to capture the reasons under which the particular resignation took place. So my question is how should I go about using language that by some could be seen as loaded, but where there is a wide variety of sources that show this to be an apt description? How do I avoid coming across as biased? --Sadke4 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sadke4, apologies for taking so long on this, I thought I had replied but it turns out I got an error that prevented me from saving it. In general, we prefer to write in a way that avoids value-laden labels like "disgraced". Instead we describe the facts in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources and then let readers come to their own conclusions. Where a non-neutral label is frequently used by independent reliable sources, we tend to attribute the label in prose. As an example: Following the allegations, Reliable News Network reported that the CEO "resigned in disgrace". This makes it clear that some other organization is describing the situation in that way rather than it being Wikipedia's own characterization. Hopefully that helps, but let me know if you have other questions and I'll get to them much faster! — Wug·a·po·des 22:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2022-07

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Purging a category page with fewer than 5,000 members will now recount it completely. This will allow editors to fix incorrect counts when it is wrong. [1]

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 February. It will be on all wikis from 17 February (calendar).
In the AbuseFilter extension, the rmspecials() function has been updated so that it does not remove the "space" character. Wikis are advised to wrap all the uses of rmspecials() with rmwhitespace() wherever necessary to keep filters' behavior unchanged. You can use the search function on Special:AbuseFilter to locate its usage. [2]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

February songs

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music - I pointed at one of your closes for a discussion related to Cosima Wagner --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: These are lovely! I've only recently started to appreciate just how much flowers can liven up a space, even a virtual space. For Valentine's Day I got some cut flowers that I've managed to keep alive for a week which is a record for me! I'm glad you found my close useful, and hopefully the talk page discussion comes to a good way to move forward with the article. — Wug·a·po·des 22:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Avuyile mango on Wikipedia:BETTER (14:27, 21 February 2022)

Hello I would like to know how can I post or share my lesson --Avuyile mango (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avuyile mango, thanks for the question! Could you say more about what kind of lesson you're trying to contribute? In general, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so you probably will need to post it elsewhere. We have sister websites which do accept courses and books, so if you could tell me more I could try and point you to one of those. — Wug·a·po·des 22:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2022-08

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Special:Nuke will now provide the standard deletion reasons (editable at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown) to use when mass-deleting pages. This was a request in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey. [3]
At Wikipedias, all new accounts now get the Growth features by default when creating an account. Communities are encouraged to update their help resources. Previously, only 80% of new accounts would get the Growth features. A few Wikipedias remain unaffected by this change. [4]
You can now prevent specific images that are used in a page from appearing in other locations, such as within PagePreviews or Search results. This is done with the markup class=notpageimage. For example, [[File:Example.png|class=notpageimage]]. [5]
There has been a change to the HTML of Special:Contributions, Special:MergeHistory, and History pages, to support the grouping of changes by date in the mobile skin. While unlikely, this may affect gadgets and user scripts. A list of all the HTML changes is on Phabricator.

Events

Community Wishlist Survey results have been published. The ranking of prioritized proposals is also available.

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 February. It will be on all wikis from 24 February (calendar).

Future changes

The software to play videos and audio files on pages will change soon on all wikis. The old player will be removed. Some audio players will become wider after this change. The new player has been a beta feature for over four years. [6][7]
Toolforge's underlying operating system is being updated. If you maintain any tools there, there are two options for migrating your tools into the new system. There are details, deadlines, and instructions on Wikitech. [8]
Administrators will soon have the option to delete/undelete the associated "talk" page when they are deleting a given page. An API endpoint with this option will also be available. This was a request from the 2021 Wishlist Survey.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Newxpo

Posted 2 days ago, Nexpo curates another eerie series of analogue TV instructional videos in the vain of LOCAL58, except this one is over twice the length (2.5 hrs). Personally, I'm loving the long form. Anyway: Gemini and the End of the World. El_C 23:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: gosh it's really been two weeks huh? Recovered from the archives to say I still haven't seen this yet, but it's on my "watch later" list. I'm excited to see the increase in long-form content and from the view count it seams to be doing really well. I hope to get to it once life slows down and I'm in the right headspace to appreciate it. Right now though I'm on like three committees that have all decided to ramp-up simultaneously so the paperwork has given me enough nightmare fuel for a bit. — Wug·a·po·des 22:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I get it. My own watch later que can probably fill a small library. Anyway, I originally found the Gemini arc not to have been on par with LOCAL58, even though the artistry is of the same quality. But as the story progressed I got more and more into it. Let me know your impressions once you find the time/constitution to watch it! El_C 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question on linguistics

Hello, Wugapodes. This isn't strictly related to Wikipedia, but I had seen this article for the second time in a few months (I believe due to serendipitous visits to Amire80's userpage), and I can't think of any other regular linguist contributors, so went to you to hear your opinion. It's been nearly 15 years since it was published. The impression I got from the (fascinating) article was that the view was innovative and controversial, so in Wikipedia's eyes it would be considered fringe. Would you say that is still true, given your experience in the field? Sdrqaz (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdrqaz, my understanding of this debate is that Everett's argument was taken up, often uncritically or incorrectly, by the popular press whose characterization of the scholarly debate was more sensational than the actual debate. This led to a discussion in 2009 published in the journal Language which from my view largely settled the issue within the field. The first paper, co-authored by Andrew Nevins, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues argued that Everett's claims about the language structure are incorrect which undermines his wider claims about language universals. In the second paper, published alongside the Nevins, et al. paper, Everett defends his analysis of the linguistic structure of Pirahã and specifies his claim: Everett's analysis of Pirahã (if correct) falsifies the claim that recursion is an essential property of human language (Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch 2002). In a third paper, published in the following issue, Nevins, et al. respond to Everett's defense, and they particularly focus on how the media's portrayal of Everett's claims is different from Everett's claims and evidence. While the debate has simmered, my perspective is that the field has come to the conclusion that (1) popular media coverage overstates and sensationalizes what is actually a niche debate in syntax and (2) Everett's argument is not adequately supported by the Pirahã data. This can be seen in the literature from around 2012 and 2013 when Everett published the book Language: the Cultural Tool. In 2013, for example, N.J. Enfield published a commentary on Everett's book in the the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute where Enfield covered commentary on Everett's previous work and then claimed that the new book similarly makes claims that go beyond what the evidence supports. With all of that said, I don't work on syntax or Amazonian languages, so I'm not familiar with recent debates or how widespread support for Everett's theory is. I will say that a lot of this debate is political and interpersonal drama within the field of linguistics, which complicates things.

All that said, for purposes of WP:FRINGE, I think Everett's theories should generally be discussed as they're incredibly notable, but need to be placed in context (see #Notability versus acceptance). It's a view held by a minority within the field (probably, this is just my perception), but it was (and is) taken seriously as a legitimate scholarly debate. The main issue is that popular press publications like the New York Times and the New Yorker generally overstate and sensationalize the claims in ways that are fringe compared to the actual scholarly debate. Everett's claims are very specific, but popular stories tend to frame it as a general refutation of Chomsky's theory of syntax and universal grammar rather than a refutation of a specific claim he and others made in 2002.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting question, and hopefully the sources help. There are other linguists with varying activity levels, and we're working to get more. The Linguistic Society of America's Committee on Gender Equity in Linguistics is hosting an edit-a-thon in March that I'm helping organize. I'll mention this to participants and maybe we can get more perspectives! — Wug·a·po·des 00:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I have a lot of reading to do this weekend ... Thank you, Wugs, for the thorough response. Hopefully your participants can shed more light on the matter and all the best on the event. As an aside, while I have you, prior to ACE2021 I was hoping that you'd be able to rectify one of the issues with representation we have, as one of the two best closers we have on the project (the other one thankfully acquiesced a couple of years ago). Something you've hopefully thought about. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot

{subst:Diplomacy Barnstar|1=Wugapodes, thanks for closing many large, complex, and controversial discussions over the past 2 years. I have watched your work while lurking on Wikipedia, and it is amazing to me that you have closed so many contentious discussions thoughtfully and fairly. I hope you continue to resolve complex disputes well during your term at ArbCom. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia.2601:647:5800:1A1F:50AB:FFB9:DD80:EFC5 (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)|2=alt}}[reply]