User talk:RexxS/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

The above two ANI's.

What I will say (after commenting on the first and having to bite my tongue on the second) is that it will be very difficult for me to defend your actions in the future. In the first instance you revert out an editor's change to the status quo and BRD and general editing policies/guidelines supports you in this. In the second you revert back in an editors change to the status quo in what is already an amazing contentious subject whenever it rears its ugly head. BRD does not support this. Frankly for adding an infobox to a music-based article, especially in that genre, it will always be contentious. The community of infobox-arguers (on both sides) has shown over the years it is incapable of solving their disputes through standard discussion due to the entrenched positions, so a formal moderated !vote is the best way to keep the discussion civil. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(watching:) Infoboxes have been contentious for classical music composers (last discussed for Pierre Boulez in January 2016, and I had enough then), but not for compositions, see Mozart and Britten recent TFAs, or a bit longer ago another Requiem for TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That is, at best, wishful thinking Gerda. Infoboxs in general are contentious. If you need to quibble over 'well it is for composers but not for compositions' then you are clutching at straws. And that in particular is the sort of argument that people who are anti-infobox will just reject out of hand. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at the Mozart concerto, and it's review: anything contentious? - Look: I add infoboxes, and if I am reverted, I forget it. Normally. In this case, I was reverted like vandalism, and just questioned why. Some of the old fighters seem to love argument. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Only in death: Thank you for your advice and sentiments, and I do understand what you're saying. However, in the second case, my restoration of the infobox came as a consequence of a single editor (the IP in question) removing the infobox four times in quick succession against three other editors (not including me) who wished to see it included. BRD had gone out of the window long before I arrived, and I was unwilling to see an action supported by several other editors stonewalled by a single objector. I do believe that in this case, an infobox improves the article, and I've taken the time to lay out my reasoning on the article talk page. I do accept that on the talk page, other editors such as Ceoil had raised concerns without specifically objecting, but the IP who was regularly reverting had not made a single constructive comment there. In the circumstances, I don't regret engaging strongly with him, even if I do feel a tinge of shame in descending to his level. At the end of the day, one has to make a decision about where to draw the line in tolerating bad behaviour such as the IP demonstrates. I draw mine pretty close to zero-tolerance for the attacks he made on two of our most respected and well-intentioned women editors on that page. Any other approach would empower him to continue his malignant attacks.

I'm afraid that I must disagree, though, with your suggestion that infoboxes in general are contentious. They are not: not only do they appear in well over half of our articles, they are an integral part of three-quarters of our Featured Articles, although I maintain that there are certainly cases where, on balance, an infobox does not improve an article. If you're interested in why I reach those conclusions, please take a look at User:RexxS/Infobox factors, a work in progress, where I'm attempting to collate as many factors as I can find that influence whether an infobox improves an article or not. If you feel you have any insights to add, then please do so. --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's not the infobox that's contentious; just the posting of it. That's it. — fortunavelut luna 13:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and that's a pity in itself. Nevertheless, articles – even ones that benefit dramatically from an infobox – do not come with one "ready-made", so somebody has to compose one and post it. For some editors, crafting it carefully is a labour-of-love: "Quicquid Venus imperat / Labor est suavis / Que nunquam in cordibus / Habitat ignavis". --RexxS (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What Fortuna said. My personal opinion on infobox's is 'sometimes good, sometimes bad, consensus should be sought on the talkpage'. What irked me about the above is that, its quite disingenuous to argue your reversion of a break from the status quo is valid and cite BRD, then turn around and revert your own preferred break from the status quo into an article. Unless its vandalism or obviously incorrect (neither of which applied in the above two cases) the correct process is to go to the talk page and hash it out there once BRD has started. That it relates to an infobox is just an added annoyance for why said talkpage discussion is probably going to go downhill quickly if anyone notices it. If someone decided to remove that infobox and you (or someone else) decided to take it to ANI in much the same way as Lynn did over the horse matter, what response would you expect? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: My opinion is that nobody needs to seek consensus before making an edit that they feel improves an article. Only if it is challenged should there be any need for debate. Nowhere in the two arguments you refer to have I cited BRD. I don't need essays to bolster common sense, and "status quo" is merely the first line of defence for article OWNers - it's almost always masking an ability to make a reasoned argument in favour of a position. In the first argument, I disagreed that LynWysong's gutting of an introductory paragraph was an improvement, and said so as soon as I restored the previous version. In the second argument, I was unwilling to see a single objector remove a valid edit made by three other editors four times. That's not how we write articles on Wikipedia. The IP's only objection to the edit was that it was an infobox. Not that it was against policy, nor that it made the article worse, just that it was an infobox. I've engaged constructively on that article talk page to explain why I feel an infobox improves the article; the IP has done nothing but attack others. Frankly, it's about time that the practice of posting to ANI to try to remove any opposition from a content debate was banned. Because in those two cases, that's exactly what happened. --RexxS (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

url

https://doc.wikimedia.org/mediawiki-core/master/php/DairikiDiff_8php_source.html

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC).

To boil a kettle free

• Thiotimoline

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC).

Lua help on svwiki

Hello, I saw on the Skills board that you could help with Lua. I am trying to copy {{Q}} from meta to svwiki, but we don't have the function getLabel in any of our Wikidata modules. I tried to copy a part but it didn't work. Can you please help me? Ainali (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ainali: I'm sorry I wasn't around today, as I was in the Medicine meetings. I'd be happy to help, so perhaps you could look for me at one of the Wikidata talks during the day on Friday? --RexxS (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I fixed it last night. Ainali (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Newcomer productivity study

Hi RexxS, thanks for making the challenging point about references being the only indispensable skill for newcomers. Here's the study I drew upon when asking my own question: http://jodischneider.com/pubs/opensym2014.pdf Adamw (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017 Wikimania report Interviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing. Internet-In-A-Box Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages. Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example. "Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear T Arrow talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3. Link Plaudit for the Medical Wikipedia app, content that is loaded into Internet-In-A-Box with other material, such as per-country documentation. Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Invite

Would you like to comment on my proposals on Wikipedia:Village Pump (Idea lab)? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about Lua

Hi! I didn’t manage to talk to you at Wikimania until now, maybe tomorrow we could find a moment?! I need to use Lua on German WP for fixing and improving a specific template and wanted to hear an expert advice on the doability of the proposal. If not tomorrow, I will probably come back to it soon here on the talk page. Best regards, XanonymusX (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, XanonymusX, I'll be in the lighting talks (s38) all morning today, and then w13, s43, and probably r8 in the afternoon. If you can find me, we can take some time in the hackathon space to look at what you want to do. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge

Wikimania 2017 Women in Red presentation

Hi Doug. The editathon you lead the training at features here..... and there are few pix of you too! Carol features and a great interview we filmed with Peggy. Hope you enjoyed Wikimania! regards Victuallers (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Small caption in infobox

Hi, the main infobox image caption at Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 was unreadably tiny, so I made this edit to remove the <small>...</small> - but although the caption is now larger than before, it's still only 10.287px in MonoBook. How come it's smaller than the 11.176px of, for example, the caption of Reading Southern railway station, which uses {{Infobox UK disused station}}? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Text in an infobox is 90% of normal font size (i.e. 90% of 12.7px in Monobook = 11.43px). However the caption has an additional CSS style 'captionstyle' set to another 90% in line 136, so the text is rendered at 90% of 90% of 12.7px in Monobook = 10.287px. I'll disable that. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's now 11.43px, Thank you. I didn't spot that extra styling - it wasn't in the style= attribute of the <div>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)