User talk:Qwerfjkl/Archive 25

Latest comment: 1 year ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Tech News: 2023-08
Archive 20 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 30

Tech News: 2023-06

MediaWiki message delivery 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #558

Relisting RfC's

I pinged you at one such relisting and, with respect, suggest that you consider no longer act in any capacity on RfC relistings or, in lieu of that, slow wayyyy down. You relisted an obvious Keep during a spate of nine edits in one minute (9 edits, 1 minute), followed and preceded by dozens of edits in the minute after and before that relisting, and have made over 6,000 edits in the last 24 hours. It seems obvious that you did not read or study the discussion flow or take into account several editor's well researched and logical reasoning, and why it is obvious that the relisting was in error. I don't usually heavily criticize the actions of other editors, everyone here volunteers, but yeah, something is off here. I don't report editors, but someone who has the authority to do so should maybe consider removing tools from your use or at least train you how and when to use them a bit better. Sorry. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, do you mean CfDs? Can you link to the CfD?
The 6000 edits were automated and had no effect on any other of my contributions. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, okay, my apologies. All those edits show up on your account as your contributions by the way, so hard to separate them. 6,000 edits in a day? Holy Wales. The CfD is Category:Homes of United States Founding Fathers, which I would ask you to study each post and hopefully you would consider your relisting. It seems a done deal, and now could hinge on one or two latecomers, which is what's unfair about relistings when they are not needed. Thank. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, ah, you didn't properly sign your comment so I wasn't pinged. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I've had ping problems in the past, again apologies. By the way, one of the Keep users has been adding quite a few more homes that I'd missed, and a few of us are getting ready to make the suggested list (but please be a little more aware of the category-list-navbox trio, Wikipedia considers them as a unit, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, categories are not lists. These have distinct criteria. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
On my relisting: your comment here suggest you are unaware of the distinction between lists and categories; listify is a valid !vote. WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH (and similar) seems to be the main point of contention. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
There is contention over whether this should be deleted (there is consensus it should be listified) and so I did not close this as keep. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Since this is being discussed here I'd like to ping Gwillhickers and Allreet. I am certainly aware of what a list is and what a category is, and it appears you may not have studied-up on WP:Categories, lists, and navigational templates which directly, and in several places, says that they are equal partners, are used in tandem, and not to give weight to one but to all similarly. Thanks, and please read that WP with an eye towards this deletion attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, can you quote? Categories and lists are not interchangeable. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The second paragraph in particular of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates defines the relationship of lists and categories. Just to quote one part: "Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." Randy Kryn (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, I assure you, lists and categories serve a different purpose. See WP:NLIST and WP:OCAT. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Of course, but they are not cross-purposes. You list two links, one, a descriptor of what a list is, and second, how to get rid of categories. There is nothing on the page of what categories not to use that applies to the category under discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn and Allreet: — This issue has gotten a little rife at this point. User Qwerfjkl has "Relisted to generate" the discussion twice and now has dragged the discussion to this page. Now the discussion is taking place on two different pages. This is clearly unnecessary and disruptive. On the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1 page he/she has involked "Relisted to generate" some 40 times! The subject of the category in question is Homes of the Founding Fathers. This alone gives these homes a distinct and unique characteristic that more than merits its own category. Once again, no one has presented any viable or pressing reason why this category should be deleted. This discussion should have gotten a SNOW CLOSE days ago. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers, what do you mean by some 40 times? I count 6 relists on the page if you include previously relists I
Aside from that, the discussion is not a "snow keep". I understand you feel it should be kept, but currently there is no consensus on whether it should be kept. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Qwerfjkl, aside from arguing how many times you've done this or that, please consider also responding to Gwillhickers statement "The subject of the category in question is Homes of the Founding Fathers. This alone gives these homes a distinct and unique characteristic that more than merits its own category." The topic seems defining to each of the articles involved, the historical homes and private locations where the business of creating a nation and its enduring documents was being discussed and taking place. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, yes, that is the argument for keeping it. There is an equally valid argument for delete (listifying) it i.e. that the Founding Fathers quality is trivial and is categorising by assossciation. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Just so I don't make assumptions (which I did with that high-producing bot you have adding edits to your user account. I'm not bot literate so I won't even think about what you've got it doing, but whatever it is, thanks, improving this place should be every Wikipedian's goal), what do you mean by "that the Founding Fathers quality is trivial...", I don't want to place that into discussion context without clafifying, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, WP:TRIVIALCAT. (As a closer, I weigh up arguments. I don't have a particular stance on this.) — Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Qwerfjk, please accept my apologies. I did a quick check on my history, and went back to look for the page in question, but could not find it. Even went back to yesterday's version and couldn't find it. All I can say is that I counted some 40 relisting tags, and wouldn't have made the claim unless I saw it for myself. In any case, the discussion should remain on one page, so as far as the category discussion goes I'll not be making anymore edits on this page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers, I agree discussion should be centralised. I just added a link at the discussion to notify any interested editors (that the relisting was contested). — Qwerfjkltalk 23:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Told you this went one relisting too far, now race and slavery and whatnot are being tossed in to muddy the waters when the category has nothing to do with racial questions. Even ole Abe Lincoln surfaced for a bit, and remember that bit about Ronald Reagan approving of the Founding Fathers as an implied reason to delete (I kid you not, as the comedians used to say). We have a good category which is being maligned and sidetracked, which tells me that a lack of logical counter-arguments declines a discussion into sideshow. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the close. Had me worried as I scrolled up from the bottom. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Confirming email.

Help me in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDmulwa (talkcontribs) 10:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@MDmulwa, If you want to confirm your emial, I would presume you need to wait for an email asking you to confirm it. What exactly is the problem? — Qwerfjkltalk 16:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(West) German

You may want to check out the comment after this closure. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Question from YourBoiAdi on Shinto (16:20, 12 February 2023)

How do I make a table here? Pls answer as soon as possible... thank you... --YourBoiAdi (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@YourBoiAdi, have you tried using VisualEditor? See Help:Tables. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #559

Tech News: 2023-07

MediaWiki message delivery 01:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

CFD closure

Hello,

I believe whatever automated rules were used for the mass-rename in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_29#Academic_staff_in_Africa_and_Asia aren't restricted enough. It shouldn't have been every subcategory here - it should have been for colleges and universities most prominently in Africa and Asia. Many colleges have multiple locations, and those need case-by-case treatment. Notably, Category:Hebrew Union College faculty was moved to Category:Academic staff of the Hebrew Union College despite being an American college because it has an Israel location as a minor part of its network. (Also note that even the nominator admitted that Israel uses "faculty" so arguably Israeli colleges should have been excluded... but even if they aren't, then this isn't really an Israeli college, it's a multinational one that is mostly American and founded in America.) I'm sure this wasn't the only example of such multinational colleges being swept up - can I ask that at least this one be reverted, and some examination gone into everything else moved for other multinational but mostly American cases?

(As a side note, had I known of this discussion, I would very much have opposed it, but oh well. This whole move away from "faculty" off zero evidence whatsoever is very concerning and more a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that I do not believe would stand given a wider discussion. I am not remotely convinced that this allegedly disputed usage was shown to be an issue outside the UK and maybe Europe via convincing evidence in the earlier CFDs, and certainly the most recent CFD didn't state any new evidence at all, just supposition. But I understand that based on who showed up to that CFD, the close was understandable.) SnowFire (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire, they were included as part of the nomination and there were no specific objections to them, so I don't see a reason to move them back. Pinging @Marcocapelle as nominator. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
They were included, sure, but they were included in error. The substance of the nominator's case was that "faculty" meaning professors is a US-centric meaning of the term, but Hebrew Union College is an American institution founded in Ohio that is still mostly in the United States. Even given the CFD giving consensus to such a change for Asian and African colleges (which I still think is an error), this isn't really an Asian or African college because of one small campus in Jerusalem. SnowFire (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
It's impossible in a nom with thousands of categories to give individual consideration per university. No-one gave any rationale for China being renamed. It seems obvious to me that a rename which introduces an anomaly into Category:Faculty by university or college in California should be undone forthwith. Oculi (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Any response to this? I repeat, Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion is an American college, and the CFD was not about American colleges. If someone proposes a mass move of dogs but somehow a cat is tagged in the mess, we call it a clerical error and move on. If you're not willing to revert that one on your own, would you object to me filing either a speedy CFD, or an immediate follow-up normal CFD on it? I don't think the latter should be necessary though per above unless you want to defend that move on its merits rather than just procedurally saying it was part of the nomination. SnowFire (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    • @SnowFire, yes, I was waiting for any response from Marcocapelle. These categories do seem to contradict the nom's purpose, so I suppose they should be restored. @Fayenatic london? — Qwerfjkltalk 07:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Yes, I will revert that one. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Not a problem:
    1. Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar uses "academics-research" that we are eliminating (mentioning "faculty" in the text), while the overall directory is "Faculty and Staff".
    2. NYU Abu Dhabi uses "Academic Staff".
    3. NYU itself uses "academic staff": outstanding academic staff for tenured/tenure-track....
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The NYU Abu Dhabi link above also has https://nyuad.nyu.edu/en/about/careers/faculty.html , though. And the section called 'Academic Staff' has a URL saying 'academic-support' and includes postings for jobs like librarian, which is not traditionally in scope for these categories (and it is unclear if a scope change was intended ). It appears that 'faculty ' is the term used for affiliated professors. SnowFire (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Any further comments on this? Should we open a new CFD for the status of these institutions? At the very least, they're borderline cases, which IMO means they should be moved back and an individual CFD done, but the very strong association with a parent American college, combined with the evidence of the website suggesting "faculty" is correct, that they probably should not have been part of the bulk nomination. SnowFire (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@SnowFire, I would open a new CfD. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 12#Category:Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire

You suprisingly relisted after there was no support by anybody, so Marco has formally withdrawn. Please close withdrawn before some passerby randomly revives it. I'd do it, but I'm a participant. TIA.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@William Allen Simpson, done. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Question from "Dancin' Doug" Colón (01:57, 15 February 2023)

How do I create my own page? I have the links from the BBC, PBS and MSNBC, plus news articles. --"Dancin' Doug" Colón (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@"Dancin' Doug" Colón, Welcome! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! — Qwerfjkltalk 08:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

computer knowledge

how to access my phone with other phone without installation of apps — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOXE J KAY (talkcontribs) 19:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@JOXE J KAY, is this question related to Wikipedia? If not, then ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Qwerfjkl, if this proposal continues to attract support, I may start developing the new code in Template:WPBannerMeta/sandbox shortly. Would you be up for coding the changes for {{WPBS}}? If so, I think you will have the tougher job! Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ, sure, I'll get started soon. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ, just got this working. See User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/WPclass, which calls /t, which uses Module:Template parameter value/sandbox. I managed to get ChatGPT to code the change for me. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You did what?? I heard it was clever but that is ridiculous! So basically you have adapted the code so it will also recognise redirects of for the template too? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ, Yes. I think it introduced an error, namely case sensitive checking so it won't match {{wikiproject banner shell}}, but will match {{Wikiproject banner shell}}. It needs more testing. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Any chance you could fix your talkpage so the "reply" link actually works? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ, I didn't know the reply link works. How does it appear (I have it disabled)? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The reply link appears but when I click it, it says the "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit source". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ, can you post this at WT:Talk pages project? I don't know what the problem is. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I suspect it is the unclosed table that you are transcluding from User:John Cline/Bq. By the way, no need to ping me on every reply! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
That still souns like a bug that should be reported. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You have put invalid HTML on your talk page, so it's no wonder that some things break! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing your page so the reply link works! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Shall we set up a page to discuss technical implementation? Or just use Template talk:WikiProject banner shell? I had a look at modifying {{WPBM}} but quickly realised that the wikicode cannot easily be adapted for such logic. So I have started Module:WikiProject quality assessment which will handle the class normalisation and decding whether the quality class should be shown or hidden in each banner. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ, I don't mind where we discuss implementation. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
When you have time, would you like to start making changes to Template:WikiProject banner shell/sandbox? User:Izno suggested we can emit the class as a microformat and that would be easier to read for the project banners. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@Izno, how this work/help? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Qwerfjkl, if you are interested in the implementation suggestion I've made, please leave a comment on my talk page; I don't have the bandwidth to have a split discussion on the matter.
That said, I'm happy to move the discussion on my talk page to TT:WPBS as well, as that will be easier to track for future generations. Izno (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll move it - it's certainly an option worth considering — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ, should I add the TMPV implementation to WPMetaBanner's sandbox? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I was just trying to add it to Module:WikiProject quality assessment but I don't think Module:Template parameter value/sandbox is ready for deployment yet. For example, it will read the class of a banner template inside the shell. In the example below your code will pick up the "C" even though it is not a parameter of the shell template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Football/sandbox|class=C}}
}}
I've made an edit to TPV's sandbox which should address your issue here. Give it another try? Aidan9382 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
That is not the only concern I have with that module. The variable "letter" on line 6 is undefined. The third argument (args[3] ) seems to have disappeared completely. In short I don't think this module is ready for use, so I have to code it myself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #560

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

Tech News: 2023-08

MediaWiki message delivery 01:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)