User talk:RexxS/Archive 52

Category:Infobox person using alma mater has been nominated for discussion

Category:Infobox person using alma mater, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello RexxS,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time consider my candidacy at RfA by reading my questions and for thoughts you posted. I appreciate it and hope our paths cross again soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Combined navbox for diving articles

Hi RexxS, It is difficult to keep track of which navboxes are most relevant to any given article, and I find them quite useful as a navigational aid, so I am thinking of combining them as in User:Pbsouthwood/Underwater_diving_combined_template. The combined navbox occupies less visual space in the article when collapsed than using two or more component templates independently, and gives the reader fairly direct access to the whole of the collection, without having to find the way around by searching for tiles they don't know exist, or semi-randomly clicking on links and maybe getting where they need to be by a sort of drunkard's walk. Would a rather large nested navbox like this have any significant impacts on performance? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

The effect on performance will be negligible. The main problem with navboxes is that they don't show up in mobile view, so over half of our readers don't see them. A smaller problem is that some clients don't have JavaScript enabled, so they can't access content that is collapsed by default. Of course, those issues apply to all navboxes, so it shouldn't affect the decision to use a combined navbox, apart from the case when you're replacing a single uncollapsed navbox, where you might get some push-back. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think they are all autocollapsed anyway. Mobile view is a bit of a hassle in so many ways, but current limitations are not necessarily permanent, and if someone comes up with a way to improve navigation on mobile, at least the information will be available. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The purposes of a navbox is generally to provide closely-related concept navigation. When you set up a navbox like that, you actually make it harder for someone to find the concept or topic of interest because they spend time searching through 8 boxes instead of looking at 1 and then using the search bar, the latter of which is there for someone looking for a concept not highly-related (as such to have found it either in the text naturally or in the smaller navbox). In other words, don't lose the forest for the trees. Alternatively, for someone looking for that kind of navigation, we also have categories and list articles; prominently placing a list of diving topics on your "top-level" navbox would probably be more helpful indeed. --Izno (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Generation units task

Hello RexxS! How are you? I really feel bad pestering you all the time... If time permits for you, do you think we could work on the power stations module over this weekend? Rehman 03:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Rehman, please don't apologise. I need to be reminded because I have to find the time somehow. I'm at a WMUK Board meeting from Friday until Saturday night, but I'll try really hard to have a go at it on Sunday. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll never get that time back

I've just been spending eons I'll never get back trying to figure whether or not I can use a photo from 1929, most likely never published in the US, and if I can, what "#€%&}{\¶‰¢ TEMPLATE I should use to upload it to Commons. Why do our numerous pages about this have no notion about being helpful or, you know, in any way straightforward? Can you explain it to me, dear? The image can be seen here — it's the portrait from 1929 of Nadja Malacrida, who died in 1934. "Portrait by Lafayette" (Lafayette who?). Bishonen | talk 17:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC).

Have you tried contacting Paul & Lucy (who posted the image)? they may be able to help. KillerChihuahua 17:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Deathdoggie, long time! It's lovely to see you. That sounds complicated, though. What do Paul and Lucy know about our bureaucracy and templates? Bishonen | talk 18:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC).

yeah, fairly certain they cannot help with that aspect - but they might be able to tell you who Layfayette is. Missed you, Bish. KillerChihuahua 19:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen and KillerChihuahua: It's great to see you back, KC. First of all, I would have expected 'Lafayette' to mean either James Lafayette, the society photographer, or his studio. Since Lafayette himself died in 1923, it can't be him in person unless the date on the blog is erroneous. If it is indeed pre-1923 and by James Lafayette, then we can upload to Commons as {{pd-US}} and {{pd-old-70}}. That piece of information would be the first thing I'd try to ascertain.

Failing that, we'd need to figure out (1) who holds the copyright (probably unknown if it was the photographer and not James Lafayette); and (2) if and when it was published. I did a TinEye reverse image search and that shows the image doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on the internet – which implies it probably hasn't been published prior to the blog in 2015.

A simplified summary of the copyright rules for the USA is this:

If it was published before 1923, it's public domain. If it was published after 2003, then it's PD 70 years after the author died, or 120 years after creation when the author is unknown.

The full rules can be found at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list T-Z #United States of America. Both UK and Sweden have less restrictive rules, so we can upload from either country, but we still need to meet the US rules.

While I was searching, I found a few more images and associated pages that might be useful:

• https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Managed/MEV-11677311
• http://femalewarpoets.blogspot.com/2014/01/nadja-malacrida.html
• http://femalewarpoets.blogspot.com/2014/10/nadja-malacrida-1896-1934.html

The second one contains a photograph of an oil painting by Ettore Tito (died 1941), so the photo would be {{pd-US}} (and {{pd-old-70}} for countries where you can't create a new copyright by photographing a 2-D object).

The last one was sent to the blogger by "Mr. M. Malacrida", so it seems likely that descendants/relatives are still alive and would be valuable to trace.

I'm sorry if that's not as simple an explanation that you might have hoped for, but perhaps some of the stuff I found could be useful. --RexxS (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for digging down into all that. I expect I'll figure it out, or find out. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC).

GRuban - see above...^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This explains about Lafayette Photography, & their Bond St studio. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

So sleepy ... I don't want to post here ... I don't want to post here ... SNAP ... then I forget that, and feel much better, so I guess I can post here after all. I'm not sure what RexxS writes is correct. First, the key year is not 1923 any more, it's 1924 (and will keep advancing with each year that passes), see Template:PD-US. Second, I'm not sure why the photograph of the oil painting would be {{pd-US}}, since it is apparently a 1926 painting (here is a higher resolution image with that date, here are more details though a lower resolution image), so after that magic year. Sorry.

There are two tiny slivers of hope. First, point 7 of Template:PD-US, "Works published outside the U.S. between 1924 and 1977 which were in the public domain in their home countries on January 1, 1996." In the UK, that would be the 70 year rule, so anonymous works before 1926. For example, a Lafayette studio photo of 1925 would work. So that will eke out 2 more years for UK images - though I can't find any 1924 or 1925 photos or paintings either. Second, the magic 1924 date does advance every year, so 3 years from now, the 1926 painting would work; 5 years from now, the 1929 Sketch Magazine cover would work. But nothing for now. Sorry again.--GRuban (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you GRuban. Since the photo I'd really like to use is from 1929 (done by the Lafayette studio), as is the Sketch Magazine cover which would also be nice, I'll be 115 before either of them is PD. I hope somebody adds one or both to the article-to-be when that comes to pass. Presumably Nadja was at the height of her celeb status round about 1929. Unfortunate. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC).

You're 110 now? Wow. And here I thought the dinosaur references were in fun... Impressive! ---GRuban (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, GRuban, for those corrections. The only one that I'm still puzzled by is why the oil painting isn't PD. I was counting on "Anything published before January 1, 1978 with no copyright notice ("©", "Copyright" or "Copr.") plus the year of publication (may be omitted in some cases) plus the copyright owner (or pseudonym) is also in the public domain." to put the oil painting into PD (and therefore any faithful photographic reproductions also). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what that point is saying? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That's if it's published in the US; this portrait apparently was not, meaning that its copyright would likely have been restored under the URAA. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your info above, Johnbod. I wrote up a request to Lafayette to be allowed to use the 1929 portrait. But when I tried to use the "contact us" form at the page you linked to, the form itself closed down every time I typed a "@". I can't not type @, since I have to give them my e-mail address. The internet always has some novel devilry up its sleeve..! Is it supposed to do that, because they don't really want to be contacted? Or what? Can anybody think of some way of getting round it? Or another way of contacting them? If I type "at" instead, I suppose it'll go through, but I strongly suspect my message will be discarded if it doesn't have a "real", proper, e-mail address. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC).

Weird, didn't happen when I tried it. But maybe it's a peculiarity of your keyboard or browser. Or you know, dinosaur claws. Try copying and pasting instead: type your email address somewhere else, in Notepad, for example, then select it, Control-c to copy, click on the field, Control-v to paste. Or Command instead of Control if you're on a Mac. --GRuban (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I tried it that way, and it worked! They even promised to get back to me "soon". Now we shall see. Thanks for your inuitive tip, GRuban. Bishonen | talk 01:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC).

My image has already been tagged for speedy

So, Paul and Lucy very kindly sent me a photo of Nadja from 1922, with full information, and I uploaded it to Commons. But apparently not properly. I filled in all the necessary fields, effortfully, and uploaded File:Nadia Malacrida at marriage, 1922.jpg. I said it was created in 1922 and thus PD in both the UK (its country of origin) and the US. I used the templates {{pd-US}} and {{pd-old-70}}, as RexxS had told me to. And it's already automatically tagged for speedy because "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." I was invited to learn about licenses, on a long and complex page, which sent me on to a tutorial about licenses. Seriously, fuck it. I don't want to spend the best years of my life (between 105 and 110, you know) taking a fucking tutorial, because I don't want to upload an image to Commons ever again. Would anybody here, who possesses that esoteric, jealously guarded, information about licenses, like to help, in case, against expectation, the image hasn't been speedied yet? Bishonen | talk 15:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC). PS, now nominated for deletion. Bishonen | talk 16:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC).

Speedy was added by a bot because the image didn't have the standard pd template, so I added it, and removed the speedy which automatically sends it to AfD. Interested parties can weigh-in there. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I've also added {{PD-US-expired}} so it now has a PD notice for both its country of origin an the USA. That should keep the bots on Commons happy. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And maybe even Bishonen. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Bishonen: Ah, I see what your original problem was. You used

Published in the UK and more than 95 years old (and therefore Public Domain in both country of origin and in the US) {{tl|pd-US}} and {{tl|pd-old-70}}

instead of

Published in the UK and more than 95 years old (and therefore Public Domain in both country of origin and in the US) {{pd-US}} and {{pd-old-70}}

The {{tl}} template on Commons is very similar to our {{tlx}} template, and this meant that the two license tags were linked instead of being displayed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• The AfD is closed - KEPT. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Module:I18n/ordinal

You recreated Module:I18n/ordinal this February, which has been deleted at TfD. I was wondering if there was any reason or if it should be {{db-xfd}}'d. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: Module:WikidataIB makes use of a module created on Commons called Module:Complex date, which allows it a wide range of functionality in expressing dates (far more than it currently uses, in fact). That module indirectly relies on Module:I18n/ordinal, so I had to re-copy the module from Commons. To test its use, I just blanked Module:I18n/ordinal and checked the output of WikidataIB when rendering a date. This is what I got for end time (P582) of the Industrial Revolution (Q2269):

• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P582 |qid=Q2269}} → Module:Ordinal-cd:68: attempt to index upvalue 'i18n' (a boolean value)

When I restored the contents of Module:I18n/ordinal, I get:

• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P582 |qid=Q2269}} → 2010

That proves to me that the module is in use. One day, I'll condense all of the needed code out of Module:Complex date and its dependencies, and put it into WikidataIB, but that's a very long way down my list of priorities. It would indeed be nice to be neat and tidy and do away with dependencies, but while the current system of dependencies works across multiple wikis as it stands, I don't have the motivation to do the rewriting needed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Yet another way a template can be used without any transclusions! I've added a note in the documentation linking to this discussion to make sure it doesn't get re-deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: There is an added dimension that Lua modules can make use of other pages such as modules and templates without necessarily showing up as transcluding them. If you want to be certain that a particular module or template is not used within another module, the safest way is to do an insource search for the template/module name inside module space, and examine the results. That search for Module:I18n/ordinal shows 13 results, most of which are spurious, but you can see that Module:Ordinal-cd calls it exactly. Enclosing the search in "" generally reduces the number of hits, but you run the risk of eliminating some positive results. It's worth gaining familiarity with those searches if you're going to be dealing with template and module deletions. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons links issue

Hi RexxS. I think your change to Module:WikidataIB yesterday upset something with the getCommonsLink function. Pages like Aero A.22 are no longer fetching the Commons category (P373) value to display the link. I'm not sure whether that's actually a problem or not, since I want to get rid of P373 at some point soon, but it's definitely unintended behaviour that needs some investigation... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike; it was unintended behaviour. I wanted to make sure parseParam didn't cause an error if a boolean were passed to it, but I should have explicitly checked for the boolean rather than processed all input to the routine. I think it's fixed now, but let me know if you find any other problems. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that fixed it, the numbers in the tracking categories at Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories are decreasing again now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this - I noticed it as well in the morning - unfortunately I was not able to localize the reason for the increasing number of elements in onr of the maintenance categories - I have an idea on how to get rid of P373 - unfortunately i will have to make some more testing on this before I will be able to formulate it in an a comprehensive way and another challenge will be how to explain to users ignoring wikidata and moreover I am quite to busy too launchsuch a project by now. Greetings to both of you. --Robby (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	my ladder to the minimum amount of proficiency required to do more than Hello world. Vitosmo (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Vitosmo, for the kind words. I hope you go on to make huge use of your new skills on Wikipedia. If you ever run into problems with a module, please feel free to ask here, and I (or one of my page watchers) will do our best to help out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox power station

		The Template Barnstar
		RexxS, on behalf of WikiProject Energy, thank you for all your help in coding the generation units section of the power station infobox. The task spanned for over 6 months, was very complex, had multiple alterations, but you managed to find time and do it somehow, using Lua magic I had never seen before. Thank you! Rehman 14:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikispecies template & Wikidata

Over on Wikispecies, there's discussion about how to populate species:Template:VN from Wikidata. (A well-populated example is on species:Tyto alba, Might you have time to kindly rough something up in a sandbox there?

Two considerations would be:

• Ability to optionally specify a QID, to override the default (as done in Template:Taxonbar on this project)
• Ability to give an optional local value to override the imported value

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker!) @Pigsonthewing: commons:Template:VN is already Wikidata-aware, and might be a good starting point. Or you could always just use commons:Template:Wikidata Infobox. ;-) (I'm currently drafting a proposal on Commons related to this, which I'll ping you about shortly!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I thought I'd seen something before. I'll take a look at that and see if I can modify it to accept a QID as Andy wants.

@Andy: I don't know quite how you would supply a local value when the template outputs a load of values. Can you give me an example? --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: it wasn't documented but instead of |useWikidata=true, you can use |useWikidata=Q159570. It also looks like using |en=Xxxx supplies a local value for that language. I'll just import the module and its dependency into Wikispecies and see what can be done. --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I've now started the proposal I mentioned above at commons:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Adding_the_Wikidata_Infobox_to_Taxon_categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both. As for local values, I envision that, say:

{{VN |de=Foo |fr=Bar |hu=}}

will display all the available values from Wikidata, except for de and fr values "Foo" and "Bar", and nothing at all for hu. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Andy: I have the Commons VN template working on Wikispecies as species:Template:VN/sandboxWD and dropped a note on your talk page there about what it does so far. --RexxS (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey look...

They made a TV show about you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:C3B:866B:1F5:39B0:7EEF:E626 (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh man, that's so uncanny! --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello RexxS,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 819 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

October

... with thanks from QAI

You gave me great pleasure, because I read again what you wrote seven years ago (collapsed), and found it still good and uplifting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for helping stop the craziness on the Piers Corbyn article! Muffin of the English (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Muffin of the English: My pleasure. If it flares up again, just ping me. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: I have been debating with the user on my talk page for the past couple of days, surprisingly they have remained civil and easy to talk to. The thing that concerns me the most is I don't know how many IPs they edit from or which are theirs. Muffin of the English (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Muffin of the English: No need to ping me on my talk page; I get the notification anyway! My strong advice is to reserve your talk page to discuss your conduct, and to persuade the other user to use the article talk page if they want to discuss content. Otherwise it becomes a dialogue between two editors without easy means of reaching consensus. It's far better for others to see what's happening on the article talk page, which allows them to contribute as well. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! Will start implementing it. I don't think it would work in this circumstance since the other user was using multiple IPs and they contacted me on my talk page first, if you have any idea of what I should have done please tell me, I am all ways looking to improve. (:Muffin of the English (talk)

Hey, this is just to say I'm glad you are an administrator. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Late reply

Sorry, I didn't see this question until just now: Yup, you're right. Individual NOR violations get fixed by pushing the Edit button, which does not require the use of the deletion button. Deletion is about notability, not quality. The valid reasons for deleting a page in the mainspace are:

• anything on the CSD list, which this isn't;
• a belief that it's a violation of WP:NOT (especially the belief that it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of facts), which this isn't;
• the inability to produce at least two independent sources on the matter, which isn't the case;
• a consensus among editors that the content is best handled elsewhere (e.g., merged or split), and even that usually results in redirection without deletion.

I understand the frustration behind WP:TNT, and I understand the immediatists' fear that nothing will get ever cleaned up without them threatening to delete the page, but there's nothing in our notability guidelines that supports the deletion of this content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Well, I can see what you're saying, but what I think you're missing is that none of the independent sources actually address the comparison between circumcision and FGM, and that's the whole premise of the article. It's no use producing sources when they don't actually speak to the topic of the article. And that's where OR has been used to create an article that has no relevant sourcing, hence the deletion/redraftifying. --RexxS (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a problem that can be solved with the regular edit button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: No it can't. Pressing the edit button doesn't magically produce sources that don't exist. Without relevant sources, an article titled List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting should not exist. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it can. WP:SPLITting the page into two pages is accomplished by pushing the Edit button. No admin buttons are required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: That's not true. You need an admin function (also unbundled to pagemovers) to delete the remains of the original, source-less article. That's why the discussion goes through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not Wikipedia:Requested moves. And you're aware as I am that SPILT is the process of moving a block of detail into a stand-alone daughter article, leaving behind a summary in the parent article, which keeps its topic. It's not the process of bifurcating an unsourced conjunction of two disparate topics into its component parts. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No, you don't need an admin, because you shouldn't be deleting the original. When you split an article, the original has to be kept for license/attribution reasons. The original could be redirected to one of these and locked, but it must exist, and the newly split-out results have to link back to it. "Leaving behind a summary in the parent article" is unimportant. Having an edit summary that says "Copied from Original" (or a link on the talk page) is required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:. Of course you must delete the original once that decision has been made at AfD. The work done by the original author was original research and not suitable for Wikipedia. It must not exist, for all the reasons given in the discussion. If someone else wants to use the sources to create two different articles, that's fine, but that is then their own work, not that of the OA and no attribution should be made. None of the original content was suitable to be copied into another article, because of WP:NOR. If any of the original article was usable, you would have a point, but it wasn't and you don't. --RexxS (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If you split the article – "split", meaning cutting and pasting any copyrightable part from one Wikipedia page to another, rather than creating new content from scratch – then deleting the original is a violation of the "BY" part of our CC-BY-SA article. You don't have to trust my word for this; you could think about the implications of deleting the original attribution as described at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusing text within Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems whether it's okay for you to copy content written by another Wikipedia editor to another page and then delete the page that shows who wrote it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: But you don't "split" the article if it contains nothing much more than original research. Doing a copy&paste of original research still leaves it as original research, so you don't copy OR in any situation. I already know the implications of deleting the original - the attribution of the original research is lost. That's fine in this case because the OR shouldn't be in any article. There is nothing to preserve and attribute. That's why OR is a justification for deletion: no other content worth preserving. You don't have to take my word for this, either. You can always ask at the WP:HELPDESK if it's okay to copy original research into another article as long as you keep the attribution. Although I guess you already know what the answer will be. --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

But it's not entirely a NOR violation. The alleged NOR violation is in having FGM and male circumcision implicitly compared with each other. There's no NOR violation in listing the prevalence by country of one *or* the other of those things. Splitting it so that FGM gets its own page and male circumcision gets its own page fully resolves the alleged NOR violation. But solving the NOR problem that way requires preserving the attribution. AIUI, the options are either re-create all the information from scratch (in two unrelated articles, as it probably ought to have been done in the first place), or preserve the attribution. There's no option that lets us just split the article (thus saving all the time and effort required to recreate it) while deleting the attribution. It might well bother some editors to know that if you knew where to look, and you knew how to see old versions (probably much less than 1% of internet users), then someone could see a version that we dislike, but I really don't see a way for us to copy that information to another page and stop hosting the original versions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Yes it was entirely a NOR violation. One part was making a connection between FGM and circumcision without any reliable sources that make that connection. The other part that you don't seem to be aware of is that the figures in the table were mainly extrapolations and assumptions predominantly lacking in direct sourcing. So splitting it into an article about FGM and an article about circumcision simply copies the OR in the figures into two new articles. That should not happen, and consequently none of the original author's work is left to be copied and attributed. The only option allowable would be to use the sources to make two articles from scratch. The combi-article still needs to be deleted.

"I really don't see a way for us to copy that information to another page and stop hosting the original versions" – so don't copy the information! We don't want it. It's as simple as that. No Original Research. --RexxS (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

template:cite TIWW

My incompetence continues, and I think that my time would be better spent on transcription and transclusion, so I am giving up my failed experiments and again asking for help. :-(

Firstly, I am trying to automate this template so all I need to do is type {{cite TIWW}} in an external links section, or inside ref tags and have the template pull the data as required, example of use at Richard Corish (d:Q7324900), and the TIWW work in WD being d:Q74140654, and I started fiddling in the templates sandbox, however, no way could I pull a page number, and I was seeming to double cite the same work each way. Noting that there probably needs to be a second party overwrite in case this is used elsewhere than the subject, though I can always fall back to forcing parameters.

Ultimately, I am wanting a better way to more easily cite many of the Wikisource linked "described by source" (P1343). Over the years I have built individual templates for each of the works that have been created. They pull a variety of the citation templates that have been in play over the past 10 years and pre-date WD, though I wish to start being WD-drawn links rather than old static parameters. If it is your opinion to keep it simple, I can adapt what is put in front of me and can flow across all my previous template builds. (I hope that makes sense). Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'm at a Wiki-chairpersons' meetup in Paris right now, so if it's okay, I'll have a good look at what you're doing when I get back on Tuesday. If necessary, I can create some custom code to do the job for your template, but I'll need a block of uninterrupted time if that's the case. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL! There is nothing urgent about any of this, it is more about progress, success, robustness, and hopefully some ease of task. Some of the works that I have been transcribing I started 10 years ago. Whenever is absolutely fine. [Wikisource time is slower than Wikipedia time :-) ] I just love that you are around and doing things to make these previously mentioned qualities. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)