User talk:Tom.Reding: Difference between revisions
Tag: |
→Edit warring, gaming, TPO...: new section |
||
| Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
<small>(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from [[Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list|this list]].)</small> |
<small>(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from [[Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list|this list]].)</small> |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:Pharos@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list&oldid=904920325 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:Pharos@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list&oldid=904920325 --> |
||
== Edit warring, gaming, TPO... == |
|||
Hi. I just noticed that you reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_500001–501000&diff=905372203&oldid=905370649 this] back in even after multiple editors had called you out for it, and even marked the edit as minor. You also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_500001–501000&diff=prev&oldid=905380782 demanded] that the nomination be withdrawn based on its inclusion of pages ''you added''. I can't see how you could possibly think this behaviour to be appropriate, but I'm imploring you here and now to ''stop'' and let the original nomination proceed without your POINTy additions. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:26, 9 July 2019

Click here to start a new conversation. Thank you!
BarnstarA barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
Thank you! :) ~ Tom.Reding & his 200-some-odd lines of regex (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 02:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
There's nothing quite like cleaning up a good, 'ol-fashioned clusterfuck. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Barnstar awarded
A barnstar for you!
Another barnstar for you!
Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: {{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The AWB Barnster
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Congrats on joining the million edit club!
A barnstar for you!
A Dobos torte for you!
You have used your gifts well, Padawan
7&6=thirteen, thank you :) And I really should take the test, but I can't be bothered while editing...perhaps that is or should be one of the questions?? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC) A barnstar for your efforts
Preciousastronomy gnome Thank you for quality gnomish work on a large scale, making {{authority control}} available, creating redirects and talk pages, for writing and maintaining astronomy-related articles and categories such as Abell 665 and Category:Discoveries by Carl W. Hergenrother, - Tom, user conceived with a sploof in 2009, you are an awesome Wikipedian! You are recipient no. 2523 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
I see we both have OCD. I had no choice but to give you this barnstar. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
A Barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
For improving Navseasoncats
Barn!
A barnstar for you!
Another barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
Have a pint.
A barnstar for you!
smiley award!(Explanation and Disclaimer) Ame ★ (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Some cookies for edit 1.25 billion
Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Advice and assistance sought
My long term goal is to unify the coding of the automated taxobox templates into one main module: there's a lot of overlap in the template code; it's inefficient and hard to understand since values derived from the parameters have to be repeatedly worked out because of the absence of variables; there are subtle differences in the behaviour of the templates that are confusing to editors that use them.
One example of the last is whether and how the automated taxobox templates automatically italicize the page title. The main templates, {{Speciesbox}} and {{Automatic taxobox}}, do, but others, like {{Infraspeciesbox}}, don't.
I have a version of {{Infraspeciesbox}} at {{Infraspeciesbox/sandbox}} that correctly italicizes page titles in all the tests I've done. However, there's a problem in changing over to use it. Existing pages, e.g. Arctostaphylos manzanita subsp. elegans, use a combination of {{DISPLAYTITLE:...}} and {{Infraspeciesbox}}. However, if I just updated {{Infraspeciesbox}} to the code in {{Infraspeciesbox/sandbox}}, {{DISPLAYTITLE:...}} would then be present twice and this is flagged as an error. (Try changing {{Infraspeciesbox}} to {{Infraspeciesbox/sandbox}} in this page and previewing.) So one possibility is:
- run through the 350-odd pages that have {{DISPLAYTITLE:...}} and {{Infraspeciesbox}} and replace both by {{Infraspeciesbox/sandbox}}
- when this is done, update {{Infraspeciesbox}} to the sandbox version
- then run through the pages again replacing {{Infraspeciesbox/sandbox}} by {{Infraspeciesbox}}
However, I know from when I did something like this before that there are objections to pages in mainspace being left linked to sandbox versions of templates, so the changes need to be made more quickly than I can edit them manually.
Can you think of another way to manage this? If not, can you help with (1) and (2)? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: sure, let's coordinate. I'll be available for the next 1.5 hrs and after 4pm ET to remove {{DISPLAYTITLE}} after you update {{Infraspeciesbox}}. Ping me in that edit summary or here and I'll take care of the rest. That's the best order to do it when AWB is available, since removing {{DISPLAYTITLE}} first has a 100% chance of changing the page display immediately, whereas updating {{Infraspeciesbox}} first has a < 100% chance of changing the display immediately. Without AWB, I'd say linking to the sandbox temporarily would be preferable over anything that changed the display (let naysayers neigh). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I recently did something similar (Template_talk:Cite_wikisource#new sandbox version that abandons citation/core). I created
{{cite wikisource/interim}}precisely to preclude any whining that might have arisen from using ~/sandbox. In the edit summary, I include a link to the talk page discussion where I described what it was that I was doing. No complaints. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Trappist the monk: yes, I guess that's another way to do it – create {{Infraspeciesbox/interim}} rather than link to the sandbox; I've certainly had whining when I left links to ~/sandbox even for a short time. However, I guess if Tom can do a run quickly after I update {{Infraspeciesbox}}, so that the errors caused by having two occurrences of {{DISPLAYTITLE}} disappear quickly, then it should be ok to do it as he suggests. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: I should be able to ping you again about 4:15pm ET (9:15pm here in GMT summer time if I have it right), so if we're both active let's do what you suggest: I'll update {{Infraspeciesbox}} and you then remove {{DISPLAYTITLE:...}} from all pages that transclude {{Infraspeciesbox}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: let me know if you are online. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: engage ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: {{Infraspeciesbox}} updated. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: so this search says that they have all been updated; many thanks! (There's just one, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, that does actually need {{DISPLAYTITLE:...}}.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Glad to help! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: so this search says that they have all been updated; many thanks! (There's just one, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, that does actually need {{DISPLAYTITLE:...}}.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: {{Infraspeciesbox}} updated. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: engage ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: let me know if you are online. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:Airntd
Please can you modify Template:Airntd so that it correctly populates the moved categories. Currently the non-empty redirect folder is filling up. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
On it ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 01:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Done - blue links appearing (see Category:1950s British agricultural aircraft). I'll have a go at the see-also list of related templates too. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 02:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Aircraft Cats
Not a big fan of mass cat moves but I appreciate your hard work sorting them out. Just one point most of them now say things like "1920s British civil aircraft" or "1920s Swiss military aircraft" but we have "1940s United States civil aircraft" rather than "1940s American civil aircraft", any reason why the US is an exception? Just to note if you need any help with specific aircraft problems then please ask at either the aircraft project or my talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Another anomaly if you look under Category:Aircraft manufactured in Taiwan some of the sub-cats use Republic of China rather than Taiwanese. MilborneOne (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- @MilborneOne: US/American: for this case I agree, but a larger WP:AIRCRAFT survey is required - if you look at Category:Aircraft by country, "United States" is the convention, but for Civil aircraft, "American" should be used. My guess is that this there are multiple overlapping (sub)hierarchies using different standards.
- Taiwan is officially the Republic of China, but Republic of China is also historically ambiguous, so I'd naively prefer Taiwan to disambiguate.
- I don't know why either of these issues exist, though. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Politics and avoiding silly arguments? Some people object to using American for the United States and here you could argue it is ambiguous (compared to European aircraft). And anything to do with the naming of Taiwan can be contentious as China considers the Taiwanese to be Chinese. Jts1882 | talk 14:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, no interest in opening that can of worms. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, I will raise the US/American at project, American is not ambiguous in English, as for ROC/Taiwan wikipedia main article on the country is Taiwan so we should follow that. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, no interest in opening that can of worms. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Politics and avoiding silly arguments? Some people object to using American for the United States and here you could argue it is ambiguous (compared to European aircraft). And anything to do with the naming of Taiwan can be contentious as China considers the Taiwanese to be Chinese. Jts1882 | talk 14:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for helping on AWB cleanup
Hi Tom,
I greatly appreciate your dedicated work on AWB cleanup and would love to hear from you about my latest project: User:Uziel302/Typos, where I upload lists of high probability typos and with a script I wrote I correct the real typos in one click. No need to set up AWB setting for each replacement, and if the replacement is inaccurate, you can put alternative replacement in a simple popup.
Any feedback is much appreciated.
Thanks, Uziel302 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your recent changes in Module:ConvertNumeric
Hey Tom,
Regarding your recent changes in Module:ConvertNumeric, there is no need to create duplicated tables that fork the same data.
I've put up a mock up of code that explains how I would have done it. There are two options that I can see, not sure which is more efficient, so would leave that up to you. The code is located at Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2. It currently looks for the hard-coded value of "nineteen" and returns the number (the original key).
{{#invoke:Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2|getDataOption1}}-> Script error: No such module "Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2".{{#invoke:Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2|getDataOption2}}-> Script error: No such module "Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2".
Hope this helps. --Gonnym (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: yes, I thought about doing something like that, but decided against it for 4 reasons: 1) hard-coding is faster, 2) more transparent, 3) the new tables (except
eng_lt20) are not exact inverses of each other, and 4) there's no threat of forking, unless we collectively decide to stop using base 10. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I now see that the other 2 templates are different. There really is no need to that, as hardcoding should never be the option used, especially in this case where you are essentially duplicating the same code. I'm also not sure a longer code base equals more transparent code. Yes, you've might have made this part more transparent, but the entire code has become unnecessarily longer and more confusing because of the dups which can create confusion. I've added another example which is a full set of the code for up to 99, which includes a setup for higher values. It does it easily with the current tables and very few extra line. A few examples:
{{#invoke:Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2|getDataOption3|sixth}}-> Script error: No such module "Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2".{{#invoke:Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2|getDataOption3|ninety ninth}}-> Script error: No such module "Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2".{{#invoke:Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2|getDataOption3|ninetieth}}-> Script error: No such module "Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest2".
- --Gonnym (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I now see that the other 2 templates are different. There really is no need to that, as hardcoding should never be the option used, especially in this case where you are essentially duplicating the same code. I'm also not sure a longer code base equals more transparent code. Yes, you've might have made this part more transparent, but the entire code has become unnecessarily longer and more confusing because of the dups which can create confusion. I've added another example which is a full set of the code for up to 99, which includes a setup for higher values. It does it easily with the current tables and very few extra line. A few examples:
- @Gonnym: why should hardcoding never be used? Doing as you suggest is needless overhead. There's no code being duplicated, but 1 table inverted, and 2 new tables which share only words with another table but not numbers. If others have a problem with the length of table definitions (~200 total lines before, and ~230 now), then they can be moved to a /conf sub-module, or similar. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to check the links you've posted as you've not really added line numbers to a specific point. I'm also not sure if you are serious or not, but any average coder knows why hardcoding is bad. Yes, when creating constants and with short pieces of code, hardcoding is ok, but this isn't it. Also, saying 2 of the tables are not hardcoded is just false, as I've literally showed you that I'm reusing them. Also, the overhead from my code is very minimal, compared to confusion of 3 duplicate tables which make the actual reading and debugging of the module code harder (the code line difference is 26 vs 21 + your 3 tables). Anyways, not going to argue this with you anymore, if you can't see why what you are doing is wrong and feel like fighting for it, then go ahead. --Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you'd think I'm joking. Do you mean "sarcastic"? Regardless, neither are true.
- What statement of mine is "
saying 2 of the tables are not hardcoded is just false
" referring to? Did you mistake the word "hardcoded" for "duplicated"? If so, then our definitions of the word "duplicated"...are different. - Re: "
make[s] the actual reading and debugging of the module code harder
": meh, but a /conf sub-module, or similar, is still the solution, especially if the dictionaries grow as functionality expands. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to check the links you've posted as you've not really added line numbers to a specific point. I'm also not sure if you are serious or not, but any average coder knows why hardcoding is bad. Yes, when creating constants and with short pieces of code, hardcoding is ok, but this isn't it. Also, saying 2 of the tables are not hardcoded is just false, as I've literally showed you that I'm reusing them. Also, the overhead from my code is very minimal, compared to confusion of 3 duplicate tables which make the actual reading and debugging of the module code harder (the code line difference is 26 vs 21 + your 3 tables). Anyways, not going to argue this with you anymore, if you can't see why what you are doing is wrong and feel like fighting for it, then go ahead. --Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: why should hardcoding never be used? Doing as you suggest is needless overhead. There's no code being duplicated, but 1 table inverted, and 2 new tables which share only words with another table but not numbers. If others have a problem with the length of table definitions (~200 total lines before, and ~230 now), then they can be moved to a /conf sub-module, or similar. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Renamed categories
Hi Tom, I noticed that you renamed the sequential subcats of Category:Knesset informally. Well, WP:IAR, when appropriate. However, you omitted to check backlinks to the old names, which in this case were left in the {{cat pair}} templates on each of the renamed pages. If you had used WP:CFD, this would have been caught as part of the implementation. Anyway, I fixed the links. – Fayenatic London 08:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Sunday June 23: Wiki Loves Pride @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
| June 23, 12:30pm: Wiki Loves Pride @ Metropolitan Museum of Art | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for Wiki Loves Pride @ Metropolitan Museum of Art on the Upper East Side. Togethe, we'll create new and expand existing Wikipedia articles on LGBT artists and artworks with LGBT themes in the Met collection! With refreshments, and a special museum tour in the afternoon! And there will be a wiki-cake! Open to everyone at all levels of experience, wiki instructional workshop and one-on-one support will be provided. See also the global Wiki Loves Pride photo contest, as well as the Met's online LGBT Art Writing Contest, and also the LGBT Health Writing Contest.
This is the fifth annual Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon supported by Wikimedia NYC! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 16:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC) | |
| Stay tuned for details on next event! Sunday July 14: Great American Wiknic @ Roosevelt Island | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Sunday July 14: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island
| July 14, 2-7pm: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join us at the "picnic anyone can edit" in the lovely Southpoint Park on Roosevelt Island, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. This year the Wiknic will double as a "Strategy Salon" (more information at Wiknic page), using open space technology to address major questions facing our social movement.
Celebrate our 13th year of wiki-picnics! We hope to see you there! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 21:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Edit warring, gaming, TPO...
Hi. I just noticed that you reverted this back in even after multiple editors had called you out for it, and even marked the edit as minor. You also demanded that the nomination be withdrawn based on its inclusion of pages you added. I can't see how you could possibly think this behaviour to be appropriate, but I'm imploring you here and now to stop and let the original nomination proceed without your POINTy additions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)











