User talk:Chewings72/Archive 26

Latest comment: 4 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 30 August 2020
Archive 20Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29

18:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

Wikidata weekly summary #422

16:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #3

 
On 16 March 2020, the 50 millionth edit was made using the visual editor on desktop.

Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:

  • The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
  • More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
  • Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
  • The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
  • Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
  • On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor.
  • In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #423

20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #424

16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #425

19:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #426

Short description

The short description "founder and first Umayyad Caliph (r.661-680)" only makes sense to people who already know who Hazrat Muawiyah was. If you want to say he is the founder of something, you need to say of what. Do you think it would make more sense to say "first Umayyad Caliph (r.661-680) and founder of the Umayyad Caliphate"?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1 Good pickup. I have changed the short description to what you suggested. Thank you. Chewings72 (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

Wikidata weekly summary #427

15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Instagram as reliable source for coptic orthodox pedophilia scandal

Hello! I noticed that you removed some edits regarding a leaked report because they had instagram as a reference. The instagram account was first to post the report and the report has been mentioned in many news stories including one by the LA times. I simply included the instagram account as the reference because it includes the report in its entirety. The report is not available in as much detail in other places.

What is your advice getting the information up the proper references. Please comment on my talk page. thank you :)

--Titus Obelisk (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Titus Obelisk If the story was in the LA Times then quote the LA Times as your source, not Instagram.Chewings72 (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #428

16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Hi. I've notice you change a few short descriptions on articles on my watchlist, and i'm not entirely sure it's necessary or useful. My understanding of the short description (from WP:SHORTDES) that that it "should be brief" and "should not attempt to precisely define the subject" and "should focus on distinguishing the subject from ones with similar titles". To that end, i would argue that adding the birth and death years of Roman emperors is unnecessary ~ i'm not even sure that their regnal years are necessary as they are clearly defined by "Third [or some other number] Roman emperor". If i'm misunderstanding or misinterpreting, please feel free to correct me and explain mine error; happy days, LindsayHello 20:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

LindsayH Thank you for your message. I have been correcting a number of short description entries for biographies for some time now. As a principle, I agree with and support the definitions that you quoted in your message. My basic approach is to just provide enough information to help identify the biography based on the country that the person has primarily lived in or carried out their occupation; the primary occupation(s) of the individual during their lifetime ; and some information regarding when they lived. Given that it doesn't take up much space, my preference is to put the date of birth and date of death to help identify when the person was active or flourished . If that is not available or is uncertain, I then refer to the relevant century or part of that century (e.g. early 2nd century AD). For individuals who have ruled an empire or a kingdom or a principality or the like, I have added a second bracket with the period of reign since I believe that is relevant to getting a very brief understanding of when the individual was most influential. However I'm not wedded to that if you think that that is unnecessary information. One key element in my approach is to try and make sure that the short descriptions are not too long e.g. under 100 characters. Happy to discuss further with you regarding my approach to Roman emperors. I don't wish to be pedantic about it -- I just want to try and improve the overall quality of the short descriptions as they are important both in Wikipedia and for Wikidata. Regards Chewings72 (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. To be fair, i'm not wedded to any particular use of the things ~ i scarcely notice them, and don't go seeking them out; my interest is merely that we have a basic consistency with them, and stay in line with what the community wants. My understanding is that the point of the short description is merely to enable the reader to know that they have arrived at the correct article among two or more which may be the same or similar titles. Thus, distinguishing, thus, between London, London, London, London, London, London, and so on, is the key; for that, an appropriate short description might be "A city in England", rather than "An English city, the seat of the Queen, capital of the greatest empire ever seen, population 8 million" ~ obviously, i'm exaggerating for (i hope) humorous effect, but i'm sure you understand. For the emperors (or any other rulers) we surely only need enough to be sure we're on the right page ~ so for Caligula, for example, "Third emperor of Rome" would be sufficient without the dates or, certainly, with only one set of dates (after all, WP:SHORTDESC does suggest 40 characters).
Enough, i'm sure you think i've gone overboard here but, i promise you, i'm not beating this to death, i am done. I really have just written here as a follow up so you'd know i did see your reply and thought it over, and to explain my thinking. Thanks; happy days, LindsayHello 09:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #429

20:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #430

17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020