User talk:Certes/Archive 10

Good afternoon Certes. Looking at your Discussion page, you seem a reasonable chap so here goes. You have insisted on including a link to Model (person) within the Model (disambiguation) page. That disambiguation page however contains only peripheral terms such as titles of songs, or completely unrelated terms such as MODEL - Movement for Democracy in Liberia.

In my view, the Model (person) link would sit more logically in the Model page, which already lists links to artist's model, fashion model, and role model and provides context. Take a look at the current version of the Model page, now changed following your remarks, and let me know what you think.

If you agree, then please delete in the Model (disambiguation) page the links for Model (person) and Model (logic). If you disagree, then do nothing and I will live with it.

Please mind that I am currently travelling and may not be able to answer immediately.86.151.98.28 (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the disambiguation page is to guide the reader wanting information on one of the many topics called "model" to the most appropriate article. Many of them will be looking for Model (person), which averages 1,138 views per day, compared with 204 for the next most popular article Model theory and just 179 for Model itself.[1]. The person topic easily passes the inclusion criteria, and there's even an argument for promoting it to the top of the page as the topic most likely to be sought. Certes (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed. However on the same basis, would you support removing the Model (logic) link from the disambiguation page? It has only 52 visits per day, and sits oddly with all the song titles etc., and is already linked on the Model page in appropriate context with abstract models.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:8474:DA53:3154:39B4 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No minimum number of visits is needed. Articles on obscure topics such as Model, Masovian Voivodeship and MODEL get less than one visit per day but still qualify for an entry as long as their subject remains notable. The only argument I can see for removal is that Model (logic) is a subtopic of Model and is dealt with there. However, it has a separate article which contains a far more detailed treatment than is appropriate for the one-line summary in Model. It seems helpful to allow the reader to go straight to that page rather than having to find the link within a broader article. Certes (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Until a few months ago, the disambiguation article was organised as you are arguing now: a long list of links on diverse subjects containing the word "model", ranging from German field marshal Walter Model to MODEL - Movement for Democracy in Liberia to fashion models and mathematical modelling theories. However, more recently someone (not me) removed all the physical/abstract model-related links and put them into the current Model article, and added a chapter on General Model Theory to wrap it all together. Next, I think, someone sneaked the links for Model (logic) and Model (person) back into the disambiguation article. This confusing back-and-forth will never settle down until the criteria for inclusion are set out in the disambiguation header. Any ideas? I have one...86.151.98.28 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes: let's see what the experts at WikiProject Disambiguation have to say. Certes (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You and I are the experts now. I am making a change to the disambiguation header, and removing Model (logic). See if you like that version. If not, revert. But think about it first. 86.151.98.28 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Certes (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Good morning Certes. You have deleted the infamous World War II general Walter Model from the Model (disambiguation) page, and have commented that he belongs to the Model (surname) page. You are being inconsistent. Above, you have refused deleting the Model (person) and Model (logic) links in the Model (disambiguation) page, even though they already exist as links on the generel Model page. Can you please explain yourself? It is difficult to tidy up Wikipedia articles with such erratic decisions. Thank you. 109.146.228.171 (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's normal practice is to list people sharing a name on a separate page, following the guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Names. The essay Wikipedia:Name pages#Compared to disambiguation pages has further explanation. If you feel that those principles are wrong, let's discuss the matter more widely, perhaps at the disambiguation wikiproject. If you agree with the guidelines but feel that the general is an exceptional case, please explain why, ideally at Talk:Model (disambiguation) or the wikiproject. Either way, I hope we can find a consensus about what to include on the disambiguation page. Certes (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Template:Road marker IN NH has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Template:Road marker sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Good morning Certes. I need your advice on deleting a superfluous Wikipedia article, to wit, Mind model. Please take a look at my argument on Talk:Mind model, and advise me whether a specific deletion template exists that I should be using to alert other editors to the deletion request. Furthermore I would value your opinion. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:ACAD:F546:A9E3:D423 (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You can nominate the page for deletion by following the AfD process. (Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD, even though they're not technically articles.) However, although the term is not widely used, the collection of links there does seem useful. As partial title matches, they're unsuitable for Model (disambiguation) but might perhaps be usefully merged into Model itself, with Mind model becoming a redirect to there. That might be a good alternative to deletion here. Certes (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I have followed the instructions and added a tag. As for your suggestion of moving the links to Model: I instead suggest splitting up the links to two other pages, because the Mind model page is confusing two distinct topics: Conceptual models (models of external reality, created by the mind) and Mental models (models of how the mind works, as proposed by psychologists). Let us see what others say. 86.167.104.11 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I have seen your changes and they seem fine to me. As an administrator, do you have a tool whereby you can efficiently replace, all over Wikipedia, any "Mind Model" links with "Model" links, given that "Mind Model" is a non-word? 86.167.104.11 (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but there are no incoming links to Mind model from articles. (A hatnote on Mental model links there, via a redirect per WP:INTDAB.) Indeed, any significant incoming links would show the page to be used and useful and cause us to doubt its deletion. Certes (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I have had my mind changed on Mind model and propose a consensus. Could you please go to the Mind model Talk page and comment? Thanks. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:C9:F9D1:7093:274A (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

No rest for the wicked. I now have the article Conceptual model (computer science) in my sights. The article itself states that Conceptual model (computer science) is a synonym for Domain model. That being so, Conceptual model (computer science) can be subsumed into Domain model, The Conceptual Model article has not been fixed for years despite a request tag dating from 2015, and it is consulted only 20 times a day compared to 200 times a day for Domain Model. What do you think? And is there a Merger Tag or some standard protocol to initiate the merging process? 86.191.32.215 (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: there is relevant information at Wikipedia:Merging. Certes (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks. 86.191.32.215 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

please make a arrangement in a way to get details of all soda industry Pakistan EngineerNayabNaveed (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have no knowledge about that topic and am unable to help. Certes (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I can help you with its a second largest soda industry EngineerNayabNaveed (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If you mean one of the chemicals called "soda" then WikiProject Chemicals may be able to help. If you would like an article about a food or drink then WikiProject Food and drink may be a good starting place. Certes (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey,

Long time, no see.

I've started a revamp of Wikipedia:Tools/Optimum tool set.

Please take a look and let me know if there are any essential techniques or must have tools that you think should be included.

Thank you.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   06:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a useful list. The main tools I use that aren't listed there are JWB and AutoEd. To find pages needing edits, I use {{Database report}} and Quarry (which is about to be replaced). Certes (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Database report looks cool. Now I have to learn SQL! Maybe perplexity can write it for me.  

Quarry is about to be replaced. Good to know. Perfect timing for me to learn the new tool. Thank you!

If you think of any more, let me know.

Some quick questions:

Why do you use JWB when there's AWB?

AutoEd sounds like the general fixes and typo-fixes features built-in to AWB. What benefit do you find in using AutoEd instead?

I look forward to your replies. Thank you. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

AWB is designed for Windows and doesn't work as well on my OS. It also means starting a separate application, but I find it more convenient to run JWB in the browser I use for Wikipedia. I leave several JWB tabs permanently open: one for bulk typos, one for adding short descriptions, etc. My main use of AutoEd is for fixing wikilinks. I have a Tampermonkey script which adds a wikilink to each entry on a report to open the article in edit mode and make the most common fix for that term, e.g. Model → Model (person)|Model. I need to check the results carefully before publishing because often I need to make a different fix or just discard the preview when the original was correct, but it saves a lot of time. I don't think AWB or JWB could do that so easily. Certes (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Impressive. By the way, where'd you get the data for the most common fix for each term?    — The Transhumanist   10:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Just made up manually. Some have multiple options, for example Acre can intend either Acre, Israel or Acre (state). Certes (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for removing the article description template, I was using the {{Template:Annotated link}} template and the description in Wikidata items started from a lowercase characters whereas the description template has to be started with an uppercase character. I also need lowercase character. Therefore, I thought wikidata would be one-for-all option to avoid duplication on information, but if you need the article description template, I will use the "desc_first_letter_case=lower" parameter for the {{Template:Annotated link}}.

By the way, why do you need the article description template explicitly rather than taking the data from Wikidata item? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Maxim Masiutin: Two reasons. Firstly, the SD from Wikidata simply doesn't appear in some articles. It only appears if something like an infobox explicitly collects it from Wikidata, and we've generally decided not to do that. Secondly, we don't want descriptions in Wikipedia to update automatically whenever someone vandalises Wikidata. Certes (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for that, I didn't know. I apologize again! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. We don't do a great job of documenting such practices, and I can't blame anyone for not knowing about them. Certes (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I read help on both Short description and Wikidata item description and it seems that I figure out the differences. I tried to explain them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Short_descriptions#What_are_the_differences_betewen_a_Short_description_and_a_description_from_the_Wikidata_item? -- you opinion is welcome Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Maxim Masiutin: I think that's all true. One small point: it's right to say that the Wikidata item description is without initial articles (a, an, the), but so is the Wikipedia SD, so that's not a difference. Certes (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Although not directly related to what you wrote, I think another point is worth mentioning. Unless a SD is set in the Wikipedia article, either explicitly through {{short description}} or via a template such as certain types of infobox, the article has no SD. The Wikidata item description used to be used automatically as a fallback, and it still is on some wikis, but English Wikipedia asked the WMF to remove that feature because of vandalism to rarely-visited Wikidata pages. To take a couple of examples: removing the {{short description}} from Grommet would leave it with no SD, because none of its templates set a SD. The Wikidata item description would not appear instead. Removing the {{short description}} from Urinary retention would leave it with a more generic SD of "Medical condition", provided as a backup by {{Infobox medical condition}}, not the Wikidata item description. Certes (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware that according to the rules of Wikipedia:Short description, specifically WP:SDNOTDEF, a short description should be a very brief indication of the field covered by the article, it should not be a definition. The article's Short description on Urinary retention violates this rule (WP:SDNOTDEF) whereas the item descripion on Wikidata item correctly gives the a very brief indication of the field covered by the article. I will update the section I written according to your advice. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"Medical condition" would be adequate. I think "Inability to completely empty the bladder" also passes WP:SDNOTDEF as an otherwise-suitable short description that also happens to work as a definition. I'd say that the latter is slightly better, as it confirms for the layman that the article is about a bladder condition rather than an alternative ailment somewhere else in the urinary tract that might have a similar effect. At 41 characters, it could be criticised as slightly too long but I think that's nitpicking: it conveys the meaning even if slightly truncated. If you ask at the WikiProject, editors with more experience of SDs might give a more informed opinion. Certes (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023 was the first time I had to go to school and then I was in the world 185.213.230.125 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, I hope you enjoy school! Education is wonderful, and I'm proud that Wikipedia contributors are doing their bit to help. Certes (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

GoingBatty (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

20,674 people were killed and 54,536 people were injured. https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1362124/israel-continues-bombardment-of-gaza-southern-lebanon-amid-muted-christmas-celebrations-day-80-of-hamas-israel-war.html 173.44.89.180 (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I won't be adding this information to any articles but, if you would like help, please leave a message on the relevant article's talk page. Certes (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Certes.

Could you help me with the article 'Gabriel Alemparte' (about which you made a small edit to my content)? There's a user —named Bedivere— who wants to delete the article for a supposed WP:NPOL when the politician in question has received important coverage from the media and also has held state–offices in my country, Chile.

Could you vote to keep it in the deletion discussion, please?

Thanks for your attention.

--Carigval.97 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Carigval.97: Sorry, I don't know much about the subject; I only fixed a typo. Also please see WP:CANVASS. Happy editing, Certes (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Changes the link from Mahagathbandhan (2019) to Mahagathbandhan (Uttar Pradesh; 2019) Yuthtuth22 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yuthtuth22: Sorry, I don't know anything about Mahagathbandhan or where this link appears. If you're unable to change it yourself (perhaps it's in a protected article), please add an edit request to the article's talk page. Certes (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

thank you for the message, and I’m sorry for my errors. The link you gave, me, it helped me realize all of them were showing up there. Ill go fix them now. Also, I was hoping people can help with the edits too, but I should own up to it, although, I think the pages are weirdly setup,a nd probably should not have been setup that way. Nice meeting you by the way. Ebbedlila (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  An article that you have been involved in editing—Gurugram Airstrip—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Trinidade (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I merely fixed a link and have no opinion on the merger. Certes (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Greetings Certes, and a very happy, prosperous and productive New year to you and your loved ones. (I think it's a bit late but still possible to issue such wishes, it is still just 2024 after all :) Long time, no chat, I hope you're keeping well and out of trouble ....

I have an enquiry / favour to ask of you with regard to some template / module coding issues that are bamboozling me ATM. I've been working recently on upgrading the Scotland Portal by adding several important Articles & Biographies. They arrive on the Portal pages via {{Numbered subpages}} and ultimately {{Transclude lead excerpt}}. Some of the articles have an unfeasibly short lead section, so the excerpts are (naturally) very short and don't do the topic any justice as an excerpt in the Portal. I could rewrite many lead sections to deal with the issue, but this would risk reversion or edit wars and allegations of being contrary to the WP:MOS. A good example is William Arrol where I moved some extraneous birth details and early education info from a "career" section into the lead but this was quickly shifted into it's own "early life" section by another editor.

Hard to argue against that.

The problem seems to me to be that the templates / modules do not appear to have any method to select a paragraph beyond any TOC via the paragraphs parameter. I can't find any discussion in the /doc pages for any of the templates or modules about a solution for this. Any ideas?

Your insights / comments / possible solutions would be greatly appreciated if you can spare the matter some of your time. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cactus.man: Thank you, and lang may yer lum reek. Yes, the portal templates extract just the lead. The lead is meant to summarise the article, so it might be better to copy text selectively from sections such as "career" into the lead rather than moving them leaving some information only in the lead. More generic alternatives such as {{Excerpt}}, which was based on the portal code, are more flexible and can extract all or part of a named section or even the whole article. You might want to turn off references, which the portal templates remove by default but Excerpt leaves in. Certes (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Certes:, many thanks - good, sound advice as always. I've started dabbling with the {{Excerpt}} template which I think will deal with most of the excerpt length problems that have been troubling me for some time. Just need to follow the guidance on parameter usage for advanced formatting. My lum is now reeking nicely :) --Cactus.man ✍ 08:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Weeper (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As you were kind enough to thank me for removing the red linked Portals and I see you are an experienced AWB user I am wondering if there is a way to amend category pages using it? For example I want to remove Portal World War I from Category:World War I auxiliary ships of Belgium but I can't see a way to get a list of category pages into AWB. Looking at the guide possibly All Pages would do it but that option does not appear on my AWB Lyndaship (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: I usually use JWB which can search in chosen namespaces. I'd just search Category: for linksto:"Portal:World War I" and use that list. I'm sure AWB also has that feature. (Normally I'd do the Template: namespace first, because some categories might link via a template, but I don't think any do in this case.) Certes (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I'll investigate JWB. I've spent a frustrating couple of hours on the search feature of AWB trying out various permutations without luck, found Special pages but can't get any Category results. There's a considerable number using a template on the Portals with red links category but that's something for a future look at Lyndaship (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think AWB or JWB can use Special:WhatLinksHere, but JWB (and almost certainly AWB) can do Cirrus search using the linksto: keyword. Certes (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. JWB works a treat Lyndaship (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you recently deleted the mention of the author Sean Michael Wilson as an Edinburgh born authors, on the grounds that "limit to a selection of especially notable authors”. Surely he counts as that. He has written 40 books (published in 13 languages), is the first Scottish person to ever get an Manga award from the Japanese government, the only Scottish person to ever have several original books published by the Japanese publisher Kodansha (one of the biggest publishers in the world), one of his books was launched at a special event in the Houses of Parliament in London and has won several other awards. If that does not make him ‘notable’ then what would you count as such? Thanks. Topknot2 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this comment refers to Edinburgh. Wilson may be notable, in that he has an article (though it's tagged as needing more citations). However, 259 writers from Edinburgh have articles and a list of them all would dominate an article which is not principally about authors. We should limit the list to authors who pass a threshold well beyond notability, just including a handful of the most important household names who are on everyone's bookshelf. For a more objective assessment, see page views. Wilson and Harden are an order of magnitude less viewed than the other writers. Based on this information, I've also just delisted Harden. Certes (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I took on the job of creating the Alphabetical (most frequently redlinked) redlists after you set up the initial ones. This month I have had a total fail in creating the list for S1 and am hoping you will be able to fix it, please. From there, I should be able to create the others required. I note that L, M2 and N all have the same problem. Hopefully, with your help I will be able to fix them all. Oronsay (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay: Internally, the query stores subcategories of Feminine given names in a column which used to expand automatically to hold longer subcategory names but now falls over instead. The broken reports are precisely the ones which have been re-run since 21 February. I don't understand why; perhaps the database engine has been quietly "upgraded" to break this useful feature. I amended the query in S1. Unfortunately, it then timed out so I've reduced it to Sa-Sdzzz which works. We may need S3 and perhaps S4 along with the expected S1 and S2. I could make a similar change to the other initials and re-run the broken ones, but everything is currently timing out. Perhaps the servers are just very busy and I can finish this off at a quieter time. Certes (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for looking into this and explaining the timing out issue. I thought I'd mucked up the coding somehow. I'm not sure how many people are actually using these lists to generate new bios. Early in the alphabet (July-August perhaps) I remember some discussion about continuing them, but given no definite decision to stop, I've kept creating them. Let's wait and see if the current problem resolves itself as we have a week before the invitation goes out for the April events. Oronsay (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay: Today I can get the amended queries to run but they're over 100 times slower than last month. I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Request a query#Women in Red. Certes (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think limiting the lists to 7 or more links would be better? At this stage, I've held off creating more lists for S and T, while we wait an answer to your request for help. I have commented this facet out of the Alphabet Run as the Invitation is due to be broadcast before the end of the month. Oronsay (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think limiting the lists to 7 or more links would speed the queries up. However, it would be easy to do if there are other advantages, such as allowing article creators to concentrate on the more important cases only. Just change 5 to 7 in the line that starts HAVING. Certes (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay: The reports are now all fixed, with a lot of help from Cryptic. I've rerun those which showed errors. The gory details are here. Certes (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

More good news. Remembering that I'd limited it temporarily to Sa-Sd, I was about to reset S1 to Sa-Sm when I thought I'd try the whole of S. It works, so we shouldn't need splits like S1/S2 any more. Certes (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pursuing this and finding resolution. You originally suggested we may need to split the letter T (see opening para of this section). Do you think that is the case, given that S now didn't need splitting? Oronsay (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I just created T and it ran in 54 seconds. I don't think any letters need to be split now. Tuning SQL is a black art but I think the problem we just fixed had always affected longer runs such as the whole of S, necessitating the split, and suddenly started to affect shorter runs too. Having fixed it for the shorter runs, the longer ones now work, so we're ahead of where we were before the problem arose. I hope there's still time to use this data during your current drive. Certes (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay: Our next problem will be pagelinks normalization: the layout of the database we use is changing and our queries will need to change to add an extra table. This may or may not impact performance. I hope it will be an easy job to update the queries in bulk, but I'm investigating an easier way to do this before I do it the hard way. Certes (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay: I've changed two of our fastest reports: A1 and C2. Unsurprisingly, the effect of the database improvement is to make the queries run three or four times slower. If this is repeated across the other letters, several of them are likely to time out and need splitting, e.g. A2 into A2 + A3 and B into B1 + B2. Do we care much about the letters that have already been run, or is it only worth fixing S to Z? I've raised another query with Cryptic to see if I've missed a trick and can optimise these further. Certes (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for paying so much attention to this and chasing me when I failed to reply. As I mentioned in my 2nd post in this thread, WIR had originally planned to reconsider after the first few months. I just took on the task of creating the new lists each month. I have just updated Alphabet run: S & T to show the two lists you recently created. From my observation, few editors have used the lists to generate articles, despite it seeming such a good idea. I'm not sure how we should handle this, given that the lists appear in the Redlist index – should we raise it on the Ideas page or the main WIR talk page before you spend any more time and effort on the lists? Oronsay (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Good questions but I'm not sure I have answers – I understand what WIR is achieving, but not the workflow or whether these lists form a useful part of it. The database change is now in progress and the data is available temporarily in both old and new formats. One option is just to run U to Z reports as a one-off in the next week or so before the old, efficient format goes away, then use those reports later if and when someone finds them helpful. That way, the only effort needed is to copy and paste the T page a few times changing the initial. The results may be outdated by the time anyone uses them, but this was never going to be an exact operation given the pollution by navbox templates and the false positives which look like women's names but aren't. Certes (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I've created U, V, W and XYZ. They will become outdated and will not be easy to update, but that's probably all we can do for now. Certes (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will make sure the lists are used in the upcoming events. Oronsay (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know... I've added U, V and W to the May Alphabet Run. Will be interesting to see if anyone uses the lists to create bios. Oronsay (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Penny Allen (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  The redirect London (Disambiguation) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § London (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your comment UCoC may claim precedence over ArbCom, the laws of physics and all major deities [...][2] piqued my curiosity - are you intending to imply that the UCoC doesn't claim precedence over minor deities? Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you may just have found a useful loophole. Certes (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Could I persuade you to give a third opinion at Talk:PAG#Merge proposal please? Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've pontificated there with a compromise proposal. Certes (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I recently noticed that you translated some references on École centrale here (thank you). Your edit summary said "assisted", so I was wondering if there was some tool (AWB?) which you used which aided you in translating these refs (e.g. substituting {{Article}} for {{cite journal}}), as I would like to use it to fix up untranslated references in my translations.

Regards, XabqEfdg (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@XabqEfdg: I use a simple perl script which I hacked together (and hereby release into the public domain) which takes the old wikitext on standard input and prints the revised wikitext on standard output. It's not perfect but takes out some of the drudgery.

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;

my %fr_en = (
"langue" => "language",
"titre" => "title",
"lire en ligne" => "url",
"consulté le" => "access-date",
'auteur(\d*)' => 'author$1',
'prénom(\d*)' => 'first$1',
'nom(\d*)' => 'last$1',
"périodique" => "periodical",
"numéro" => "number",
);

my %month = (
 "janvier" => "January",
 "février" => "February",
 "mars" => "March",
 "avril" => "April",
 "mai" => "May",
 "juin" => "June",
 "juillet" => "July",
 "aout" => "August",
 "août" => "August",
 "septembre" => "September",
 "octobre" => "October",
 "novembre" => "November",
 "décembre" => "December",
);

# =e flag means produce verbose debug on standard error
my $err = ($ARGV[0] && $ARGV[0] eq "-e" && shift);

# Grab old wikitext from standard input
my $page = slurp();

# Call translate() on each {{Article|...}}} template
$page =~ s/\{\{\s*[Aa]rticle\b(.*?\}\})/translate("{{Cite journal$1")/egs;

# Dump new wikitext onto STDOUT
print $page;
exit 0;

# Grab all of standard input
sub slurp {
	local $/ = undef;
	return <>;
}

# Translate one {{Article}} template
sub translate {
	my ($ref) = @_;
	my $mois = "";
	my $annee = "";

	$ref =~ s/\|\s*mois\s*=\s*([^|}]*)//i and $mois = $1;
	$ref =~ s/\|\s*année\s*=\s*([^|}]*)//i and $annee = $1;
	$ref =~ s/(?:\{\{|\|)\s*\K(?:jour|date)\s*=\s*([^|}]+)/join_date($1, $mois, $annee)/ie;

	# Translate each expected French parameter name
	for (keys %fr_en) {
		$ref =~ s/(?:\{\{|\|)\s*\K($_)(?=\s*[=|])/fr2en($_,$1)/ieg;
	}

	# English language sources are not worth marking at enwp
	$ref =~ s/\s*language\s*=\s*en\s*\|//;

	# French language sources are marked at enwp
	$ref =~ s/\s*language\s*=\s*(français\s*)?\|/language=fr|/;

	# Fix |date= if d,m,y arrived separately
	$ref =~ s/(date\s*=)\s*([^|}]*)/$1.fix_date($2)/eg;
	
	print STDERR "$ref\n" if $err;
	
	# Return the modified citation
	$ref;
}

# Translate a parameter
sub fr2en {
	my ($subst, $fr) = @_;
	#print STDERR "$fr =~ s/$subst/$fr_en{$subst}/s\n";
	$fr = eval "(my \$x = q[$fr]) =~ s/$subst/$fr_en{$subst}/s; \$x";
}

# Join day, month and year
sub join_date {
	my ($jour, $mois, $annee);
	for ($jour, $mois, $annee) {
		$_ = shift // "";
		s/^\s*(.*?)\s*$/$1/;
	}
	my $concat = !$mois ? "" : $mois =~ /^\d+$/ ? "/" : " ";
	my $date = "date=" . join($concat, $jour, $mois, $annee);
	#print STDERR ">>date = j=«$jour » m=«$mois » a=«$annee » before. ";
	fix_date($date);
}

# Translate the month and change date format to an acceptable one
sub fix_date {
	my ($date) = shift;
	print STDERR "Entering fix_date($date)\n" if $err;
	$date =~ s/\b$_\b/$month{$_}/i for keys %month;
	$date =~ s!\s*(\d+)\s*/\s*(\d+)\s*/\s*(\d+)\s*!sprintf("%d-%02d-%02d",$3,$2,$1)!e;
	print STDERR "fix_date returns '$date'\n" if $err;
	$date;
}

Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It does indeed! Thanks for sharing. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Pages to be fixed are listed here (along with actual links to dab Article, which aren't citation problems but need fixing anyway). Certes (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What causes actual people to show up on this list? Is it that their date of birth/death is missing? BD2412 T 00:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

They're not in any categories with names containing "people", "births", "deaths", "character", "disambiguation", "name", "century", "pseudonym" or "biograph". That should weed out most people with a date of birth/death, as they'll be in a category such as "1987 births". There's no explicit check for birth/death dates because the query doesn't have access to the wikitext, only data about the page such as categories. I could also check for templates such as {{birth date}} but I'm not sure it would eliminate many more false positives. Certes (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I have eliminated all of the clearly wrong links, and I have added dob-missing categories and the like to all of the actual people. Can you run the search again and see if it pops up any more? BD2412 T 03:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I reran, and the actual people remaining are:

They don't have obvious birth or death dates for better categorisation. The rest of the report is mainly books, companies, etc. named for people. A few redirects are debatable but none seem clearly wrong, so I think that's a good job done. Thanks again. Certes (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! BD2412 T 01:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Since I've admittedly not had very much experience with regex in the past, I constructed my rule after analyzing what similar rules appeared to do. Testing indicated that the inclusion of how it's, on it's, when it's, where it's, and why it's would be confounded with contractions too often, so I decided to only go with for it's and in it's. Testing indicated that in it's could be confounded with the it's contraction at times, but at a rate far less than the ones mentioned previously. Is there anything I can do to improve it further to make it more useful and mitigate the odds of false positives?

<Typo word="its" find="\b([fF]or|[iI]n) (it[’;´ˈ׳᾿‘′Ꞌꞌ`]s)\b" replace="$1 its"/>

Thanks,
CoolieCoolster (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@CoolieCoolster: AWB/T gets loaded automatically and editors may place more trust in it than we should. We try hard never to add untested expressions. I normally test a new substitution offline, add it to the page, then immediately test again with by reloading the page.

The new version with a space looks better. The important thing is that it is tested both before and after making the edit. However, in this case we already have a substitution for "Its (after)". It seems better to add "for" and "in" to that existing rule, rather than creating an extra one. You may also notice that the existing rule uses a lookbehind because that is much more efficient than doing things the simple way.

When I started adding rules, I discussed them on the AWB/T talk page first. I would recommend doing that for now, even if you feel confident. Many clever people watch that page. They may be able to improve the expression, or even know subtle reasons why this change is not a good idea. Certes (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mladen Lukić (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that I think you forgot to sign your comment on the Twitter talk page.

Thanks, Loytra (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone has fixed it now, but thanks for the notice. I used to remember to sign consistently until Reply came along and sometimes did it for us. Certes (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Haha I don't blame you, it is a bit inconsistent. I didn't realise the 'preceding unsigned comment' template was manually added by other uses; I thought a bot automatically added it if you didn't sign (which is why I was a bit surprised upon seeing your comment missing one). Loytra (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views.
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Template:Cat topic year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)