RexxS

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas
	Hoping you stay warm and have lots of good times and good food this holiday season! White Arabian Filly Neigh

Infobox racehorse Modules

I have not yet learned how to ping so here is a link to comments I posted at Template talk:Infobox racehorse. Mateusz K (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I posted the following to Template talk:Infobox racehorse:

In its present form the Infobox racehorse is getting close, but still not acceptable. As per the sample box above, the "Gait" must be immediately below "Breed". That is a basic and integral design element in all professional presentations and individuals reading Wikipedia expect to see either Trot or Pace immediately after Breed and not have to look around to find it as though it were an afterthought. So, I will request RexxS do this.

I'm assuming it is technically possible so if you could take care of this that would be helpful. Thanks. Mateusz K (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Xmas card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, RexxS!

"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merging Template:Infobox person/WD and Template:Infobox person/Wikidata?

We don't really need two versions here, so it would probably be best to merge them together so that we just have one that uses WikidataIB. Any objections / preference for merge direction? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections or preferences. Tom Morris and I created Template:Infobox person/Wikidata just as a "proof-of-concept" that an infobox could be populated from Wikidata. Things have moved on since then. I created Template:Infobox person/WD specifically to demonstrate the concept of an "opt-in" infobox that could simply replace {{Infobox person}} without affecting any articles until fetching Wikidata was enabled at the individual article. Ping me if you need any help with whatever merging you do. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm slowly working through this. One issue is that Module:WikidataIB doesn't support a date format like Module:Wikidata does - would that be easy to add to it please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike: The getValue call uses the wikibase API to return dates without any of the previous issues, so it's going to be the best route going forward. However, as you know, all the dates returned are in dmy format with BCE as suffix for dates before Christian era. What would be useful is a function that converts dmy into mdy as well as offering BC instead of BCE, as it could be reused elsewhere. I'll write one and incorporate it into getValue, so that getValue can be called with an extra parameter indicating date format and BC/BCE, thus replacing the separate call to getDateValue. I'll let you know when it's done. --RexxS (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

[Update] @Mike:. It's probably finished now. In Module:WikidataIB, I've added the new function to convert date formats (you probably won't need to use it) and extended getValue to handle date formats as robustly as I can.

The getValue function can now take two optional parameters, |df= (values: "dmy", "mdy", or "y" - default is "dmy") and |BC= (values: "BC", or "BCE" - default is "BCE"). I've updated the documentation – not that anybody reads it – and provided test cases at Module talk:WikidataIB #Calls to getValue for dates. I'll leave the rest to you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS! It's now implemented in the infobox. BTW, my overall plan is to switch /Wikidata to be opt-in (which requires updating the calls for the current articles using it so that they have clearly opted in), merge /WD usages to that page, and to match the rest of the parameters to Wikidata properties so they're available. Quite when it will be time to merge in with the main infobox, I'm not sure... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've now merged the templates, now to match up the rest of the parameters to Wikidata! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hey RexxS how are you doing? Did ya have a good new years ? Well I got a problem ..... that stencil that I have on my user page is not letting me fill it in.. ya know What to do??? Wordsighn (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Dive boat

Did some work expanding and referencing. Would appreciate your comments and suggestions, particularly if anything important or obvious has been left out. Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

St Edward the Confessor Church, Romford

Hi RexxS, and a happy New Year to you. On the above, how do you add the "listed building status" parameter to the iBox? I've seen it on other articles and I like its prominence. I've tried in the edit and preview screen but keep managing to cock it up. Cassianto^Talk 16:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Happy New Year to you too! The {{Infobox church}} doesn't have a parameter for "listed building status" - it seems the folks who maintain the template want to keep the number of parameters down to a minimum, which is reasonable. Yet many churches must be listed, so there must be a solution. The way I usually try to figure these out is to look for a good example and see how it was done there. If you check York Minster you'll see that there is a sub-template called {{infobox designation list}} which is embedded in the church infobox and that is what provides the designation. I've placed a blank copy in the infobox at St Edward the Confessor Church, Romford ready for you to fill in. York Minster should give you an idea of what's needed. Please let me know if you have any problems - I'll keep it on my watchlist. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot, now done. Yes, I'd have said it was a parameter worth having. Despite the fact it is a church, I'd have said the article is more about the architecture, which is why I started it. I couldn't give a fig about what type of building it is, more so the fact it exists than anything else. So for Snaresbrook Crown Court, a very underrated building by Gilbert Scott, and another I started from scratch, what would be the most appropriate box for that? I'll have a look and implement it based on it's merits. Regards, Cassianto^Talk 18:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I'm glad that's working. I must admit I'm no expert on what infobox is best to use (despite rumours to the contrary, I really don't add many to articles). I'll ping Andy for his advice. Obviously I can suggest {{Infobox building}} as a starting point. Ah - I just noticed, there a navigation template at the bottom of that page. Well, I can't see a specific one for a Crown Court. It's in the nature of Wikipedia, I think, not to have a Template:Infobox law court, but to have a Template:Infobox desalination plant. If {{Infobox building}} doesn't have the parameters you need, I could make a template {infobox law court} for you to include the ones you want. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox church has |heritage designation= (and |designated date=) for that purpose; see, for example, St Alban the Martyr, Birmingham. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be a good choice for Snaresbrook Crown Court, Andy. What would you use for that? --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox court}}, surely? Although on a dip-sample, the London courts all appear to be infobox-free (even the substantive articles like Old Bailey) so you may want to leave it off for the sake of consistency. ‑ Iridescent 23:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. I didn't know about that infobox template - and it's not mentioned at {{Buildings and structures infobox templates}}, although that may be because it seems more focused on the work of the court than on the building that houses it. It's only in use at around 30 articles. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I was replying to your comment about Infobox church, and the - unnecessary - use of Infobox designation list. for the court, Infobox building. (Infobox court is for the organisation that sits there, not the bricks and mortar). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent. I've looked at the box I could use for SCC and it is indeed pretty pointless, especially seeing as none of the other courts use it. I'm happy to leave it without. As far as the designation for the church goes, I see it was already there, but I missed it, which supports my case for the designation list as it is now more prominant. I don't consider it to be "unnecessary" at all. Cassianto^Talk 09:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"420" collaboration

Hey, not sure if you'd be interested in contributing personally or not, but some WikiProject Cannabis members are organizing a 420 collaboration in April. I know some people hear 'cannabis' and immediately envision lazy stoners, but I'd like to get as much community buy-in for this collaboration as possible so we can improve many Wikipedia articles. My hope is that you and Wiki Project Med will support our efforts, especially by improving articles related to medical marijuana and health. I'll be pinging other Wiki Project Med board members and participants for help, too, but just wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Confused

I've been making changes to infobox person, removing religion as depreciated and replacing it with denomination as the template's documentation instructed, now I see both parameters have been removed. Confused, - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, but the outcome of the Religion in biographical infoboxes RfC, last April, was to remove both parameters, not to replace |religion= with |denomination=. I'm sorry the documentation was not amended to be clearer about the result. There has been considerable discussion at Template talk:Infobox person #Ethnicity? Religion? on how to manage the removal of the parameters (along with removing ethnicity per the parallel RfC). Does that clear it up for you? --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox horse breed

Updated the documentation, fix what I broke? Also, note at WPEQ talk that now the name of the breed is outside the border and we had it inside... Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've made a full reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine #Sandboxing so everyone can see and chip in. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'd consider this box to be more suitable, Montanabw. Cassianto^Talk 20:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

LOL, Cassianto! Montanabw^(talk) 17:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person

Hi! You have disabled "Religion" parameter from the template. Should this parameter be removed from wiki-biographies or not? Hope for your kind response, thanks! M. Billoo 09:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi M.Billoo2000, The outcome of the Religion in biographical infoboxes RfC, last April, was to remove both |religion= and |denomination= parameters. There has been considerable discussion at Template talk:Infobox person #Ethnicity? Religion? on how to manage the removal of the parameters (along with removing ethnicity per the parallel RfC). I don't have any opinion on whether or not to spend time removing the actual values from articles which use {{infobox person}}. If you want to look at the size of the task, I created a tracking category Category:Infobox person using religion, but it's the sort of job that a bot can do faster and more efficiently. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox animal breed

Hi, RexxS! I'm not sure if I ever thanked you nearly enough for your time and patience during the infobox horse breed update. Just in case, thank you again! However, I'm still concerned that something (I dunno what) has changed for the worse in the animal breed box. Example at Tiense Vechter, where no matter what I do I can't get "Female" to move down from the second to the third line of the weight field. I may be wrong, but I don't remember that being a problem before. It's not urgent, but could you perhaps take a look if you ever have a spare moment? Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, yes, it was I who changed the way the heights and weights displayed. As they are semantically a list, I used the {{unbulleted list}} template in {{infobox animal breed}} to display whatever combination of weight/male weight/female weight was supplied (and the same for height). However, because the actual values are floated to the right when male and female weights are used, whenever you use <br> for multiple values of male weight, the 'Female' label can start on the same line as the last value of the male weight. I've fixed that now so that the 'Female' label has to start on its own line (and the same for heights). Hope that solves the problem for you – and please don't hesitate to ask if there's anything else that's causing issues with those templates. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	your Template:Infobox person/Wikidata is brilliant, and the way forward. please submit a talk for wikimania about it. Beatley (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A discussion you might be interested in

I've just stumbled across the discussion at Deep water blackout#Merge and rename? (about merging the articles about deep and shallow water blackout and renaming them to Freediving blackout). The combination of diving and medicine makes it seem like the sort of thing you'd be interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris, for thinking about me. I was aware of the discussion and I agree that one article can cover the overlapping topics better. Peter Southwood has been making sterling efforts to organise and improve scuba coverage on Wikipedia and I have every confidence he'll do a fine job in sorting out the merged article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

At John S. Duncan, you claimed that you "expanded infobox even further", while in reality, in your zeal to have the Wikidata infobox, you actually removed information (the alma mater), while at the same time displaying the website twice in the infobox. Please leave articles where the infobox is working correctly alone instead of making them worse. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make your point. Fram (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for showing yet again that you are not interested in improving enwiki, but just in promoting the Wikidata infobox. You removed information from the infobox which had been in the article long before this edit war, and which was easily sourceable. You also just happened to only remove information from the infobox but not from the article, as if the same information is more problematic in an infobox than in an article. Or as if you only care about getting your infobox on the article, and not about the actual article itself. Stop it. Leave the article alone and go do some actual work improving either enwiki (here) or Wikidata (there). Fram (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

13:01, 26 January 2017 "sorry Mike that duplicates the website when a local value is present - see Talk:John S. Duncan" 13:15, 26 January 2017 "My edit did not duplicate the website" 13:24, 26 January 2017 "Try this, Mike - it should fix the duplicate website display issue"

Considering that the problematic edit by Mike Peel was on 09:48, 25 January 2017‎, and the edit that duplicated the website at John S. Duncan only happened at 19.57 on the same day, it is clear that yes, your edit duplicated the website (by going back to the Wikidata version of the infobox). Please don't make false claims in edit summaries, it seems to happen way too often recently. Fram (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you modify your tone, Fram, lest accusing somebody of not being "interested in improving enwiki" be seen as a personal attack. Perhaps you would regain a sense of perspective if you spent more time in the mainspace and less politicking in the project space? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean like [1]adding references and correcting errors, [2]reverting vandalism, or writing new articles? Nah, I'm not interested in that kind of thing. Fram (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Then I'm sure you can find something better to do than giving out specious vandalism warnings to editors with long and distinguished track records of improvement to the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Your actions are under discussion at WP:ANI#Wikidata discussions and fallout. Fram (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata stuff

Thanks for letting me know about Module:WikidataIB. Great work! I've just started playing around with using SPARQL to verify sourcing for properties so we can build up to-do lists of Wikidata items that have contentious, BLP-ish claims but don't have sources that aren't just imported from Wikipedia. I'll ping you about it on Wikidata when I get further with it. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

onlysourced=True

This change removed quite a bit of info from e.g. telescope articles too... (see South Pole Telescope now!). Could it be undone until the individual infobox templates can be updated with their own defaults, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Could that wait for a little while, Mike? While I'm trying to defend the template at AfD and ANI, one of the main selling points is that it filters unreferenced data, and having that as default is a big plus. I'll go through the telescope articles and set |onlysourced=no until we have time to improve the references on Wikidata, if that's ok for now? --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's OK, I'll change it in other the templates now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

(Changes like this should do the job for now - until I can go back through all of the articles to make sure everything's referenced on Wikidata. Having onlysourced=yes by default is definitely good in the long run though. Mike Peel (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC))

Thanks, Mike. I just used notepad++ to change all the {onlysourced|} to {onlysourced|no}, but you beat me to it. It took me a minute to work out why Show changes wasn't showing me any difference! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)