RexxS

Nomination for deletion of Module:URLWD

Module:URLWD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Moar sigs

Hello big dino, assistance requested as usual! Bishonen wrote something to a user called @Levivich: and I noticed his fine broken-off sig, and copied for myself. Can be seen at the bottom of User:Bishonen/Sigs. With less rotation than original, because bish is longer than ich and perhaps might push down into the next line. Now the problem is I wanted to also insert iconic darwincolors, red and lime as in my current sig, but it got very complicated. Dino help? PS, bad people deleting dino's modules? Want me to wander over and bite them? darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 17:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC).

 Done can be changed easy. Small makeover remove naughty font tags before RedRose64 see them. People OK, just hard merge-module when admin delete it before merge happen. --T-RexxS (rawr) 18:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you helpful dino! Easy to change colors now — good thing, because red + lime turned out surprisingly ugly! I'm borrowing great zilla's color scheme instead, for now. Tried and tested, that. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 19:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC).

Hehe, new sig activated! Pretty! darwin bish 21:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC).

Ahnentafel

Hi, any thoughts regarding use of {{Ahnentafel}} from an accessibility point of view? Especially for mobile reading and in a default collapsed state? I've seen someone using it a fair bit recently on Indian articles and have several issues with its use, of which a gut feeling about accessibility is one. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, hope you're well and not overdoing it! The template doesn't work for anyone using a screen reader, although it's okay on mobile as it's rendered uncollapsed. I've given a more detailed commentary at Talk:Bhagwant Das #Ancestry section. HTH --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Even the scrolling was an issue on my mobile but that may be because of impatience. I've had 3 friends die on me in 4 days and am probably reeling a bit. - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Official website

Hi. This change seems to have broken Template:Official website. Nick Number (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The second edit seems to have fixed it. Thanks. Nick Number (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Number for the quick notification. I wish we had a transparent way of knowing what modules are dependant on a given module, so I could check those as a matter of course when I implement changes. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Credit to TarkusAB on Discord for finding the module causing the issue. Nick Number (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Module:Linguistic

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Module:Linguistic, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pppery, the demodulator 22:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"Prior" consensus to infobox on FLT

From a bureaucratic POV, void of any context, you are correct in claiming the right of adding that box, but I want to inform you about a previous held discussion at the TP of Project Math, inclined to "not using this box". Even setting aside this fact, I am convinced of my right to revert the addition, and to require a discussion for reaching a consensus on the article's TP. Upsetting the BRD-process for my not explicit referral to a discussion elsewhere seems wrong under any circumstances (even your deterrent "welcome"). Purgy (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(watching:) there are good and bad aspects in WP:BRD. I works when you can revert something bizarre ("bold") and demand discussion. Adding an infobox, however, is not bizarre but a quite common edit, so doesn't even fall under that guideline. You can spread this news, because it's ignored often. To demand that such a normal edit be discussed before making it (which you can find in many composers' articles as a hidden notice) borders the absurd and is not compatible with collaborative editing, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Purgy Purgatorio: I'm sorry, but I don't recognise the right of any WikiProject to make content decisions that are binding on editors, and neither does the community as evidenced by WP:CONLOCAL:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

The relevant community-wide guideline is MOS:INFOBOXUSE:

"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

That has been affirmed as a finding by ArbCom, and you breach that at your peril. Therefore I insist that where no prior consensus exists in a particular article on whether it should have an infobox or not, then it is not reasonable to revert the addition of an infobox without addressing the actual issue of having an infobox. Certainly, it is not within policy to try to insist that the addition of an infobox can be reverted merely because nobody has discussed it previously.

Your right to revert depends not upon your whim, but on your mustering of reasonable arguments to support the reversion. Your revert with edit summary "I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so" is a perfect example of an revert without foundation. You have no right to demand "established consensus" before an edit, where no previous consensus exists.

I'm going to suggest that you acquaint yourself with WP:ARBINFOBOX2 #Remedies, in particular that discretionary sanctions are in force on discussions concerning infoboxes, and I'll drop an alert on your talk page as a formal reminder. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. What is a systematic review? Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources. PRISMA flow diagram for a systematic review Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help? File:Schittny, Facing East, 2011, Legacy Projects.jpg 2011 photograph by Bernard Schittny of the "Legacy Projects" group Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen. Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit. Links Evidence-Based Practice: Appraise, resources page from Duke University Medical Library & Archives. What should Cochrane do next?, Bad Science blogpost 5 November 2014, Ben Goldacre. Cambridge (UK) Science Festival event, How do scientific discoveries become clinical medicine?, ScienceSource workshop for ContentMine 23 March 2019, with systematic review process diagram. Also on Eventbrite for tickets, taking place in Makespace, 16 Mill Lane. PROSPERO database of PRISMA, for registration of systematic review protocols. Process wonkery thread, wikien-l mailing list, September 2006. Meta-Analysis, xkcd cartoon. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

we thank you

February

The Hidden Valley, Negev
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for article improvements in February, and analytical explanations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox biosphere reserve

Template:Infobox biosphere reserve has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Plain text

Re [1], that edit arose from this AT discussion, in which an editor was confused by the term "plain text". They made a fair case that it's somewhat ambiguous. The meaning of the term there doesn't seem to bear much connection to Plain text. You and I know what the guideline means—we have a thorough understanding of the rationale for it—but it needs to be written for those who don't have that understanding. While I take your point, I'm unconvinced that "plain text" is the lesser evil. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss. My perspective on which is the lesser evil is skewed by more than one experience of editors who won't accept that text in infoboxes is "already reduced". If the guidance were changed to that, we'd have twice as many uphill struggles to uphold the guidance. I also don't like "plain text" and have opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Font size wording to see if anybody can come up with something better. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Usage of two functions from Module:String on the main page

Hi Rexxs. Regarding this discussion. It appears that {{str endswith}} is not being called directly from the main page. (At least I couldn't find it there). If it's being called indirectly through something else, doesn't that make your plan more difficult? You would then need to duplicate all the entities in the call chain leading to Module:String, in order to keep alive a special version of Module:String that wouldn't be included in the cascade protection of the main page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: That template is Template:Main page image, I think, in both cases. Also note that {{str endswith}} doesn't currently use Module:String, but instead has a closed-but-not-implemented yet tfd to merge it into Module:String. Also, even if it weren't used on the main page, it would still need to be fully-protected by virtue of its use in Template:No article text and therefore the system messages that depend on it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: we tend to use string templates as wrappers these days and put all of the functionality into the string module. The wrapper makes the functionality more user-friendly for the average editor, but isn't actually needed here because we could directly call the function in the module from Template:Main page image (ironically, a template whose protection-level is 'template editor', which cannot be edited by template editors). As a concrete example, calling {{#invoke:String-mainpage|match|s={{if empty|{{{width|}}}|120}}|^%d*|ignore_errors=true}} – where Module:String-mainpage is the theoretical main page version of String – instead of {{str number/trim|{{if empty|{{{width|}}}|120}}}} within Template:Main page image would be more efficient, would reduce template expansion depth and would make it clearer what is being called. None of that is vital, of course, but might be worthwhile if we looking at tidying up template usage. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You jarring swag-bellied miscreant

Rex, you remember the Shakespeare insult generator? User:Darwinbish/insultspout. A thing of beauty, originally, but not so much since something was changed in the way the site works which makes it necessary to click an extra time to clear the fucken cache. I think I complained at the time, and you said nothing could be done. But, really? Still nothing? Might there be a way to reconfigure it so that the cache-clearing is done as an action from inside the generator? If I'm making myself clear at all. It really is a pity. 😢 Bishonen | talk 10:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

I've not been able to figure out a way, Chère. You are clear in what you're saying, but it can't be a solution. Any purge call originating from inside wikitext (the bit we can edit, anyway) is trapped by the MediaWiki software at a level higher than we have access to. If you have the little clock thingy enabled in your personal bar, that also does a purge, but from outside the wikitext, so it doesn't get trapped. We just can't get to that level from clicking something inside the main bit of the wikipage as far as I can see. Maybe one of the talk page watchers will come up with a stroke of ingenuity that can do the job? --RexxS (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's hope for them, and thanks for figuring. Talkpage stalkers ahoy! You rank common-kissing clotpoles! Anybody? @Johnuniq: ? Bishonen | talk 13:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

You cannot skip the extra step without using Javascript, which is what the clock Gadget does (it auto submits the form that would otherwise be required). --Izno (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Izno, and of course we have no way of ensuring that every reader has the bit of JavaScript to do an auto-submission just for the insult spout. I somehow doubt we're gong to convince the gatekeepers to add it to MediaWiki:Common.js.

OK, so I just realized that if I click the clock, instead of clicking the indicated here button in Darwinbish's text, the new insults are generated without fuss. Like you guys have been trying to tell me. ;-) But then, the problem isn't that I need a smoother way to get new insults; it's that I want other people to be able to. So as soon as everybody installs the clock, DB can simply tell them to click on that.. yeah.. IOW, it's hopeless. 😱 Bishonen | talk 15:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

Maybe mighty 'Zilla make all little readers install clocky thing? --T-RexxS (rawr) 15:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

For the query string parameter action=purge the default is to request confirmation, and has been since about May 2016, see phab:T135170. Two gadgets that provide a purge link ("^(S) Add a clock to the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC and provides a link to purge the current page (documentation)" and "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache") were amended not long after so that confirmation step would be skipped. See history of mw:MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-purgetab.js to find out how they did it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I coded a user script a while back to remove the extra confirmation step on purge links. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I know Bishonen didn't come here for a gobbledegook lecture, but the reason it is no longer possible to purge a page with a simple click is to avoid denial-of-service attacks on the servers. If we could construct a link that purges a page, the URL of that link could be copied to a troll website where hundreds of people would click it multiple times. That would use a lot of server resources. Therefore, there is now a need to click a confirmation link, or use a script. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see. Thank you, all. Darwinbish is disappointed, and you know what she's like when she's disappointed, But she understands. Bishonen | talk 04:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC).

No I don't !!!!! 👿 darwin bish 04:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC).

Question about PHP7

Hi, Rex!! I've been seeing PHP7 edit summaries like the following example - . (→‎Other texts) (undo | thank) Tags: 2017 wikitext editor, PHP7 - do you know what the Tags: portion is all about? I remember something about PHP7 making it easier to find edits or something along that line but don't know how to apply it as an advantage. ^Atsme 📣 📧 16:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: The Tags: in an edit summary are usually added by an edit filter, which automatically monitors all edits and takes actions such as disallowing the edit, or adding a warning or a tag to the edit summary.

In this case, though, the MediaWIki software (written in PHP) for Wikipedia currently runs on mw:HHVM (HipHop Virtual Machine), but HHMV is dropping support for running PHP, so we are in the process of migrating to PHP7 (see mw:Compatability #Software required to run MediaWiki) and we will eventually drop our HHVM compatibility. Some editors are using a beta test feature to try out compatibility with PHP7, see your Special:Preferences #mw-prefsection-betafeatures, section "PHP7". The links from there to the information and discussion will give you more information. We'll all be moving to PHP7 soon, so perhaps it's worth checking out. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thx, Rex - will do. ^Atsme 📣 📧 17:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Diver rename

Hello. I renamed these pages to someone who reading understand what means and native abbreviations can be with name in english in template with connection for page in english page who have and original name in article. This is english wikipedia for english language and mostly users dont understand frensh, spanish or german here. But if this that i do out the rules, i accept mistake. Greetings :) --Filipid011 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Filipid011 I agree with your intention, and it is laudable to attempt to make things easier for English readers. I think that in this case however, anybody wanting to learn more about the French (or Spanish) underwater federations would almost certainly recognise their names, although I think that the abbreviations, FFESSM and FEDAS would be the most recognisable. We don't have rules on Wikipedia; we just try to do our best. How about if we tried French underwater federation (FFESSM) and Spanish underwater federation (FEDAS) for the template? Do you think that might meet both of our concerns? --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that you for abbreviations with native names, if people will knows more what they means. Greetings! :) --Filipid011 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Filipid011: I've made the change to Template:Diver organisations. Let's see if anybody objects. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: if mostly abbreviations are agree with names, i think that be more better and others two gone in same level in this way. they will know and without translate :) --Filipid011 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: It was usefully talking. it me help to more knowledge for future articles here. Thanks :) --Filipid011 (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with image in parent/child template

I'm having a problem at the Silver Quilty article, where both the parent infobox and the child module are displaying the photo entered. I can't figure out why. Can you help? Thanks.

@Flibirigit: the child infobox, Template:Infobox CFL biography, fetches the image and caption from Wikidata by default if those parameters are omitted. You have to supply a blank parameter like |image= to suppress that behaviour. It wasn't documented, so you weren't to know. I've added that to Silver Quilty now, and I've updated the template documentation to explain the behaviour, but it really needs an overhaul to require explicit permission at the article level to fetch Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the help! Flibirigit (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello RexxS,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)