User talk:Hankwang

Hi Hankwang, I love the graph you've added at Variant of Concern 202012/01#Spread, and would love it even more if it were slightly clearer, e.g. clearer descriptions for the y-axes and clearer indication of which data points correspond with which axis... all best wishes, it's really good to see these linear fits to the log data for what we're expecting to be largely exponential behaviour! Regards, Yadsalohcin (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I can look into the graph layout; could you be more specific? What y axis labels would you propose? Note that the left y axis and the right y axis are both valid for all data points. The odds ratio OR (left axis) is on a true log scale. The frequency on the right y-axis is f=100% * OR/(OR+1); it seems that people prefer to see percentages rather than odds ratios. Han-Kwang (t) 18:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I seem to have been a bit thicker than normal- apologies; hope I'm not asking for too much here!

1 So the y-axes could be called something like 'Odds ratio B.1.1.7/Other variants' and 'Frequency of B.1.1.7/All samples (%)' (maybe including corresponding axis points labelled '1:1' and '50%' would give an extra clue...) - and personally I would find it more immediately clear if the x-axis labels were rotated by, say, 45 degrees...

2 -interesting that it shows regions of UK dominated by B117 since various points in December... and interesting that the first data points for NL and PT are well off their trend lines... and in more detail the UK geog areas are tending to have shallower and steeper sections almost in synchrony...

3 ... it would be good to elaborate a bit on sources etc. e.g. 'UK data... mostly (apart from SE England) using S-gene target failure (SGTF)...'. And 'Other data from (full?) genomic sequencing (seq.)...'

4 Finally, including the data sources into the refs for the article would be good... (from the text after '|thumb|', perhaps?) -and with the sources more traceable maybe it's less likely that there might be concerns wrt the dreaded 'original research' Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(1) I will look into that. (2) The source for the PT data (Borges et al.) states that it is due to British tourists. The NL data is provided without explanation (and usually obfuscated). The patterns in the UK data are partially because of different datas sources. I have other hypotheses, but that would be speculation.

(3/4) Have you seen that the sources are linked to from the image information page? If the deletionists want to delete this rather than helping with improving the quality, then I'll let them. I'd rather not link to the sources from the figure caption, because I intend to update the figure whenever I get my hands on new data and I'd like the references to be in one place.

Han-Kwang (t) 09:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(1/2) thanks for this; (3/4) I hadn't spotted your refs further down the image info page, thanks for this- any objections if I add refs to the picture caption on the Wikipedia page? Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you could create a template to ensure that I only need to update the references in one place? I already have an update waiting with two new references. I'm not sure whether templating across commons and en-wiki works, though. I'm also thinking of removing the text from the picture so that it can be added in the caption where it really belongs. Han-Kwang (t) 16:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know about 'trans-wiki templating', the best I can offer is a cut and paste of the following: Sources:DK^[1] NL^[2] PT^[3] CH^[4] UK 2020-12-31^[5] NB Volz is cited elsewhere -as this^[5] UK 2021-01-15^[6] UK 2021-01-29^[7]

@Yadsalohcin: Thank you for sorting out the references. I updated the graph and split the UK data from the per-country data (otherwise it was really too crowded). I placed the references on the image description pages so that I only need to update them in one place when new data becomes available. I hope that's ok with you. Han-Kwang (t) 19:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Coherent Inc. logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Oversaturation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Oversaturated until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Template:SI multiples 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — sbb (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hankwang. Thank you for your work on Schizofrenia (video game). Another editor, Lijil, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this page about an old video game! If you have time it would be great if you could fix the references by adding the name, title etc so they aren't just bare links. I did the first one. I added a few other things to the article, please feel free to keep improving it :)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lijil}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lijil (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)