User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 78

21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I found the link in the language box by clicking edit links. There, the link under UIPM ID leads correctly to . However, in the article it leads to , although the template does not include any id information, just {{UIPM}}.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Following up this discussion, I made this set of edits recently. Is that the sort of thing you meant? I may at some point work manually on some of the ~3000 links for casualties (some will be from outside articles). Is there a way to distinguish between external links not generated by {{CWGC}} and those generated by that template? At a first pass, those with the name as part of the URL are not being emitted by the template, but I am sure there are ways to get a proper list. Also, the first one I clicked on I got stuck: Samuel Pethebridge. That uses 'citation' and the reference has been archived (for some reason). Once a batch have been done here, is there an easy way to transfer the CWGC id numbers to the corresponding wikidata pages, or should I leave that for a bot run later? Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Late reply, sorry.To your first question; yes, but more so in external links (where the ID is for the subject of the page where the template occurs; and where Wikidata can be used) rather than citations (which may not be; and where Wikidata cannot (easily) be used). There is no easy visual way to check whether a link comes from a template or manually, though there is probably an an HTML class which you could style in your common.css. I've edited the Pethbridge bio - see what you think. IDs from templates that are not in references (for the aforesaid reason) can be copied to Wikidata using the HarvestTemplates tool (I can operate that) when there is a suitable batch to do. A bot can then be requested to remove them from here by using {{Wikidata property migration}} on the template;s talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The latest is that I've been working on 22 MPs that died in WWI. The edits on Wikipedia are here and here. The edits on Wikidata are here and a set of 22 edits here to one Wikidata item. Would you be able to suggest if I should be doing things differently or more efficiently? My current aim is to end up with a manually constructed list, and then to try and understand how the data should be input/imported to Wikidata to regenerate the same list automatically (probably using Template:Wikidata list, which I don't understand at all, but looks about right). After all that, I will probably understand things a bit better! Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: That all looks good, though I would consider adding references to your edits to Parliamentary War Memorial (Q17514021). You might like to look at User:ListeriaBot, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try and work out how to add references. The CWGC ids are their own references, is that right? Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Yes; you need to add the full URL as reference URL (P854). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Like this, and then repeat 21 times... (that will be tedious - I should have done it that way first time). It does feel a bit like repeating what I've done on Wikipedia, but more atomised, the data split apart into its component bits. Which does make some sense, but is a lot of work. Is it possible to create an item for an online reference? It seems that is not how it is done. Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth:Yes, like that. You're going to love the DuplicateReferences gadget, under your preferences on Wikidata ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That was quick! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Does adding "|answered=yes" then changing it to "no" make any difference? No. Using "no" makes the template exactly the same as if the parameter were not there. So me reverting your edit achieved exactly the same goal as if I'd changed it to "no". Changing it back again, just so that I'd have to add "no", when you could have left it or added "no" yourself... See: WP:BUREAU. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Or if you're referring to the fact that the template says that it "should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus", I proposed the change before I put the edit request template there. No one responded. I thought it was non-controversial anyway. The first person who replied said, "I'll leave the TER up and see if anyone else wants to take that on". Since then, there has been continued discussion and no one has opposed it. Hence, non-controversial. If I don't use the edit request template, it will never get done because the community on that talk page is too small/inactive. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

We would get along much better if you'd try to focus on the message instead whether I'm conveying it the way you would have. I am not you, I do not write like you, and this will never change. The tension between us is unfortunate, since we so frequently agree on so many things, and could probably work together well if we could back off a little from the tooth-grinding. Let me know what I can do in that regard. I recognize that I've been a little testy with you lately, but it's been mostly reactive to testiness coming from you, and that may in turn stem from the same coming from my direction earlier, etc. I'm not even sure why this started or when (probably some time like 2008), but it seems increasingly silly and pointless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't give a fig whether you post messages "the way [I] would have". Your overly-verbose walls of text are frequently off-putting and it is time consuming to extract from them the substantive points; they also often include things irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is not conducive to people understanding you, nor to reaching consensus. This issue seems to be getting worse of late, at least in the areas where I am aware of it. I notice I'm not the only person to have mentioned this to you recently. Please have more consideration for your readers (who are not just the people who reply to you, but also others). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If two people say something that doesn't just make it correct. I'm trying to take the criticism at face value. I do edit down (or sometimes decide not to post after all, after having written something). I know that I'm wordier than you and many others. So are other people, including someone at RfA right now, and one of our Arbs. People are different. I know the Japan-related thread in which you thought something I said was irrelevant to the issue. But it wasn't clear that it was until I brought it up and it was clarified, so I'm not seeing that as a good example. It's not like I talk about video games at WikiProject Archaeology, or vice versa. I actually take more pains than you seem to think I do to focus, and am frequently accused of doing this too often, of itemizing against an argument instead of just approaching it in a fuzzy way ("you should have figured out what I was getting at really; stop nit-picking", etc.) I can't please everyone all the time. I also perceive that a tremendous amount of poor WP discourse is person 1 making five points, person 2 latching onto a single weak one and never addressing the others, then argument turning circular on this basis, sometimes for weeks, even months. It takes more per-post effort to cover an entire argument, but in the long run it actually saves everyone time by short-circuiting that very frequent bullshitting technique. Anyway, I'll endeavor to compress more.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you changed the ncatlab template recently -- it appears to have dropped the word "in", and I can't figure out how to reinstate it. Viz. it now reads, for example, Pointed object at the nLab whereas it used to read, last week, Pointed object in nLab (without the quotes, with the word "in"). On the one hand, it might seem like a really fairly minor difference, but on the other hand, it makes the references look really weird and funky. Can the word "in" be re-inserted? Can the quotes be removed? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I made it a wrapper for {{Cite web}}; the 159 articles which use this specific template now use the same format used by the web citation template in well over two million other articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I could not figure out how to retain the use of the cite-web template, and remove the quotations, remove the period, and add the word "in" back in. Is there a way to do that? The new format looks awkward and ugly. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Some options are available, see Template:Cite web#Display options. If you wish to use them, they will need to be added to the wrapped template in {{Nlab}}. For anything else, you will need to propose a change to the standard presentation, at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I posted there. BTW, what are the technical reasons for making this change? What made the old template inadequate? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Why the revert? It looks absolutely horrid in that format, and breaks all citation styles. I'm trying to make the thing look half-decent, something that is not an eye-sore. Is there some other way of achieving whatever it is you are trying to do here, while also maintaining some sort of semblance of beauty and elegance? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"In the Nlab wiki" is not a website. I answered your second question, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The only valid argument for deletion of UniProt2 was it wasn't transcluded enough. There were hundreds of transclusions that could have been reasonably been made and I was willing to do this. The deletion of this template therefore makes no sense whatsoever. Boghog (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to raise your concerns at WP:DRV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)