Mathglot

Adding categories that should only refer to known events, not mythical or speculative

I'm referring to the Ancient seafaring category. There are other similar ones I've noticed. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparently in connection to this revert at Phoenician Ship Expedition. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. I can't find Category:Ancient seafaring; is template {{Ancient seafaring}} populating it? What category are we talking about? Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Turns out it is the template. But it’s still wrong for that article.Ok for say Noah’s Ark. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. In order to allow others to weigh in if they wish, I have replied at the Talk page of the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Many apologies. I forgot to say I took this to rsn, better to respond there as it’s a more general issue. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Phoenician Ship Expedition § Ancient seafaring navbox

 Related discussion: WP:FTN § Should categories such as "Ancient seafaring" "Transport in Phoenicia" , be used for non-historical voyages

Nomination for deletion of Template:User18

Template:User18 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Kept; no consensus. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

English translation of some French movie reviews

Hi, I saw your name at WP:TRLA and thought you might be available for translation. Would you mind translating the following French reviews: Le Monde, Premiere fr, Le Parisien? They're for Infested, which I nominated and expanded for WP:DYK and was later approved; though I might be asked to expand on how the movie was received in France; guidelines recommend that I do so, anyway. I would really appreciate it, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, I do sometimes do translations from French, but that applies mostly to articles on French Wikipedia destined for creation on English Wikipedia. I wouldn't normally translate an external source, such as any of the reviews you link. However, machine translation is now at a point where it's good enough, especially for certain languages like French, to do a good enough job that the meaning is clear in most cases.

So, I would suggest that you just try your favorite online translator, it's fast, easy, and you don't have to wait for some editor to respond to you. On the other hand, machine translations, although often very good, are not perfect, and they sometimes screw up rather badly, especially in areas where there just isn't a lot of discussion in English about some foreign topic. I ran into this recently regarding a term from Brazilian law which is almost always translated wrong, so you do have to watch for that sort of thing, but you are unlikely to run into that in a book review, unless the book is about some really arcane topic and the book review quotes some of the technical jargon.

So, go ahead and try online translation, and if there is anything that looks off, or just doesn't make sense to you, feel free to come back here and ask me about it. I don't mind translating a phrase or a particularly strange sentence if you run into a problem, it's just that it doesn't make sense to translate a whole external article anymore when automatic translation does such a good job on average these days. Out of curiosity, for what Wikipedia article do you need these book reviews? Mathglot (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Legifrance/prefix

Template:Legifrance/prefix has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

All of these moved to User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Legifrance/Path

Template:Legifrance/Path has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Legifrance/CT

Template:Legifrance/CT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Legifrance/path

Template:Legifrance/path has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:They aren't

Template:They aren't has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nardog (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Deleted. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk: page Moroccans

Please check out all the undo versions by user:Skitash. Why is 1 user protected against an entire community? There is no point in using talk pages or make reports against the users if uninformed moderaters are keeping a hand above their head. Plenty of users have made the same complaints and plenty of sources are provided. If a user like skitash uses factual sources, only to create revisionist narratives about it, then thats a clear indicator that no single moderator actually checks out the sources when an article is written. Plenty of people already have raised their concerns about user: Skitash & M.Bitton about their revisionist history, and erasure of the native north-African Berber/Amazigh people from wikipedia history. I'll give it 5 years before this website will allow afrocentrists to write articles about Samurais being black, or white supremacists writing articles about ancient-Egypt being Nodric. Please fix yourself and this website!!!! Flesek (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Flesek, your arguments about what should appear in the article may, or may not be correct, I have not looked into that. What is certain, however, is that you may not make personal attacks against another editor, which is why your Talk page comment was removed from Talk:Moroccans. If you believe that an editor "has ravaged every wikipedia article about north-Africa by replacing amazigh history with fake narratives" then that is a serious matter, and a violation of various policies, notably No original research. The other problem with your Talk page comment, is that an article Talk page is about discussing improvements to the article, and is *not* to be used to discuss possible behavioral issues regarding another editor. For that, you may start at the User's talk page. In addition, if you suspect that an editor is adding their own opinion or original research to articles, then you should start a discussion at the Original research noticeboard, where other editors will examine your report and look into the situation. If you decide to do that, please write calmly, factually, and provide evidence (i.e., diffs) so that editors can see and evaluate your claims. Regardless of how emotional or offended you may feel now about the situation, avoid making another personal attack at all costs, as you risk having your editing privileges suspended if you do so. Stay calm, do not attack, and just report factually–with evidence. Please {{ping}} me from there, if you decide to create a report at the WP:ORNB.Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki

 Courtesy link: WP:Tea house § Giving up with wiki

Thanks it’s been a long winded discussion but interesting. I wanted to wrap up like this but you closed the thread before I could:

I quite agree - there has been too much time spent on this discussion and we aren’t going to agree around the way the reversion was done. It isn’t always easy to assume good intentions with a revert now and discuss later policy. I get that this is a wiki policy thing and I just wanted to discuss that it doesn’t feel like the nicest way to do it and some people could convey this better but I do understand the reasons for this policy and some people have taken the time to explain it. I now know there is support and I know who has offered to help and where to go for support if I’m wanting to contribute further.

Ultimately people don’t always agree but discussion is important and can help. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, SnarkyDragon, and welcome. Yes, I saw that the thread at the Tea house has been closed, which was the right call imho, as it had outlived its usefulness and had become repetitive. Just to be clear, we are talking about this thread, closed by Valereee in this edit. The "revert now and discuss later" method is not the only way to deal with content disagreements around here, but it has long been routine practice among Wikipedia editors, and many times it is, in fact, the best way forward in order to protect the integrity of an article and the encyclopedia. As long as the reverting editor is following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia in performing a revert and in particular, avoiding edit-warring, then there is no problem in reverting for just cause. It is good practice to also leave an edit summary explaining one's reasoning when doing so. If the revert we are talking about is this one of 11:52, 15 July, undoing these 20 edits of yours at Skipness, they did give their reasoning in the summary.

I understand that the WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss) procedure can seem harsh for new users, but it is a standard way of doing things, and frankly, any kind of revert is liable to ruffle one's feathers—that's just human nature. Nobody likes it when it happens to you, but you have to assume good faith on the part of the reverting editor, take another look, a dispassionate look at the situation, maybe after 24 hours to let yourself cool down, and then decide if maybe their way was better. If not, no problem: next step is to discuss at the Talk page, and get other editors involved.

One important principle to really get on board with at Wikipedia is that of consensus: it is the way pretty much everything is done around here, and has been successful in helping to build Wikipedia into the eight million article encyclopedia it is today. Another one is WP:Assume good faith, so if you ever feel some editor has done something wrong or toxic or is out to get you, take another look; there may be something else going on than what it appears on the surface. If you internalize those two principles, I think you can have a long, successful, and rewarding journey as a Wikipedia editor. That is my hope, anyway. I see you already have a Welcome message at your Talk page, so I won't duplicate that message but I just want to extend my welcome to you as well. Feel free to contact me again anytime, if you have questions or comments about Wikipedia. All the best to you, SnarkyDragon! Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

B to GA status

I don't see what more can be done with Pinxton Castle except some work with the images. Do you? Doug Weller talk 15:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

New message from Aaron Liu

Hello, Mathglot. You have new messages at Template talk:Archives.
Message added 16:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Recur-B

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Recur-B, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

General Precession

Hi there. I’m not experienced in adding stuff to wiki and don’t want to mess it up.

There seems to be new evidence from Göbekli Tepe to suggest knowledge of procession dating from 10,000 BCE

https://studyfinds.org/worlds-oldest-calendar-temple/ Stephan Gyory (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Stephan Gyory, interesting, but the word 'may' in the title speaks loudly, i.e., so far, it is speculation. However, this is a source worth exposing at the talk page so other editors interested in the topic can find it, so I would urge you to raise your comment at Talk:Göbekli Tepe and see what kind of feedback you get there.

If you you have general questions about how to add stufff to Wikipedia, you are welcome to ask questions at the WP:Teahouse. Also, a general principle of Wikipedia is WP:BE BOLD, which means you don't have to know all the rules, and you don't have to worry about messing it up. Go ahead and make an edit if you think it is right. Sure, you will make mistakes—who doesn't?—but that's okay. Maybe someone will undo your edit five minutes after you make it; that's okay, too; part of editing here is not taking things personally, just trying to improve the article as best you can, while learning the rules here. Feel free to hit me up anytime with questions, but the WP:Teahouse is a good place to start. And, welcome back! Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Uw-vandalism1/sandbox test

Test: {{subst:Uw-vandalism1/sandbox|France|n=one}}:
Hello, I'm Mathglot. I wanted to let you know that your recent contribution to France has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Browsers

Well, I know very little about browsers because I've been using FF since the late Devonian, but you seem passionate and I am willing to learn.

The people behind Opera are also behind Opera GX, right? That alone should be enough to disqualify it, right?

A quick websearch tells me Vivaldi is closed source and uses Chromium.[1]

Also, Firefox is a descendant of Netscape Navigator, and the chicks really dig that. What am I missing? Why is Vivaldi superior? Polygnotus (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And what about Arc? Polygnotus (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Polygnotus. Yah, I used FF (and before that Navigator, and Amaya, an early visual editor from Tim Berners-Lee). I became passionate about Opera after I discovered it (very fast with Javascript/ECMA, back when processors were slower, now probably everybody is fast enough, but I no longer follow those comparisons). I still love Opera, and I felt almost guilty moving away from it when I discovered Vivaldi, like I was jilting a former lover who was completely innocent. (I still use Opera mini on my phone.)

Clearly a bald statement like the one I made that "Vivaldi is better" is highly subjective, and wouldn't be true for everyone. For me, its powerful tab and session handling was the clincher. I may have six or seven browsers going, with a couple hundred tabs among them; so far, all the other browsers can match that. But it's the ease of use, "tab-stacking", and the ability to tile or stack tabs, or save them in "saved sessions" that can be closed and opened, that makes it highly useful for me to manage everything I'm working on that is the winner for me.

Vivaldi help menu might be a start if you prefer text, and here is a 6' video on tab management in Vivaldi (there are tons of tutorials; this is just the first one I found; the first two minutes are a bit plodding). For example, I'm currently working on Draft:French historiography (among several other projects) and just that one page involves a ton of research; each major topic section is like an article all on its own (and probably should be, eventually) and I have saved sessions on the historiography of the Renaissance, Republicanism, Laicité, French Revolution, Feudal transformation, Identity, and Vichy, each with many tabs. Trying to keep straight all my sources and supporting pages for each major topic would be almost unmanageable without Vivaldi's powerful tab handling.

Any tool with powerful features can be daunting at first, but if you're used to some other browser with tabs, like FF, then it's pretty intuitive to just get started with Vivaldi with what you already know, and then you just start adding features to your toolkit as you go. Give it a try, and let me know how you like it! Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. I have installed Vivaldi and I will give it a try. Perhaps old dogs can learn new tricks.

Arc doesn't even support Linux for unclear reasons.

Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, no hurry or anything, but if you've had a chance to try it out, I must admit to being curious about your reaction so far. (Feel free to ignore this, if you haven't had the time, yet.) Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, like all software I haven't written, its a mixed bag. As a Pop OS user I love stacking. Fat stacks all day baby! I like the ability to take notes, I like the reading list (bit like Pocket). I do not like Mastodon, certainly not integrated into the browser (got rid of that). I don't like Bing and Startpage.com as a default, I disabled mail/calendar/feeds. I have disabled quite a few of the special features for various reasons, e.g. gestures (I am not smart enough) and quick commands (not enough brain space to remember new information). I haven't really been able to test stability and performance yet because for that I need to keep the PC running for a month with hundreds of tabs open. I'd be suprised if its better in the privacy department than Firefox (neither have acceptable default settings).

I loved Amaya back in the day btw. Not as a browser but as an editor. I still remember having nothing to write about, but spending a lot of time on web1.0 pages. Polygnotus (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Trying to keep straight all my sources and supporting pages for each major topic would be almost unmanageable without Vivaldi's powerful tab handling. Have you tried combining Omnivore Logseq? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc6DbBtOs14&t=194s hmmm youtube.com is not on the spam blacklist but when you share a link with a timestamp it uses the youtu.be domain and that is blacklisted for some reason. Polygnotus (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It takes a bit to set it up and it is not super intuitive the first time you use it (pro tip: you gotta restart Logseq before it starts syncing for the first time) but its very useful. You find an article on the web (or upload a PDF or whatever) and then you can save it by clicking on the plugin in Vivaldi, add notes, highlight passages you might use later and add labels and tags. It uses Zotero (or something similar) under the hood so it automatically gets the relevant details. Then, when writing, put Logseq on your second monitor and you have a database of sources with the most interesting parts highlighted. Polygnotus (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Because a picture says more than a thousands words: https://i.imgur.com/8QoDO02.png Polygnotus (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:3O-notice

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:3O-notice, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wondering about MOS:ORDER and the strictness of mainspace cite-rules for draft articles

Hi! Thanks for marking the draft article I started, Administrative law of Germany, as promising. While I do mean to continue its substantive development before the year is out, this gives me breathing room should my regular life preoccupy me.

I must admit, however, that I'm unsure whether I'm in favor of the other edits (this one and the two preceding ones). Not to say that you need my permission, naturally; I don't own the page, of course, no matter that it is in an inchoate stage! But I thought to enquire whether all of them are necessary (at this juncture). You seem to have a good grasp of the MOS and similar guidelines and consensuses (consensēs?), so I thought I'd head over here and ask first, just if you happen to know off the top of your head. They're small quibbles and I'm not eager to sink time into in-depth research; especially if you aren't actually opposed to me changing them back, anyhow.

(1) Do the references not cited in-line need to be moved to further reading if it is my intention to use them for citations or remove them as the article develops? I would find it convenient if I could keep them on the draft page for my (and other editors') future use without having to keep them in further reading. (I would want them in the article for verifiability and citation purposes, but wouldn't recommend them in particular as further reading to encyclopedia readers.) I would understand, of course, if the consensus says that the more important consideration is the risk of the article being graduated to article-space with references accidentally unused in inline citations.

(2) It was an intentional, bold choice of mine to put the notes section at the very end. My rationale is that readers are most likely to read notes in conjunction with the main text, by clicking/tapping the bracketed number/letter and having it pop up automatically – but quite unlikely to want to read them en masse after the main text. Therefore, they would ideally be maximally "deprioritized", so to speak, by being relegated to the very end of the page – minimizing scrolling effort to get to sections that are useful as sections per se, such as the handy list of full references, further reading, and external links. I don't recall the MOS layout guideline specifically mentioning that notes shouldn't be moved to the very end if they aren't in the same section as the full references. Is my style something you can countenance?

(3) Not to criticize, just curious: I wasn't really aware of the "broader" hatnote – is that a recommended feature for sub-articles? Wouldn't a see-main template be more logical?

(4) I'm not sure Administrative law#Germany really needs to be linked at see also. Though it admittedly isn't just now (does that make the difference?), the administrative law article will surely be linked in the lead before the draft is moved to article space. This would surely make a link under see also superfluous and not recommended?

Thanks for your valuable time and effort! Also, thank you for creating the article for The Pure Theory of Law. Much obliged. —§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 12:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

LegesFundamentales only a partial response for now, because it is all I have time for at the moment. To #1: no, you can leave refs wherever you want, and pretty much ignore all rules while you are still in Draft space. Wrt #3, it's a judgment call, however the {{Main}} template is intended for use at the top of sections, not the top of articles. For #4, the draft is stil in flux, and even if it shouldn't be in See also when released, having it there now serves as a reminder to stick it in somewhere as a link, and then remove it from See also per WP:NOTSEEALSO, so for me, it just serves as a tickler. If you don't need it/don't want it, feel free to remove it. Mathglot (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:3O-decline

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:3O-decline, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and Talk:2024 United States presidential election on "Society, sports, and culture" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ships of ancient Rome‎‎

Curiously enough, if I look at the IP's version which first added that {{convert}}[2], it seems to load fine with no obvious cite errors. So yes, I suppose it could be a template error, a transcluded excerpt since corrected, or some weird server/delivery failure like not running convert's code correctly. Very odd. NebY (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

NebY, yes, after my tests failed to show the problem, I reloaded the IP's version and noticed the same thing. So, must be a template problem elsewhere, or as you say, something since corrected. I would actually like to know exactly what happened, an I'm tempted to run down every transcluded template's history, as I am not a fan of chalking up everything mysterious to cosmic rays ate my homework, but it would just take too long. (Great idea for a new Toolforge tool, there, though.) And I'd like to be on the watch for it if similar symptoms ever surface again. (Note to self: see these 6 edits at Ships of ancient Rome‎‎.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The only problem with the template theory, though, is I clicked previous revisions before IP 31's edit, and they all worked, only that rev failed. That's what really threw me, because if there were a transient template or module change somewhere, edits prior to IP's edit should have failed, but they did not. Any ideas? Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That's very odd - good checking though. There were already lots of uses of convert - though not one to miles. The histories of Module:Convert, Module:Convert/data and Module:Convert/text don't show any recent changes. Maybe inspiration will strike, but for now I'm stuck with cosmic rays really did eat our hamster. NebY (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

NebY, please see WP:VPT#Tool request: What changed recently?. I encourage you to comment if you have any ideas. Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sfnlinknb

Template:Sfnlinknb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Impact of Gamergate

Hello, Mathglot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Impact of Gamergate".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:PAVE US on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Dropped Rfc hdr, made the change. Mathglot (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article length bar/L0

Template:Article length bar/L0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article length bar/L1

Template:Article length bar/L1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article length bar/L2

Template:Article length bar/L2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Interpolated comment

Template:Interpolated comment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Experimental page views chart location

This template provides interesting information, but not so interesting as to clutter up the top of the page (even more than it already is). Is there some way to make it appear at the bottom of the page? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow, It's not for me to say. But you've been around for many years, so surely you know that pageviews banners have always appeared along with other Talk page banners grouped at the top of the page. I only imitated what has always been done. That said, I already have a request in at Module talk:Message box about adding a class param, because if that is done, then you will be able to disable the {{Xreadership}} template from all articles as long as you are logged in. May I ask where you saw the graph? It is only on a few articles, so far. Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "so surely you know," I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't. If I ever did notice one, it did not leave a lasting impression. And now I generally either (a) don't land at the top of a talk page because I'm following a link to a particular section or (b) don't spend any time looking at all the cruft at the top (compare wp:KUDZU).

My attention to the template at Talk:Rule of law was drawn because your addition appeared on the "View history" page. By the way, the template did not display as a graph for me. Instead, it shows "Pageviews summary: size=76, age=3, days=75, min=599, max=1559, latest=902." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: For the record, the graph does display with me when I press "[show]". Talk:Rule of law previously showed the now-invisible {{Annual readership}}, and its source code still contains that tag. {{Xreadership}} is a replacement for the defunct {{Annual readership}}. - Manifestation (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: I'm surprised you hadn't noticed the {{annual readership}} template; it is on 52,000 Talk pages, including Talk:Rule of law, where it has been present for the past 2 1/2 years. It was only disabled and became invisible on the page last week. As Manifestation points out, the graph is collapsed unless you click show, which is exactly what the previous template did as well. The new one echoes the original behavior of that one, with the addition of summary info in the title bar to assist the user in deciding whether that info is enough and if expanding the graph is likely to be of interest.

Coming back to your point about "cruft at the top", as I mentioned, I am sympathetic to that point of view, and there is a solution, but it requires some engagement from others; I've provided the link the venue for you above; complaining about KUDZU here, where nobody will see it, is the wrong venue. Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't feel strongly enough about the cruft to complain to anyone about it. I mentioned it here only to explain why the annual readership template never registered on my personal radar.

Regarding the Xreadership template, perhaps I should have said "By the way, the template did not display as a graph for me. Instead, it shows 'Pageviews summary: size=76, age=3, days=75, min=599, max=1559, latest=902' on my browser." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure those stats are for testing purposes only (the box is in its beta phase).

If your browser is not showing the bar chart, then something strange is going on. I see you have the Twinkle script installed. Maybe it's messing up the graphs? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's all above my paygrade. I can live without the bar chart showing up. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow, wait a sec—are you saying the bar chart doesn't show up when you click [show] ? Do you even see the word [show] to the right of the word '(Experimental)' flush right within the bar? If you see the 'Pageviews summary' as you indicated, you should definitely see the '[show]'. Can you tell me please exactly what happens when you click '[show]'? This is important information to make sure the template is working, as I have not seen the behavior you are reporting before, and if you cannot show the bar chart, I have to figure out why not. Please let me know. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "show" shows up and pops in a bar chart. But "Pageviews summary: size=76, age=3, days=75, min=599, max=1559, latest=902" also shows up (and stay up when the bar chart pops in). I'm guessing that is supposed to display a bar chart in the box (without the necessity of clicking "show"). I may be guessing wrong.

Is the "show" bar chart different from the "Daily pageviews" bar chart? If not, why have both? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No, they don't differ.

I can understand that you see page views on talk pages as unnecessary filler data, especially since we have an external tool for it. But for what it's worth, a recent TfD showed that many Wikipedians actually do support {{Annual readership}}. So many people do believe that page views are important. Even on the talk page. - Manifestation (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow:, I'm having trouble getting a fix on what it is about the template that bothers you. At first, I thought you objected to the fact that it occupies about 2 cm of vertical space among the banners at the top of the page, because your first post mentioned "clutter" at the top of the page. Most recently, you said you guessed that the template is probably supposed to show a chart without clicking "show", but if it did that, it would take more than ten times as much vertical space, and people would scream bloody murder about clutter. So what is your concern with the template, because I still don't understand, and if I don't understand I can't fix it. As far as why have both, it's a convenience, and very few editors are aware of the toolforge tool. Annual readership was a popular tool, with over 50,000 transclusions, and the new, experimental template was created in an attempt to satisfy the 50,000 occasions where users found it useful to place the old template on a Talk page, before it was removed due to security flaws. Mathglot (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's review. First, I suggested that the template appear at the bottom of the page rather than the top. Later, I mentioned that there was a display error. I thought the error was wikitext displaying where a chart would be, but it turns out that it was just wikitext showing up. After I corrected that error thought I was told "If your browser is not showing the bar chart, then something strange is going on." That made me think that there was supposed to be a bar chart visible in the template display (without clicking anything). So I returned to the thought that the errant wikitext was meant to "show" a bar chart without any clicking. It is now clear to me that that is not the case.

Turning to your question, there are two things that 'bother" me about the template. First, its location. As I indicate above, this is not a hill that I am prepared to die on. It is just a personal preference that I expressed to someone who was dropping the template onto talk pages. Second, the template displays "Pageviews summary: size=76, age=3, days=75, min=599, max=1559, latest=902" on my browser. I'd think that would be something that the template authors would want to fix.

Thank you for the attention you've given to my concerns. However, I think we have all spent way too much time on them. No need to follow up on this post- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1re

Template:1re has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Kept. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:1re

I think that you are I are in violent agreement at the TFD. I think "subst only" may be what you are describing when you say "any instances should be substed by a bot". That's what the {{subst only}} template does when configured correctly, as you can see with {{Lien}} in this bot edit.

I think that it would be useful to have a significant number of these templates, especially for French Wikipedia. For some reason, they like to use templates for trivial character combinations, and they show up at Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates quite frequently. Just today, this sandbox was generating a dozen links on that report. Let me know if you would like help getting the new templates set up. You may be able to use shared documentation for some of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:, thank you for this. I was unaware of that additional feature of {{subst only}}, thanks for cluing me in. And, I love that expression, in violent agreement; I'm going to have to steal that, at some point! Good tip about shared doc, I am already thinking about a doc template that might serve for multiple languages, but I may start with a few templates in French, and maybe German or Spanish, to pick out the best common verbiage for a doc template, and see if there are bits that can be isolated as typical variables to be parameterized. At first blush, I'm thinking three unnamed, and a named |additional= (or maybe, |pre= and |post=) to add additional stuff that may be unique to some xx-wiki template and not easily covered by params. The daughter templates of {{Expand language}} do something like that, and so do the user warning temiplates. I'll try and remember to ping you, when I set something up. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Those French are amazing. 1,165 templates to add a superscript to an ordinal number! We probably don't need all of them, but I see some of the low numbers quite frequently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The one I see a whole lot of, maybe because I look at a lot of historical articles, is the fr:Template:S for representing centuries in Roman numerals, and all of its variants. I'm not sure how many variants there are, but this fat Navbox exists just to list them. Mathglot (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy. Those templates need to be merged! There is no reason to have Template:s2- just to remove a link, when |lien=non would work just fine. But I'm not going to bust into their culture and mix things up. And we already have Template:S here, used in 3,000 pages. Maybe we just stick to the easy ones for now, like 1re and IIIe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Brazilian judicial codes

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Brazilian judicial codes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved. Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Interpolated comment

Moved to User talk:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Interpolated comment § Improvement brainstorming

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Twitter on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Not found. Mathglot (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Storrs, Connecticut on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Storrs. Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Bot

Thanks for this edit. Would it be smart to have a bot that checks for long unbreakable strings on pages like the Refdesks and Helpdesk and adds ­? Polygnotus (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, that sounds like a really good idea, and I'd extend it to all Talk-space pages as well. Before I used the <pre>-tag, I had tried {{zwsp}}, but it didn't provide the intended effect, of course, because it was inside the <nowiki>'s. Nowiki does not disable embedded HTML entities like &shy; so that would be a good solution; probably they could be inserted every N characters (possibly small N for mobile?) and after all hyphens and that should work. If not, <pre> would also work. If you decide to make a WP:Bot request, I'll support it. Mathglot (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again! Perhaps we can apply it retro-actively too (scan the dump for long unbreakable strings). There are many such tricks, I always forget what the best one is, but it is possibly <wbr>. They will know. I have to do some stuff when I get back I can try to scan the dump. Polygnotus (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has an RfC

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Gnomingstuff, thank you for this notification. Btw, I think you meant, Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, in case you plan to place more notifications. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Two articles - review

Hi @Mathglot

Would you mind checking my sandbox and review two articles that I wrote and see what needs to be done in order for them to get approved for English Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Боки ☎ ✎ 19:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Боки, I started to look at it, but I'm not sure I'll have time to do it properly before mid-November. Based on a brief glance, I think you can profitably do some self-assessment, by reading through H:YFA, and measuring your sandboxed drafts against the requirements of Notability and Sourcing as mentioned at that Help article. If you have very specific questions, like, How about this reference? I can probably answer those as I go, but a full review will probably have to wait. Best, Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Keys to the White House on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Indentation etc

Sorry if I caused trouble with the placing of my signature at [3]. I have never tried to use the ‘Reply’ function and I don’t know how it works.

It looks like you were intending to ping me? I never received any notification. I have no idea why. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sweet6970, I don't know why either, but if you got this notification, then all is well. No trouble at all regarding the signature; there are a million niggly little things like that, you just have to learn as you go. Honestly, I don't know how Reply works either, I don't use it. Mathglot (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I got your latest notification. So it looks like all is well. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ghana

About [4]. Sorry, my entire fault. I was not trying to replace one source by another, I was in fact updating the figure/year to put 2024 data instead of 2023, but I forgot to change the year... oops. It certainly was confusing. I felt only the latest source was necessary, but if you feel that the older sources would better stick there, we can obviously keep them there as well... Anthere (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Anthere, no worries, I knew it was a good-faith edit, and one *never* has to apologize for a good-faith edit; we all make mistakes. The only need is to fix it, which you already did. Sometimes I add an "Oops" in the edit summary of my fix, and you did the equivalent, so you have covered all the bases. Thanks for your updates to Ghana, and for your contributions, and Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Anthere (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rfc demote note

Template:Rfc demote note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

moved to sandbox/Templates/*. Mathglot (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of common misconceptions on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

Is Draft:Golden Edge good for moving back to the mainspace? A contributer placed a single reference (a majority however is still unreferenced). Can I just add the more citations needed maintenance tag? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Cooldudeseven7, No, not even close, unfortunately, because that reference, while it is reliable, does not provide significant coverage, and the draft in its current state fails to demonstrate a threshold of WP:Notability, which is the minimum bar for an article in mainspace.

To remedy this, search for a magazine-length article, book chapter, or serious online treatment of Golden Edge which is all about Golden Edge: for example, an article/chapter that talks about its founding, how it survived various difficulties, names all the people involved in its creation, talks about the path it took to being recognized and distributed as an available network, gives demographic figures, advertising revenue, ranking among networks, and so on in significant detail. In other words, an in-depth report, all about Golden Edge (or comparing it to a small number of other networks). After you find that one, now go out and find two more like that, but that are completely unrelated to the first one. When you have three, independent, in-depth references, then you probably have an empirical demonstration of notability, and then it would be reasonable to move it to mainspace.

What I recommend is two things:

1. Read Help:Your first article, especially the sections on Gathering sources, and Notability.
2. Use Wikipedia's Articles for creation process. This is a group of volunteer editors who will monitor your draft when you submit it for review, and will either release it to mainspace or give you feedback if it is not ready yet.

To facilitate the second point, I have added an Afc header to the article. When you think it is ready, just hit the big, blue, SUBMIT button, but if it doesn't have three independent references demonstrating significant coverage, it is likely to be declined. If it is, you can just keep working on it, and get it ready to submit again.

Finally, it would be better to ask any further questions at Draft talk:Golden Edge, and not here, so that other users can participate in the discussion as well. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to move the page into the article mainspace (even if risking deletion) thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Cooldudeseven7, I replied at Draft talk:Golden Edge. Please discuss there. Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Draft talk:Golden Edge#Referencing and Notability

Question about Golden Edge

Hi. A reference was added to the page, however I also noticed some references here on the spanish wikipedia- [[5]] Do you think these sources can be incorporated in some way. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

I believe you tried to reach me earlier and told me about Teahouse reference desk. [6]Just wanted to let you know that I read it and thank you for that info. However Teahouse hosts say that- me asking why there are no articles on AIPAC’s influence in recent U.S. elections, and trying to gain understanding of Wikipedia's approach if there is a reason. - is prohibited because I don't have 500 edits recorded on me. They didn't tell me it was off topic but said it was a restricted topic for people like me without Extended confirmed status. If I were to ask the very same thing at Wikipedia reference desk despite not having 500 edits, - ("Is there a reason why there’s no dedicated Wikipedia article on AIPAC’s influence in U.S. 2024 elections, given its role as a major lobbying organization?") - won't I get instantly blocked for disruptive editing? Maybe much longer than 72 hours as it may be a repeat offence. I am confused and not motivated to go through a surprising bureaucratic minefield like last time. 49.181.199.18 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Archiving

Re: Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation § Page size and tab format

Moved discussion so that involved editors can see it. CNC (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

thank you

You were extremely patient, supportive, and informative a few years ago when I was an inexperienced editor. (Should it matter, you helped a few of us split off US v. Flynn from Michael Flynn's article and answered lots of questions along the way.) I'm still not that experienced, as I only edit intermittently, but your helpfulness still stands out for me, and I figured I'd stop by to thank you again. I hope that all is well with you, FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, your kind words are very much appreciated! Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)