User talk:Wikid77/Archive 11

This is Archive_11 for User_talk:Wikid77 (Jan 2016 - Dec 2016)

I heard what happened to your fireworks last night.

I wish you better luck this New Year. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 16:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited OpenNTPD, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solaris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid77, just in case you did not notice, date=04/12/2001 means 4 December 2001 in Scotland (and more generally in the UK).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borders_Railway&diff=prev&oldid=699703738
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borders_Railway&diff=next&oldid=699703738

Best regards -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that for me. Just went to do it after getting the bot notification. Appreciate it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the display of those templates (in any resolution on any screen), you have already been informed where to present that problem: Template talk:Cite compare.

Stop edit warring. Multiple editors have reverted your changes. --Izno (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saumagen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pfalz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copy and paste, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Copy and paste and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Copy and paste during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. No such user (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI. I'm enjoying our conversation on Jimbo's page. I have a question for you: Why do we have bots that do this? I learned <i> and </i>, <b> and </b> and Wikipedia is one of the few places I can use it!  :). All those single quotes look awful and are so confusing. What is the advantage? I just use the html codes and let it fix them rather than trying to remember if I am supposed to use 2, 3 or 5 of the single quotes, since it is faster for me. But I do worry that maybe it messes something up. I'm hoping there is a good explanation for it. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the MediaWiki software has always used 5 tics around bold-italic text, but the wp:CS1 templates generate interim HTML "<i>" tags to italicize any title, including end-apostrophe as in "Livin' and Givin' " or such. Even worse the template parameters are coded as triple-brace "{{{x}}}" which confuses with a template's double-brace syntax "}}" where parameters could become "#[x]" as an alternate syntax to improve readability of markup. Jimbo installed the original wiki software to turn dismal Nupedia into successful Wikipedia and probably remembers, if not afraid to discuss. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in T128697 "Investigate increasing limit for word-level diffs" apparently there is 10K byte limit before word rather than paragraph level diff's kick in. --Salix alba (talk): 04:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Atreya page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Alliance. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the wiki-data for new articles per day and Sweden was off the charts for Jan. 2016 with 12,000 per day [1]. Do you know if that has been fixed and if the appropriate admins. know about it? I'm guessing it is some kind of spam... --David Tornheim (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Swedish WP has been doing a Bot-upload of species pages; as Sweden has the highest per-capita robotics society in the world, it was just a matter of time for them to mass automate new articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more question on data, since I am here already: Do you know what is going on with this website that used to track page views on wikipedia articles? It seems that it stopped collecting data on 1/21/16. Is there a better one now? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was User:Henrik, who has been taking 3-month breaks for years, and might restore the missing weeks upon his return. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid77. I noticed this edit with this edit summary at Atayalangal:

(20 changes: ce; fix cite for 2nd date & pre-spaced cite bars)

1. What are the 20 changes?
2. Where is the copy edit?
3. Where is the fix cite for 2nd date & pre-spaced cite bars?
4. What was the purpose of any of these changes?
5. Why are you deleting unused citation parameters?

Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax:, most of the 20 changes were spaces between the cite parameters, but also changed 2nd date to be "access-date=" and removed unused "author=" and "date=" to focus on parameters which are used, not unused. The unused parameters tend to clutter the markup and would bog a search for actual "author" where used. The copy-edit also removed space in name "M. G. Sasi" to be "M.G. Sasi" without the peculiar space between the initials. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid77. Good call on changing the 2nd date= to accessdate=

However, IMHO, if names have spaces they should be left. This is customary. For instance:

M. C. Escher, J. R. R. Tolkien, F. Scott Fitzgerald, etc.

You may notice that for M.G. Sasi he is M. G. Sasi in the lead and in the infobox.

Unused citation parameters should be left intact unless they are deprecated or excessive. date= and author=, even if blank, should be left in place for a cite news or cite web template as this metadata may become available to a future editor and then they can pop it right in there. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@checkingfax - I disagree on both counts. Spaces between initials are fine for titles, standard form and all that, but it is not the convention for the small type within the body of an article, or a book, or a newspaper article, or a website. It is a peculiar affectation. Bear in mind that links should not be broken to tighten up the initials. As for deleting the ridiculous clutter of unused fields in info boxes and citation templates, this is, as Wikid indicates, beneficial for future editors. In a just world citation templates would be banned outright since they are nearly impossible for new editors to navigate. Anything to make the editing process for new editors less burdensome is for the good. Best regards, — Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carrite. I was not addressing you, but since you're here I shall reply to you. I think you need to read this thread again. I am the one that said leaving the author= and date= parameters in place is helpful for future editors. You seem to have synthesized our comments. Also, let me highlight for you: Unused citation parameters should be left intact unless they are deprecated or excessive. Leaving author= and date= in place is not excessive, but is helpful. As for spaces between initials in names and after the full stops the Chicago Manual of Style requires it, but on Wikipedia we only ask that you be consistent in an article; once the style is set, stick with it, regardless of your personal preference, bias, or how silly you think it looks. As for citation templates being "ridiculous", what is your alternative suggestion for preventing linkrot and providing harvestable metadata? What is an easier and better citation method new editors? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Pounds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Hunt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Exponential function. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ah Louis page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Structural semantics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sentential. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Do not "fix" access dates that are from prior to Wikipedia's start date. Especially, do not "fix" anything without actually fixing the problem. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

personal name.—Ps 83:18.Correct Pronunciation of the Divine Name. “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, although “Yahweh” is favored by most Hebrew scholars. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te·tra-, meaning “four,” and gramʹma, “letter”). These four letters (written from right to left) are יהוה and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CD90:F30:D441:E190:47C9:9959 (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1 metre. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comment on the other template talk page page: Template talk:EB1911#Unnamed parameter handling as that is where the conversation has been taking place. -- PBS (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm just wondering if you remember why you used empty bold tags like <b/>, for example in this edit. Also, do you know if you used such tags in other templates, and do other authors do it too? Apparently it breaks our prototype solution for phab:T89331 so I'm trying to work out whether we need to implement a fix. -- Tim Starling (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have been using null tags for years like "<b/>" or "<span/>" (beyond null nowiki, "<nowiki/>") as escape-tokens to allow lead/trailing-spaces or leading semicolon ";" with only 4-to-7-character tokens rather than the 40-to-80-character nowiki tags, to avoid extra bytes in each template, with the wp:expansion depth limit "wp:post-expand include size" being only 2,000 kb rather than 2.5 mb or more. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a workaround for phab:T14974? (Implicit newline insertion before * # : ; {|) Obviously <nowiki/> is the "right" way to do that, I guess (if we can't think of something better) -- I wonder if there's anyway to tell how many pages would really be broken (read, exceed the expansion depth limit) by replacing <b/> with <nowiki/>? Perhaps we could bump the limit from 2MB to 2.5MB at the same time as we get rid of the hack? C. Scott Ananian (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many pages use null-bold or null-span tags, among the current 5 million articles, but the massive wp:CS1 Lua cite templates, each, use about 2kb[!] of expansion space of the "wp:post-expand include size" to mega-hog, mega-waste the resource, and pages have been hackified smaller for years, such as "List of The Simpsons episodes" to fit the include-size limit. I don't think ruining pages matters any longer, as so many editors are ready to hackify the next oversized page, and users are accustomed to seeing 50,000 botched pages scarred with cite wp:reftag or other cite red-error messages. Just improve the wp:parser functions, and many editors will update more botched pages, as the coming months permit, among 50,000 other pages botched by templates. Keep up the improvements, and the wiki-gnome editors will further adjust thousands of pages as needed. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid, please give a specific example of a page that nowiki instead of b would push over the limit. I doubt any actually exist. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors are working to hackify large pages as smaller. There have been over 450 pages in "Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded". It is difficult to keep aware of the thousands of botched pages for all the various problems. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:24/02:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, this "solution" is completely unnecessary, as it's not even solving the right problem: making the expansion size smaller doesn't help pages where the depth is too high. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jean Lapierre. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chlamydia research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chlamydia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Area of a disk. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really understand the relevance of your comment at Jimbo's page. My feeling is that a bit of "Second Amendment" editing, like describing the manufacture of a sutari or W-18, helps to put the general populace in a stronger position relative to gangs and governments. Hopefully, without needing to be used, or even preparing people to resist its use; but if it is, it is their moral choice what to do. As for prophecy, well, I would distinguish it from precognition. I would say prophecy emerges from a deep understanding of the world, and does not recall the future, but perceives inevitability. Martin Luther King Jr. saying "I have a dream..." is prophecy. Even Isaiah writing (I would rather optimistically argue) about the Red Sea Dam development providing a new homeland for the Palestinians might be a prophecy. But to remember the future as it is rather than as it is meant to be ... that's altogether on the other side of the equation, a soul-eroding thing with unpredictable dangers and precious little good that can come out of it. (I don't believe Dixon manifested any of these things...) Wnt (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Garden of Eden (cellular automaton). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clara Whipple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Mason. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Line 15, Beijing Subway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guanzhuang. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Isaac Barrow. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I regard {{cvt}} as a very useful variant; I wish I'd come across it before. Please don't use its documentation to try to fight battles over it. All that will happen if you do is that those who want to delete the template will succeed. The documentation needs to explain how to use the template, not put off potential users by showing that it's contoversial. I want this template to remain! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Template:Cvt/doc shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: I will block your account if you continue edit warring on this page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is half Italian by birth, the revolting stuff you keep putting on Jimbo's talkpage appalls me. Stop it now please, or next time it's going to WP:ANI. Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as someone who has lived in Italy for years, I do not understand your concerns about what I wrote. Could you please clarify which aspects of my posts do you think are "revolting" or have appalled you. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link I provided on Jimbo's talkpage to your previous posting is enough. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmy Noether. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sigma-algebra. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know you are long time programmer and Wikipedia editor. I have come up against a challenge and curious if you know if we already have software to deal with it. The problem is when there are multiple references to be combined. I figured out long ago that you use <ref...name=X>...</ref> for the first instantiation, and then <ref...name=X/>...</ref> for each additional instance of it.

The question is what to do when you have a block of text with 20 references and you want to make two copies of the entire block in the article, and have the second copy's references all refer to the first, but you do not want to have to go in and change all 20 references by hand. We have that case because of the result of an RfC. Each copy has to be the exact same text and references.

I asked the question at the articles at these two places: Talk:Genetically_modified food controversies#citation redundancy, Talk:Genetically_modified food#citation redundancy. Despite the fact that 88 people showed up to comment at this high stakes RfC, no one has responded to this!

This brings up another bigger question: I have noticed many articles have multiple instances of the same reference, often with slight variations (e.g. author's first name spelled out, or not, or items in wrong order, missing url in one, etc.). I assume it is because different editors contributed to the article and did not realize the reference was already there or they did not know how to use the citation templates, etc. It seems to me we could use a bot to go through the references in every article and look for duplicates with the goal of consolidating/simplifying. I doubt the bot could fix them directly unless all info. was clearly identical, but it could at least identify the redundancy and then if we have a tool to make it easy to fix redundancy, that would be excellent. I already feel like I could write such a thing in C or Perl using just the Wikitext. I have no idea what language the bots use. What do you think?

I did do a list of all the references that had name instantiations or instances for Genetically modified food controversies and it was interesting:

1. 0/

   0/

   0

2. 07PARIS4723
3. 2012AFP
4. AAAS/
5. AAAS/
6. AAAS
7. ABC
8. About page
9. Acquaye
10. agbioforum
11. Agricultural Biotechnology 2001/
12. Agricultural Biotechnology 2001
13. AMA/
14. AMA
15. AnimalRetraction
16. AP/
17. AP/
18. AP/
19. AP/
20. AP/
21. AP
22. AP-Guardian/
23. AP-Guardian
24. APHIS Report
25. articles.latimes.com/
26. articles.latimes.com
27. Aumaitre2004
28. AUNZLabel/
29. AUNZLabel
30. autogenerated1
31. autogenerated2
32. bbc.com
33. BBC2002 /
34. BBC2002
35. bbcgolden
36. Beagle2006
37. Benbrook 2012/
38. Benbrook 2012
39. BloombergIowa
40. BloombergWheat
41. BMA/
42. BMA
43. Boucher1999
44. Brigulla2010
45. ButlerNatureNews
46. CanadaSupremeCourtDecision/
47. CanadaSupremeCourtDecision/
48. CanadaSupremeCourtDecision/
49. CanadaSupremeCourtDecision/
50. CanadaSupremeCourtDecision
51. CAPE/
52. CAPE/
53. CAPE
54. CAST-2014-04
55. Chen 2001
56. CIEH
57. coghlan
58. colostate1/
59. colostate1
60. ColStateExt-Starlink
61. compass_outcrossing
62. Conner
63. crit
64. DailyMail1/
65. DailyMail1
66. decade_of_EU-funded_GMO_research
67. doi10.1016/S1360-13859801251-5/
68. doi10.1016/S1360-13859801251-5
69. domingo
70. easac
71. EC1/
72. EC1
73. EC2/
74. EC2
75. EFSA2007 review of Seralini 2007
76. EFSA2007 Statistical Review of Seralini2007
77. EFSA-Cisgenic
78. EHBuck/
79. EHBuck
80. Elsevier2013/
81. Elsevier2013
82. Enserink1999B/
83. Enserink1999B
84. experts
85. Flachowsky2005/
86. Flachowsky2005
87. foe.org/
88. foe.org
89. FoodProcessing/
90. FoodProcessing
91. FreedmanSciAm/
92. FreedmanSciAm
93. GMOCompass1
94. GMWatch
95. GristBegin/
96. GristBegin
97. Gruere2007
98. Guertler2009
99. HallenbeckBFP/
100. HallenbeckBFP
101. harlan_sprague_dawley_data/
102. harlan_sprague_dawley_data
103. hawkins
104. HCIA
105. HighPlainsJ
106. hnn1410
107. Hunt/
108. Hunt/
109. Hunt
110. huntingdon_sprague_dawley_data/
111. huntingdon_sprague_dawley_data
112. IAASTD
113. IDEA/
114. IDEA
115. Illinois/
116. Illinois
117. Indiana/
118. Indiana
119. iPolitics/
120. iPolitics
121. James2011
122. JRC/
123. JRC
124. Key/
125. Key
126. key
127. Kikulwe-20011-2
128. Kikulwe-2011-1
129. Konig
130. KQMeta/
131. KQMeta
132. Kuiper/
133. Kuiper/
134. Kuiper/
135. Kuiper
136. kuntz/
137. kuntz
138. Lal
139. LandBaxter/
140. LandBaxter/
141. LandBaxter
142. LAT/
143. LAT/
144. LAT
145. Lynch2001
146. Marden/
147. Marden/
148. Marden
149. Marris/
150. Marris/
151. Marris
152. Masood1999/
153. Masood1999
154. McHughen2007
155. money.cnn.com
156. Monsanto_US_retaliation
157. MonsantoEnforcement /
158. MonsantoEnforcement
159. NatlGeo
160. NatureEd
161. NatureOnSeralini2012/
162. NatureOnSeralini2012
163. Nelson/
164. Nelson
165. Netherwood2004
166. NPR
167. NRC2004 /
168. NRC2004
169. NYT2016
170. NYT82413
171. nytimes
172. nytimes1
173. NYTImes2012
174. NYTimesQuest/
175. NYTimesQuest
176. oecd.org/
177. oecd.org
178. OECD
179. oregon/
180. oregon
181. PEW
182. Pew
183. Pew2005 /
184. Pew2005
185. Pew2006
186. PGEconomics
187. PHAA/
188. PHAA
189. pmid10500236
190. pmid10524614
191. pmid10537097
192. pmid10537098
193. pmid10580485
194. pmid11559842
195. pmid11734853
196. pmid11935145
197. pmid12047949
198. pmid12709477
199. pmid12746509
200. pmid15448206
201. pmid15813800
202. pmid17900781
203. pmid17987446
204. pmid18259177
205. pmid18989835
206. pmid19143938
207. pmid19146501
208. pmid19357987
209. pmid19389277
210. pmid20299559
211. pmid20379171
212. pmid20466880
213. pmid20929774
214. pmid21301431
215. pmid21338670
216. pmid21350035/
217. pmid21350035
218. pmid22155268
219. pmid22753493
220. pmid22864609
221. pmid23605378
222. pmid8594427
223. PollackStarlink/
224. PollackStarlink
225. Pollan
226. PostCourier/
227. PostCourier/
228. PostCourier
229. PotatoPro
230. Prescott2005
231. Puztai1999/
232. Puztai1999
233. Randerson2008
234. reasons
235. ReferenceA
236. Relyea
237. retract/
238. retract
239. RetractionWatch
240. ReutersIowa /
241. ReutersIowa
242. RT4
243. Scatasta-2007
244. Schubert
245. SciAm
246. Seattle
247. Seralini2007
248. Seralini2009
249. Seralini2011
250. Seralini2012/
251. Seralini2012
252. Sewell-India /
253. Sewell-India
254. Sheldon
255. Shermer
256. Smale_2006
257. Stutz/
258. Stutz
259. SupremeCourt
260. Sustainability2011
261. Temps
262. test
263. TheTimes2016
264. TimesGeneEditing/
265. TimesGeneEditing/
266. TimesGeneEditing
267. TMN1
268. ToxSoc2003/
269. ToxSoc2003
270. TWP
271. UC-ANR8180/
272. UC-ANR8180/
273. UC-ANR8180/
274. UC-ANR8180
275. UCS
276. VDC/
277. VDC
278. WalkerSeeds
279. Waltz/
280. Waltz
281. WASCsummary/
282. WASCsummary/
283. WASCsummary/
284. WASCsummary/
285. WASCsummary/
286. WASCsummary
287. web.ebscohost.com
288. WeedControlFreak
289. WELL
290. Wesseler-2005
291. Who Owns Nature? p14
292. why
293. whybiotech.com/
294. whybiotech.com
295. Zerbe2004

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 blocks of text can have the same 20 cites as 20 named wp:reftags, and only those 20 will be listed (once) under "References" as each double-linked ^{"a b"}; however, the spacing of each cite must be identical between the 2 blocks of text.

There is no need to combine all duplicate cites, as in fact it can be better when text needs to be deleted or moved into another page, where other text using the same cites has complete copies of those cites. Long term, many thousands of pages need to be split (or "un-merged") to reduce pages to simple encyclopedic topic versus "history of <topic>" or lists of people, books, songs (etc.) about that topic. Having several, major cites duplicated could help simplify those page splits.

As for cites duplicated several times, I would avoid bots but let the many wp:wikignomes edit those pages because they seem to like such work, as compared to rewriting text or expanding pages with new content or better sources. Many users truly enjoy simple, repetitive work, or hiking edit-count, and would nitpick some other small details if bots fixed cites too much. For users who can write complex bots, their time would be better spent by (re)writing main mega-pages such as "Cogito ergo sum" or "Plato's Academy" or "Jennifer Lopez" to improve pages read millions of times rather than fix minor details in the unseen wikitext. By contrast, bots tend to be twisted to perform "hypercorrection" such as forcing rare dashes into text phrases where hyphens have been used for decades or centuries, as in ranges "A-Z". -Wikid77 (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flux. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orders of magnitude (acceleration). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have worked, at least for the time being. TimothyJosephWood 00:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, wikid77. I'm just curious about your edit to Sci-Hub. You changed <ref name=":4" /> to <ref name=":0" />. That got rid of the error message, but how did you determine that ":0" was the correct reference? Looking at reference ":0", it doesn't seem to contain any material that would back up the statement that it's supposed to be referring to. Thanks for your attention. --Akhooha (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for the formatting/editing tips on your user page. Looking forwards to trying some of them out. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Competency test has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page that isn't disambiguating anything. The entries consist of a WP:DICDEF and a WP:PTM. Perhaps a stub could be created on the concept, but this isn't it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you created the top levels of the system (e.g. Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/ex3) you may be able to help with a current problem. If you look at Template:Taxonomy/Abavornis, it shows up as in error, and it doesn't display the topmost levels of the taxonomic hierarchy. This seems to be a depth problem, since working upwards Template:Taxonomy/Euenantiornithes has the same problem, but the problem disappears at Template:Taxonomy/Enantiornithes. The error is causing almost all the entries in Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color. I can't see why it has apparently suddenly appeared; something must have changed somewhere but I can't find it to revert it. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Wikid77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Harambe187187". The reason given for Harambe187187's block is: "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia".

• Blocking administrator: Widr (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: I can find no reason to believe you are directly related to that blocked vandal, and you are an editor in good standing. As such, I have lifted the autoblock. Sorry you got hit by that! Yamla (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vani Hari. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikid77, thanks for that copy edit on B-Dienst, it really needed it. But you've horsed two references in the process. The |volume= attribute doesn't work on the cite web template, so in this case putting in the volume attribute just horses the location of the document, making it unfindable in this instance, within the NSA. It's just disappears the document that the ref is pointing too and its used over the shop in the article. You need to check that refs are good, before moving on. Scope creep (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found this on cite web:

Quite recent, no wonder it's not working. Scope creep (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me that {cite web} since July 2016 now ignores "volume=" (and "issue=") which I keep forgetting because computer software completely ignoring valid parameters is so unbelievably MEGA-BROKEN that I would teach it as a mandatory concept in school class Computer Moron 101, how to ruin software in the worst ways possible. Please understand that when I rewrote {{cite_web}} into Lua script, I would never in a 1,000 years have imagined anyone would purposely break parameters in such a convoluted, twisted manner. However, thank you again, for reminding me how the ignore-volume wiki-nightmare is a real trainwreck that must be fixed ASAP. In fact, multi-volume PDF webpages are very common as {cite_web} links. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to see this thread. Re-cast the citation in question as:

{{citation |mode=cs1 |url= https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/friedman-documents/assets/files/correspondence/FOLDER_152/41746209078541.pdf |title= ABSTRACTS FROM "GERMAN NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE" |volume= Volume IF-210 Copy #3, |chapter= Chapter IV |pages= 135–161 |last= Freidman |first= William |publisher= William F. Friedman Collection of Official Papers |series= Folder 152; Document ref:A66767 |via= nsa.gov |access-date= 16 September 2016}}

and lo and behold you get:

Freidman, William. "Chapter IV". ABSTRACTS FROM "GERMAN NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE" (PDF). Folder 152; Document ref:A66767. Vol. Volume IF-210 Copy #3, . William F. Friedman Collection of Official Papers. pp. 135–161. Retrieved 16 September 2016 – via nsa.gov. {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

I'm certainly not defending all the changes that have been made to the citation templates, but there is a logic involved in this one: the material cited merely happens to be held on the website of nsa.gov. It's very different from, say, the GRIN Taxonomy for Plants website, which is designed and maintained as a web-based resource. So if you want to identify where the material is located, |via= is better than |website= – the latter is an alias of |work=. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Its a one size fits all solution, and it doesn't have any way to represent hierarchy in the way the some documents archives are arranged e.g. NSA, British Archive at Kew, for instance, the sort of military way of doing it, an archive within an archive within a folder on web entry. Do you teach software? Lua is a bit after my time. I'll put it in. It was real ugly, the way it read. I have a couple of other articles with a similar type, which will now be fixes. Thanks. Scope creep (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've edited these and I need some help. Due to a recent edit request, I traced an interesting challenge from the Common raven species box, which gives two classes, Aves and Reptilia, for the raven (this is also true for many other birds). I know there has been ongoing controversy about "birds as dinosaurs as reptiles"; however, I don't believe it is correct to show birds in two different taxonomy classes. It appears that it can be traced to Template:Taxonomy/Aves, which shows Aves at the bottom of the ancestral taxa box, several clades above it, and then "class: Reptilia", more clades until the "Superclass: Tetrapoda" is seen. I looked into the {{Taxonomy key}} template and started digging, and so far the most recent edit I've found is your 17 Sept. edit to {{Taxonomy links/cell}}, which doesn't seem to have any effect to correct the double-class problem. Anyway, I'm presently at a loss to find a solution to this and could really use your help. Thank you in advance for any help you can give!  Paine  ^u/c 23:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Reptiliae or Aves? There are ways to solve the problem, but there needs to be a consensus that for bird taxoboxes it's Aves that is treated as a class, not Reptilia. So far I judge that not enough editors have commented to be sure that this is so. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I think it should be the other way around. There should have been a consensus before the confusing situation of allowing two classes for birds in all their species boxes was allowed in the first place. Those boxes should be immediately changed to reflect just one class for birds as reflected at all the sources I've read: "Class: Aves". Thank you again, and I've left my 2 cents in the discussion you linked.  Paine  ^u/c 18:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Technical foul page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,I'm Matt from Malaysian,I just read the article about Malaysian country just now.if I not mistaken,there is a mistake about Malaysian Olympic medal obtained so far,I'm not sure what the real number is but Malaysian athlete had got 2 medal from platform diving so far,one bronze and one silver ,hope you or your teammates will make some correction about it,thank you for helping:-) 183.171.168.203 (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mino Raiola page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Table setting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flatware. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now for the second time removed your post to Jimbo's talk page with a clear indication that this is a WP:BLPTALK removal. I will hope not to need to do this a third time, as at that point further preventive action will be required. You may not throw around posts implying that living people are criminals with no context or support. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Queanbeyan District Cricket Club page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox observatory. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures episodes page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Sava-class submarine page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Sabhan Adam page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Rio Locsin page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Stoney Trail page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand why back in 2012 you created {{Taxobox/showtaxon}}. However, it did create a continuing anomaly in the automated taxobox system. The cells shown in the right-hand side table in a taxonomy template (such as e.g. {{Taxonomy/Amaurobius}}) have the rank name displayed via {{Anglicise rank}}. The cells shown in an article using an automated taxobox (such as e.g. Amaurobius) have the rank name displayed via {{Taxobox/showtaxon}}. Unless these two templates are kept strictly in step, the display can be different, e.g. the rank name having parentheses round it in one, but not the other, or being italicized in one, but not the other. I've recently edited {{Taxobox/showtaxon}} to try to keep them in step (e.g. |rank=unranked_ordo previously resulted in different output in the two places), but the code duplication continues to bother me. However, if {{Taxobox/showtaxon}} were altered to use {{Anglicise rank}}, it might cause template expansion depth problems again.

Any thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this, it might be enough to just cross-document the need to coordinate changes between the related templates. Otherwise, the wp:expansion depth limit is a very severe problem, even causing Template:Documentation to exceed depth when showing some /doc pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might be the case; I put notes on the /doc pages of the two templates; maybe there should also be an HTML comment in case a template editor doesn't read the documentation. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Auto taxon list 0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Brachiopoda/? (and hence the taxonomy templates with it as an ancestor) shows up as having exceeded the expansion depth, I think because of the use of {{taxon?}}. I believe this is something you know how to fix. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there any documentation for the logic behind the "short cuts" you've used to get round the expansion depth limit (e.g. at Template:Taxonomy/Dinosauromorpha)? If not, can I ask you to write some? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Periodic table. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you knew, but I didn't until today, that actually the effective nesting limit for templates is 20, since in a transcluded template, each contained template counts twice. I've amended Wikipedia:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit#Checking the current expansion limit to explain this – it would have saved me a lot of time if I'd known it before! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikid77. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there !

I had a query if you can help me on that.

Regards. Manisha Manisha20 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dental caries. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that I'm working on what seems to be by far the best solution to expansion depth limit problems. This is to rewrite the parts of the code that traverse the taxonomic hierarchy in Lua. It avoids completely the need to have multiple templates with nesting (like the t^ family for example). You just write loops! The expansion depth drops dramatically, and hierarchies of 100+ levels should be no problem.

Lua is so much easier! Using the template language, it took me about 3 days solid work to reduce the expansion depth needed to find the taxobox colour. It took me about 20 minutes to re-do it in Lua, and I'd never used the language before.

So far I've created Lua versions of the traversals needed to find the taxobox colour and to generate the table shown on the "Taxonomy/TAXON" pages. The final step is the traversal needed for the taxoboxes themselves. It looks straightforward, although it's necessary to work slowly, in view of the number of pages that would be affected by any error.

When converting traversals to Lua is finished, we should be able to restore the original behaviour of |same_as= and some of the other bits of the system that were disabled as part of fixes to reduce expansion depth. We shouldn't need hardcoded or /skip templates purely to reduce the number of levels.

Ultimately I think that most of the automated taxonomy system can be moved to Lua, leaving only the raw data stored in the taxonomy templates, since this format is much easier for most editors to set up and modify.

If you're interested, Module:Autotaxobox/sandbox will have the latest version. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter: The Lua script is powerful, but unfortunately, not portable to other wikis which use only the core MediaWiki software (as those users have reminded us). Meanwhile, I thought the plan was to reduce the taxonomy depth by using major taxon levels, to skip minor clades, and not encourage excessive clades by making it easier to have taxon depths over 100. Switching to Lua is the wrong solution, while ignoring the solution to set major taxon levels, but such is common when people find new computer tools and forget prior design decisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as has been shown several times, the automated taxonomy system is difficult to port to other wikis: because of the number of templates involved, the frequency with which they change, the number of detailed decisions about what ranks and levels to display that are built in to the system that aren't accepted elsewhere, the different taxonomies preferred elsewhere. Another major issue, as I found when I tried to help on the Basque Wikipedia, is the frequency with which key parts of the system are changed as problems crop up, and the complexity of re-implementing these. These problems aren't going to go away.

Secondly, yes, we could have introduced "majorparent", and I thought it was the answer. I started planning how to implement it. However, I quickly realized that it introduces problems of its own, similar to the hardcoding you introduced and similar to /skip templates. Who picks the "majorparent" taxa? On what criteria? How can you understand and edit taxonomies when some parts of the system skip bits of them and others don't? Who decides how far up a hierarchy to follow "parent" and when to switch to "majorparent"? If we allow editors to decide article by article, as I think they will demand, in the same way that they can choose how many ancestors to display (i.e. we have a parameter that sets how many "parent" links are followed before "majorparents" are) then depth problems can't be prevented. If we don't allow this, then there will be conflicts over where to put "majorparent" links. (And, of course, selecting whether to follow "parent" or "majorparent" itself introduces extra expansion depth, making the allowable hierarchy even shallower.)

The truth is that the template language is totally unsuited to coding the traversal part of the automated taxobox system. I spent 3-4 days solidly working on the colour setting system, and managed to shave off 3-4 depth levels: just enough to make Pteranodon work properly. But even "reasonable" depth hierarchies, such as for most plant taxa, produced expansion depths in the high 30's. This means there would be little or no scope for any major additions/changes, since these invariably introduce more expansions. For example, the correct logic for selecting taxobox colour couldn't be implemented (at least I couldn't do it): if going up the hierarchy you find "incertae sedis" you should note this fact but carry on to see if there's a 'real' colour above, then only use the incertae sedis colour if no 'real' colour is found. Implementing this in the template language needs nested if statements, and instantly sharply increases the expansion depth.

I conclude that "majorparent" would be another temporary fix: it would solve the problem for a while but would not be a permanent long term solution. The only long term solution is to code the traversal in a different language. I'm sorry if this isn't a solution for other wikis, but it is for us. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that more and more of key templates in the English Wikipedia either have been or are being converted to Lua: the citation templates are perhaps the most striking example, all of which are now implemented via Module:Citation/CS1, which is used on over 3,100,000 pages. {{Clade}} will soon be converted, and will then work much better, allowing larger cladograms. So very few pages in the English Wikipedia would now work in the same way if moved to a wiki without support for Lua. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Calc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JMHamo (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid77, need some assistance with this template. I have updated the latest population, and the new population number appeared in all the infoboxes for all the towns/cities, except for the "time" and the reference. It looks like the template's time and reference are following its predecessor from DE template. Can you please take a look? I have changed and saved a few times but the date remains 1 January 2016 and the reference is as per DE template. Thanks --Jay (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although timestamp should come from "Template:Metadata population AT-4", there was a design flaw where the timestamp comes from AT-1 (Template:Metadata population AT-1) and should be fixed to use "4" not "1" when population code has prefix "4". -Wikid77 (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the timestamp, however, the reference is still wrong. If you noticed, I changed the reference to Statistik Austria - ...... Erstellt am 14.06.2016 (Last accessed 13.12.2016) but it still showing the old one. --Jay (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok now. Thanks --Jay (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikitable has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Calculation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For/help has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to comment on TFD discussions, but you should not be closing discussions early, especially when you are the template's creator. Dispute the nomination by responding, not by acting out of order. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Convert/ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Join has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milky Way. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<<end>>

See next: User talk:Wikid77/Archive 12.