User talk:Bsherr/Archives/2020

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dear, the results of the change is the same, the end user will not notice the diference, please accept it. It is bad to have url to the non-existing page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrek3313 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome. Been here awhile, though. --Bsherr (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bsherr/Archives,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the

WP:RPATROL

.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether
  Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure
  .
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

WP:SPAM

for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI. Wikiblame is back and the removed information is in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=829448688&diffmode=source. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Danbloch: Oh yes. I've had that exact rev open on my computer overnight now. The question is how to fix it, because Jayron32 was well intentioned I'm sure but made a right mess of the organization of the page. Working on it. Thanks! --Bsherr (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

have you had any discussion with anyone about your current removals? It would be very interesting to know how the idea evolved, I know about 10 years ago or more there were discussions as to the scope of the project, but havent noticed anything recently... unless I missed something... JarrahTree 07:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @JarrahTree: I'm working with the premise that the scope remains what is stated: (1) the outline of Wikipedia and everything listed in it, articles on subjects directly related to Wikipedia, (2) articles on each edition of Wikipedia, (3) articles on Wikipedians who are notable for being involved with Wikipedia, and (4) other Wikipedia-related articles, especially in Category:Wikipedia or its subcategories. There has been quite a lot of misapplication of the project template to maintenance categories and project pages, so much so that, before I began, fully 75% of the pages supposedly in the project were categories and project pages, most of them having nothing to do with articles covering Wikipedia. I'm just making obvious removals, from maintenance/project categories pages, and from content categories in which Wikipedia-related things are just members, as opposed to the category being about Wikipedia-related things, nothing approaching a judgment call on content. The goal is just to get accurate assessment statistics. --Bsherr (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

thanks very much for your explanation, so I assume you havent talked with anyone else, as for things being obvious - I am sure you have been here long enough that even the most obvious can be of indeed fascinating twists and turns in the most intriguing ways - the problem with the project (taking scope into consideration all that time ago it was a mix with history, not sure where the discussion happened) - in relation to removal - there is another way of looking at the subject in a way that there is a range of materials that could be potentially forked off into task forces/ or even separate projects rather than just cleared of the project tag, surely ? The lack of any project as an overseer of such areas as GLAM/outreach, and wider wikipedia maintenance could easily have a valid reason at the project council proposals... Then there is always the possibility if there had been a discussion - either scope or potential variations could have been worked on... The collaborative nature of wp seems to get lost so much these days... sigh... JarrahTree 13:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

from this please understand it is meant in

WP:AGF - over time the sheer lack of interest in project scope and dimensions in a whole range of subject areas here in a wide range of projects - had led me to probably be the main culprit for the wikipedia project tagging - what concerns me now is less of any concern to argue for or against dealing with the wp wikipedia scope or whatever, it is how or what now to do about the range of items set free, and the lack of any collective interest in the 3 main red link/we're too cool to have project tags areas - maintenance, glam/outreach and discarded wikipedia project items. As it stands, the general sense of anything to do with bizarre project tagging or none at all, or totally unsuitable project linkages - seem to permeate the wider editing... JarrahTree

13:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Although, I would say at least in my opinion that, and while I can't speak to GLAM, there is interest in maintenance and old project stuff, even if it's not organized interest. --Bsherr (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: That's a fair and thoughtful inquiry. I'll give my view at least. Task forces, I wouldn't think so, as they are, at least mostly, subordinate to the scope of the project. Other projects? Well, no one could fully rule that out. But, for identifying pages within the scope of a future project, categorization would be much more accurate than where this project's template appears. Because project pages and categories are hardly ever assessed for importance, even assuming importance to this project would be useful for importance to another project, there's no loss of information there either. And nothing's permanent on Wikipedia. Should the need arise to tag pages for a future project, I'm here to lend a hand for that too. Or even if there should emerge a consensus to tag all of these pages again, for any reason. --Bsherr (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you very much for your responses - and your positivity is very much appreciated. What might happen about a genuine maintenance project to work on and organise and compartmentalise from the talk page side of things would be something I would seek in my 15th year with enthusiasm if it had any chance to get beyond my stalled suggestion of whenever it was (probably 7 or 8 years ago I think at project council) - there are many pages and categories that could benefit by overview from something like a project - of the 4 or 5 editors from early years who might have been supportive of the idea - they are either no longer editing or have simply moved on ... JarrahTree 14:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see the issue with transcluding the z tracker into already existing uses of the templates. Either way, I've added all five templates to Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted so sooner or later AnomieBot should substitute them all. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Please wait until I can catch up. These changes are problematic. --Bsherr (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

How are they problematic. A user warning template should never not be substituted so if anything, you should be undoing the addition of the z template, not the automatic substitution templates. That's the opposite of what we're trying to accomplish (unless you plan on AWBing them all and then reapplying the template). Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please wait until I can explain? Right now, I urgently need to prevent the bots from auto substituting. --Bsherr (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the z tracker from all test templates. Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Okay, sorry, now I have a chance to respond in full. So, gathering statistics on the use of the TestX templates to make a case for deletion has been a long-term goal of Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings. I take it that's what you are up to? In order to get accurate statistics, the existing transclusions need to be substituted first. However, when we began doing that, we noticed that a high percentage, something like 50% or so, were unsigned too. Rather than leave that problem unaddressed, we've been fixing those too. We've done probably a few hundred already (yes, semi-automatically, with AWB, exactly). But that's why we haven't set the templates for auto-substitution, because it makes it harder to find those problems. Anyway, nice to meet you. So, how can we work together? --Bsherr (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and we've also seen a correlation with other templates that need to be substituted, like Template:Stop. Another reason for the semi-automatic process. --Bsherr (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the safety switch limited the effects. User talk:AnomieBOT#TemplateSubster: Template:Test has too many transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I stumbled upon this z tracking stuff earlier today and I was introduced to the TestN templates, of which I had never heard of before. I do believe that they should be repurposed or redirected, especially given each "level" refers to a different type of disruption; {{

test5i}} (which is oddly named; does the "i" stand for indef?) is a catch 'em all, mentioning most types of disruption. Is there a discussion about these templates that I can read beyond the various no consensus TfDs? I apologise for my hastiness before. Anarchyte (talk • work

)

@

WT:UTM. I'm sorry, I wish I could remember exactly when. (And yes, exactly right, the "i" in Test5i is for indef. Haha, it was a really intuitive system back then, wasn't it?) --Bsherr (talk

) 16:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Aren't Z numbers superseded by insource searches anyway? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There's certainly an argument for that. --Bsherr (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Check me, but I think I'm done substituting existing transclusions on user talk pages. Want to add back those Z trackers now? --Bsherr (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion at WP:RS talk to address an issue of consistency w WP:V and WP:NOR. Can you take a look at that, particularly my last comment where I try to address the issues the other participants raised, and let me know if my efforts there are misdirected? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I added to my last cmt there to address an anticipated criticism. Humanengr (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bsherr/Archives,

Your help can make a difference

ACPERM

, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

One possibility would be an 'Independence matters' sub-§ above 'Age matters' … that copies Guy's suggested The great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources from the end of

Further information: independent sources

The great majority of any article must be drawn from

neutral point of view in an article

.

Make sense? Appreciative of your thoughts, Humanengr (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, did you see my cmt here re inverting the order of 'reliable independent'? Humanengr (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I did, but I still think either (1) reversing the order still conjoins them, or (2) it gives too much weight to independence in the context of reliable sources, in which it is merely one of several factors determining reliability. Appreciate your taking up the mantle of trying to pitch a solution to this. --Bsherr (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like that conjoining began with SlimVirgin's 2006 edit in WP:V. I'm still mulling, … one q to ask: which, if any, of the 'several factors' would you say merit inclusion in the Overview? Humanengr (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Hi Primefac. I recently noticed a documentation subpage left behind after an XfD deletion, so I thought I'd increase my diligence with tagging connected pages. Of course I would want to do whatever is easiest. Perhaps we should we look at revising the instruction to tag pages whose subject page or base page is already tagged for deletion? Sounds like that might not be helpful. --Bsherr (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Documentation subpages are not automatically included in speedy deletions (and/or XFDCloser's semi-automatic deletions) but redirects and talk pages are caught, so it is worth nominating subpages. On which page did you see this notice? Primefac (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Got it. Sorry, which notice? --Bsherr (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You said Perhaps we should we look at revising the instruction..., I was wondering to which instruction you were referring. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Oh, right, on the banner itself, it says This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a talk page of a page ... itself currently tagged for speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... I won't argue with the template notation, and as alluded to earlier it's not like I can stop you from doing what you feel is best, just letting you know what I have found helpful :-) Primefac (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@

WT:CSD about advising not to tag talk pages whose subject page is also tagged? --Bsherr (talk

) 17:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Can't hurt. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		This Working Man's barnstar is awarded to Bsherr for copy editing articles totalling 10,168 words during the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 backlog drive. Your contributions are appreciated!--Diannaa (Talk ) 16:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The pages with Template:Infobox French commune can not appear correctly. Fix it soon please.--Bigbullfrog1996 (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry about that. --Bsherr (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Was this really worth requiring over a million pages to be re-parsed for? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I don't know. Have you experienced any lag? --Bsherr (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if that edit causes lag, it is still a cosmetic edit just as changing {{

WP:AWBRULES

particularly #4. Please stop.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm reviewing uses of tld to determine whether they should actually be uses of tlc. As you know, they're not the same template; there are functional differences between the templates, and correcting these transclusions is the necessary prerequisite to updating the documentation of tld so they are properly differentiated going forward. While I am doing that, I am also reviewing uses generally to determine whether code style is appropriate, moving categories and inter-wiki links, updating Wikidata information, and supplying updated comment instructions in connection with the use of the documentation template. I'll leave pages without comment instructions alone if there are no other changes, if that will satisfy you. --Bsherr (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of your intent, cosmetic edits with AWB, like this one, are a violation of the rules. Please file a BRFA to get consensus to do these edits with AWB. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit has nothing to do with {{

tlc}}. It looks like you are willing to stop doing those. Again, if you file a BRFA, you might obtain consensus that this is a useful edit to be performed by a bot or AWB-assisted editor. – Jonesey95 (talk

) 02:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Since there is opposition to adding the standard comment documentation with {{Documentation}}, I won't do that, if that's the sole edit. If it's all right, I will continue to update erroneous, outdated comment documentation, not by seeking it out specifically, but by correcting it when I find it. It is tangential to the actual work I am doing. --Bsherr (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: What I am trying to explain is that tlc and tld are not interchangeable, so it is not a cosmetic edit. (And if it is not a cosmetic edit, then there is no need to go to BFRA.) Rather, I am trying to review their transclusions and sort between them so I can properly update the templates and their documentation. If you disagree (and thus what you are essentially saying is you think tlc and tld are indistinguishable, or "cosmetically indistinguishable", or something like that), then I suppose we should have a TfD to determine the consensus on that question. (BFRA seems a particularly awful choice of forum to discuss that question.) Is that your position at the moment? --Bsherr (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

An edit changing tlc to tld, or vice versa, appears to be a "cosmetic" or "insignificant" edit, as defined in AWB rule 4, linked above: An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. Is there some difference to the rendered page that I am not seeing? As for BRFA, the best way to go there is with a talk page consensus already established. The best place to get that is probably at

Template talk:Tlc or a similar forum. – Jonesey95 (talk

) 04:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit changes:

{{tld|Infobox religious biography}} → {{Infobox religious biography}}

to:

{{tl|Infobox religious biography}} → {{Infobox religious biography}}

which, technically speaking, changes what the reader sees but, runs afoul of

WP:OVERLINK

– trading one transgression for another. Please stop.

The things that make {{

tlc

}} different from each other are:

• the number of positional parameters they support ({{tld}}: 12, {{tlc}}: 9)
• (undocumented) control parameters:
  • {{tld}} has: |allowlinebreak= apparently used only twice, see this search
  • {{tlc}} has: |a=; apparently not used, see this search
• {{tld}} calls {{
  tlg
  }}; {{tlc}} does not (probably necessary to support the unused control parameter |a=)
• apparently {{tlg}} can be substed; presumably that means that {{tld}} can also be substed (I have not tested this)

Where the control parameters are not used, the renderings are the same so changing one to the other as you did with this edit is purely cosmetic:

<span class="nowrap"><code>&#123;&#123;Infobox ILO convention&#125;&#125;</code></span> → {{Infobox ILO convention}}

<span class="nowrap"><code>&#123;&#123;Infobox ILO convention&#125;&#125;</code></span> → {{Infobox ILO convention}}

Please stop.

It would seem better to propose a merger of {{tld}} and {{tlc}} at

WP:TfD (perhaps as an expansion of the capabilities in Module:tlg

). A successful outcome there would then provide appropriate justification for what you are doing and would benefit the encyclopedia.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK only applies to articles. The analysis you provided of the differences between tlc and tld reflects their current configuration, but not their historical use. Do you want to provide me your analysis of that? We've both been at this project a while, so it would be nice if you gave me time to explain before rushing to judgment. I'll save the rest for TfD, I guess. --Bsherr (talk

) 20:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Template:Tld, for your consideration. --Bsherr (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk ) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Bsherr/Archives,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the

redirect whitelist

.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	talk )	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious

improving citations

Thank you for quality articles such as Rachel Sussman (2010), HMS Taiaroa (1883) and Volunteering New Zealand, for dealing with templates for deletion based on policy, for gnomish work regarding legal issues based on professional background, for "removing questionable source" and running the status bot, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 14:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)