User talk:Certes

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Good afternoon Certes. Looking at your Discussion page, you seem a reasonable chap so here goes. You have insisted on including a link to Model (person) within the Model (disambiguation) page. That disambiguation page however contains only peripheral terms such as titles of songs, or completely unrelated terms such as MODEL - Movement for Democracy in Liberia.

In my view, the Model (person) link would sit more logically in the Model page, which already lists links to artist's model, fashion model, and role model and provides context. Take a look at the current version of the Model page, now changed following your remarks, and let me know what you think.

If you agree, then please delete in the Model (disambiguation) page the links for Model (person) and Model (logic). If you disagree, then do nothing and I will live with it.

Please mind that I am currently travelling and may not be able to answer immediately.86.151.98.28 (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the disambiguation page is to guide the reader wanting information on one of the many topics called "model" to the most appropriate article. Many of them will be looking for

inclusion criteria, and there's even an argument for promoting it to the top of the page as the topic most likely to be sought. Certes (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, agreed. However on the same basis, would you support removing the

Model (logic) link from the disambiguation page? It has only 52 visits per day, and sits oddly with all the song titles etc., and is already linked on the Model page in appropriate context with abstract models.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:8474:DA53:3154:39B4 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

No minimum number of visits is needed. Articles on obscure topics such as

Model (logic) is a subtopic of Model and is dealt with there. However, it has a separate article which contains a far more detailed treatment than is appropriate for the one-line summary in Model. It seems helpful to allow the reader to go straight to that page rather than having to find the link within a broader article. Certes (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Until a few months ago, the disambiguation article was organised as you are arguing now: a long list of links on diverse subjects containing the word "model", ranging from German field marshal Walter Model to MODEL - Movement for Democracy in Liberia to fashion models and mathematical modelling theories. However, more recently someone (not me) removed all the physical/abstract model-related links and put them into the current Model article, and added a chapter on General Model Theory to wrap it all together. Next, I think, someone sneaked the links for Model (logic) and Model (person) back into the disambiguation article. This confusing back-and-forth will never settle down until the criteria for inclusion are set out in the disambiguation header. Any ideas? I have one...86.151.98.28 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: let's see what the experts at WikiProject Disambiguation have to say. Certes (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are the experts now. I am making a change to the disambiguation header, and removing Model (logic). See if you like that version. If not, revert. But think about it first. 86.151.98.28 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Certes (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Certes. You have deleted the infamous World War II general

Wikipedia's normal practice is to list people sharing a name on a separate page, following the guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Names. The essay Wikipedia:Name pages#Compared to disambiguation pages has further explanation. If you feel that those principles are wrong, let's discuss the matter more widely, perhaps at the disambiguation wikiproject. If you agree with the guidelines but feel that the general is an exceptional case, please explain why, ideally at Talk:Model (disambiguation) or the wikiproject. Either way, I hope we can find a consensus about what to include on the disambiguation page. Certes (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Road marker IN NH has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Road marker sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Certes. I need your advice on deleting a superfluous Wikipedia article, to wit, Mind model. Please take a look at my argument on Talk:Mind model, and advise me whether a specific deletion template exists that I should be using to alert other editors to the deletion request. Furthermore I would value your opinion. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:ACAD:F546:A9E3:D423 (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate the page for deletion by following the

merged into Model itself, with Mind model becoming a redirect to there. That might be a good alternative to deletion here. Certes (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I have followed the instructions and added a tag. As for your suggestion of moving the links to Model: I instead suggest splitting up the links to two other pages, because the Mind model page is confusing two distinct topics: Conceptual models (models of external reality, created by the mind) and Mental models (models of how the mind works, as proposed by psychologists). Let us see what others say. 86.167.104.11 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your changes and they seem fine to me. As an administrator, do you have a tool whereby you can efficiently replace, all over Wikipedia, any "Mind Model" links with "Model" links, given that "Mind Model" is a non-word? 86.167.104.11 (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator but there are no incoming links to

WP:INTDAB.) Indeed, any significant incoming links would show the page to be used and useful and cause us to doubt its deletion. Certes (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have had my mind changed on Mind model and propose a consensus. Could you please go to the Mind model Talk page and comment? Thanks. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:C9:F9D1:7093:274A (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: there is relevant information at Wikipedia:Merging. Certes (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. 86.191.32.215 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please make a arrangement in a way to get details of all soda industry Pakistan EngineerNayabNaveed (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I have no knowledge about that topic and am unable to help. Certes (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you with its a second largest soda industry EngineerNayabNaveed (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean one of the chemicals called "soda" then WikiProject Chemicals may be able to help. If you would like an article about a food or drink then WikiProject Food and drink may be a good starting place. Certes (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Long time, no see.

I've started a revamp of Wikipedia:Tools/Optimum tool set.

Please take a look and let me know if there are any essential techniques or must have tools that you think should be included.

Thank you.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   06:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a useful list. The main tools I use that aren't listed there are

Quarry (which is about to be replaced). Certes (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Database report looks cool. Now I have to learn SQL! Maybe perplexity can write it for me.

Quarry is about to be replaced. Good to know. Perfect timing for me to learn the new tool. Thank you!

If you think of any more, let me know.

Some quick questions:

Why do you use JWB when there's AWB?

AutoEd sounds like the general fixes and typo-fixes features built-in to AWB. What benefit do you find in using AutoEd instead?

I look forward to your replies. Thank you. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AWB is designed for Windows and doesn't work as well on my OS. It also means starting a separate application, but I find it more convenient to run JWB in the browser I use for Wikipedia. I leave several JWB tabs permanently open: one for bulk typos, one for adding short descriptions, etc. My main use of AutoEd is for fixing wikilinks. I have a Tampermonkey script which adds a wikilink to each entry on a report to open the article in edit mode and make the most common fix for that term, e.g. Model → Model (person)|Model. I need to check the results carefully before publishing because often I need to make a different fix or just discard the preview when the original was correct, but it saves a lot of time. I don't think AWB or JWB could do that so easily. Certes (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive. By the way, where'd you get the data for the most common fix for each term?    — The Transhumanist   10:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just made up manually. Some have multiple options, for example Acre can intend either Acre, Israel or Acre (state). Certes (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion : User talk:Maxim Masiutin/Archives/2023/November#Short descriptions from Wikidata

Sorry for removing the article description template, I was using the {{Template:Annotated link}} template and the description in Wikidata items started from a lowercase characters whereas the description template has to be started with an uppercase character. I also need lowercase character. Therefore, I thought wikidata would be one-for-all option to avoid duplication on information, but if you need the article description template, I will use the "desc_first_letter_case=lower" parameter for the {{Template:Annotated link}}.

By the way, why do you need the article description template explicitly rather than taking the data from Wikidata item? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: Two reasons. Firstly, the SD from Wikidata simply doesn't appear in some articles. It only appears if something like an infobox explicitly collects it from Wikidata, and we've generally decided not to do that. Secondly, we don't want descriptions in Wikipedia to update automatically whenever someone vandalises Wikidata. Certes (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry for that, I didn't know. I apologize again! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. We don't do a great job of documenting such practices, and I can't blame anyone for not knowing about them. Certes (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read help on both Short description and Wikidata item description and it seems that I figure out the differences. I tried to explain them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Short_descriptions#What_are_the_differences_betewen_a_Short_description_and_a_description_from_the_Wikidata_item? -- you opinion is welcome Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: I think that's all true. One small point: it's right to say that the Wikidata item description is without initial articles (a, an, the), but so is the Wikipedia SD, so that's not a difference. Certes (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although not directly related to what you wrote, I think another point is worth mentioning. Unless a SD is set in the Wikipedia article, either explicitly through {{short description}} or via a template such as certain types of infobox, the article has no SD. The Wikidata item description used to be used automatically as a fallback, and it still is on some wikis, but English Wikipedia asked the WMF to remove that feature because of vandalism to rarely-visited Wikidata pages. To take a couple of examples: removing the {{short description}} from Grommet would leave it with no SD, because none of its templates set a SD. The Wikidata item description would not appear instead. Removing the {{short description}} from Urinary retention would leave it with a more generic SD of "Medical condition", provided as a backup by {{Infobox medical condition}}, not the Wikidata item description. Certes (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that according to the rules of

WP:SDNOTDEF) whereas the item descripion on Wikidata item correctly gives the a very brief indication of the field covered by the article. I will update the section I written according to your advice. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"Medical condition" would be adequate. I think "Inability to completely empty the bladder" also passes

WP:SDNOTDEF as an otherwise-suitable short description that also happens to work as a definition. I'd say that the latter is slightly better, as it confirms for the layman that the article is about a bladder condition rather than an alternative ailment somewhere else in the urinary tract that might have a similar effect. At 41 characters, it could be criticised as slightly too long but I think that's nitpicking: it conveys the meaning even if slightly truncated. If you ask at the WikiProject, editors with more experience of SDs might give a more informed opinion. Certes (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

December 2023 was the first time I had to go to school and then I was in the world 185.213.230.125 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I hope you enjoy school! Education is wonderful, and I'm proud that Wikipedia contributors are doing their bit to help. Certes (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Certes, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, GoingBatty (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

GoingBatty (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Certes: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20,674 people were killed and 54,536 people were injured. https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1362124/israel-continues-bombardment-of-gaza-southern-lebanon-amid-muted-christmas-celebrations-day-80-of-hamas-israel-war.html 173.44.89.180 (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be adding this information to any articles but, if you would like help, please leave a message on the relevant article's talk page. Certes (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Certes.

Could you help me with the article 'Gabriel Alemparte' (about which you made a small edit to my content)? There's a user —named Bedivere— who wants to delete the article for a supposed

Could you vote to keep it in the deletion discussion, please?

Thanks for your attention.

--Carigval.97 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CANVASS. Happy editing, Certes (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Changes the link from Mahagathbandhan (2019) to Mahagathbandhan (Uttar Pradesh; 2019) Yuthtuth22 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

edit request to the article's talk page. Certes (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

thank you for the message, and I’m sorry for my errors. The link you gave, me, it helped me realize all of them were showing up there. Ill go fix them now. Also, I was hoping people can help with the edits too, but I should own up to it, although, I think the pages are weirdly setup,a nd probably should not have been setup that way. Nice meeting you by the way. Ebbedlila (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I merely fixed a link and have no opinion on the merger. Certes (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Certes, and a very happy, prosperous and productive New year to you and your loved ones. (I think it's a bit late but still possible to issue such wishes, it is still just 2024 after all :) Long time, no chat, I hope you're keeping well and out of trouble ....

I have an enquiry / favour to ask of you with regard to some template / module coding issues that are bamboozling me ATM. I've been working recently on upgrading the

Your insights / comments / possible solutions would be greatly appreciated if you can spare the matter some of your time. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactus.man: Thank you, and lang may yer lum reek. Yes, the portal templates extract just the lead. The lead is meant to summarise the article, so it might be better to copy text selectively from sections such as "career" into the lead rather than moving them leaving some information only in the lead. More generic alternatives such as {{Excerpt}}, which was based on the portal code, are more flexible and can extract all or part of a named section or even the whole article. You might want to turn off references, which the portal templates remove by default but Excerpt leaves in. Certes (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes:, many thanks - good, sound advice as always. I've started dabbling with the {{Excerpt}} template which I think will deal with most of the excerpt length problems that have been troubling me for some time. Just need to follow the guidance on parameter usage for advanced formatting. My lum is now reeking nicely :) --Cactus.man ✍ 08:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of retired numbers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of retired numbers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you were kind enough to thank me for removing the red linked Portals and I see you are an experienced AWB user I am wondering if there is a way to amend category pages using it? For example I want to remove Portal World War I from Category:World War I auxiliary ships of Belgium but I can't see a way to get a list of category pages into AWB. Looking at the guide possibly All Pages would do it but that option does not appear on my AWB Lyndaship (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

JWB which can search in chosen namespaces. I'd just search Category: for linksto:"Portal:World War I" and use that list. I'm sure AWB also has that feature. (Normally I'd do the Template: namespace first, because some categories might link via a template, but I don't think any do in this case.) Certes (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks I'll investigate JWB. I've spent a frustrating couple of hours on the search feature of AWB trying out various permutations without luck, found Special pages but can't get any Category results. There's a considerable number using a template on the Portals with red links category but that's something for a future look at Lyndaship (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AWB or JWB can use Special:WhatLinksHere, but JWB (and almost certainly AWB) can do Cirrus search using the linksto: keyword. Certes (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JWB works a treat Lyndaship (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently deleted the mention of the author Sean Michael Wilson as an Edinburgh born authors, on the grounds that "limit to a selection of especially notable authors”. Surely he counts as that. He has written 40 books (published in 13 languages), is the first Scottish person to ever get an Manga award from the Japanese government, the only Scottish person to ever have several original books published by the Japanese publisher Kodansha (one of the biggest publishers in the world), one of his books was launched at a special event in the Houses of Parliament in London and has won several other awards. If that does not make him ‘notable’ then what would you count as such? Thanks. Topknot2 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment refers to Edinburgh. Wilson may be notable, in that he has an article (though it's tagged as needing more citations). However, 259 writers from Edinburgh have articles and a list of them all would dominate an article which is not principally about authors. We should limit the list to authors who pass a threshold well beyond notability, just including a handful of the most important household names who are on everyone's bookshelf. For a more objective assessment, see page views. Wilson and Harden are an order of magnitude less viewed than the other writers. Based on this information, I've also just delisted Harden. Certes (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took on the job of creating the Alphabetical (most frequently redlinked) redlists after you set up the initial ones. This month I have had a total fail in creating the list for S1 and am hoping you will be able to fix it, please. From there, I should be able to create the others required. I note that L, M2 and N all have the same problem. Hopefully, with your help I will be able to fix them all. Oronsay (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oronsay: Internally, the query stores subcategories of Feminine given names in a column which used to expand automatically to hold longer subcategory names but now falls over instead. The broken reports are precisely the ones which have been re-run since 21 February. I don't understand why; perhaps the database engine has been quietly "upgraded" to break this useful feature. I amended the query in S1. Unfortunately, it then timed out so I've reduced it to Sa-Sdzzz which works. We may need S3 and perhaps S4 along with the expected S1 and S2. I could make a similar change to the other initials and re-run the broken ones, but everything is currently timing out. Perhaps the servers are just very busy and I can finish this off at a quieter time. Certes (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for looking into this and explaining the timing out issue. I thought I'd mucked up the coding somehow. I'm not sure how many people are actually using these lists to generate new bios. Early in the alphabet (July-August perhaps) I remember some discussion about continuing them, but given no definite decision to stop, I've kept creating them. Let's wait and see if the current problem resolves itself as we have a week before the invitation goes out for the April events. Oronsay (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oronsay: Today I can get the amended queries to run but they're over 100 times slower than last month. I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Request a query#Women in Red. Certes (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think limiting the lists to 7 or more links would be better? At this stage, I've held off creating more lists for S and T, while we wait an answer to your request for help. I have commented this facet out of the Alphabet Run as the Invitation is due to be broadcast before the end of the month. Oronsay (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think limiting the lists to 7 or more links would speed the queries up. However, it would be easy to do if there are other advantages, such as allowing article creators to concentrate on the more important cases only. Just change 5 to 7 in the line that starts HAVING. Certes (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

here. Certes (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

More good news. Remembering that I'd limited it temporarily to Sa-Sd, I was about to reset S1 to Sa-Sm when I thought I'd try the whole of S. It works, so we shouldn't need splits like S1/S2 any more. Certes (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pursuing this and finding resolution. You originally suggested we may need to split the letter T (see opening para of this section). Do you think that is the case, given that S now didn't need splitting? Oronsay (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just created T and it ran in 54 seconds. I don't think any letters need to be split now. Tuning SQL is a black art but I think the problem we just fixed had always affected longer runs such as the whole of S, necessitating the split, and suddenly started to affect shorter runs too. Having fixed it for the shorter runs, the longer ones now work, so we're ahead of where we were before the problem arose. I hope there's still time to use this data during your current drive. Certes (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

@Oronsay: I've changed two of our fastest reports: A1 and C2. Unsurprisingly, the effect of the database improvement is to make the queries run three or four times slower. If this is repeated across the other letters, several of them are likely to time out and need splitting, e.g. A2 into A2 + A3 and B into B1 + B2. Do we care much about the letters that have already been run, or is it only worth fixing S to Z? I've raised another query with Cryptic to see if I've missed a trick and can optimise these further. Certes (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for paying so much attention to this and chasing me when I failed to reply. As I mentioned in my 2nd post in this thread, WIR had originally planned to reconsider after the first few months. I just took on the task of creating the new lists each month. I have just updated Alphabet run: S & T to show the two lists you recently created. From my observation, few editors have used the lists to generate articles, despite it seeming such a good idea. I'm not sure how we should handle this, given that the lists appear in the Redlist index – should we raise it on the Ideas page or the main WIR talk page before you spend any more time and effort on the lists? Oronsay (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions but I'm not sure I have answers – I understand what WIR is achieving, but not the workflow or whether these lists form a useful part of it. The database change is now in progress and the data is available temporarily in both old and new formats. One option is just to run U to Z reports as a one-off in the next week or so before the old, efficient format goes away, then use those reports later if and when someone finds them helpful. That way, the only effort needed is to copy and paste the T page a few times changing the initial. The results may be outdated by the time anyone uses them, but this was never going to be an exact operation given the pollution by navbox templates and the false positives which look like women's names but aren't. Certes (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created U, V, W and XYZ. They will become outdated and will not be easy to update, but that's probably all we can do for now. Certes (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will make sure the lists are used in the upcoming events. Oronsay (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect London (Disambiguation) has been listed at

Your comment UCoC may claim precedence over ArbCom, the laws of physics and all major deities [...][2] piqued my curiosity - are you intending to imply that the UCoC doesn't claim precedence over minor deities? Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may just have found a useful loophole. Certes (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could I persuade you to give a third opinion at Talk:PAG#Merge proposal please? Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've pontificated there with a compromise proposal. Certes (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I recently noticed that you translated some references on

Regards, XabqEfdg (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XabqEfdg: I use a simple perl script which I hacked together (and hereby release into the public domain) which takes the old wikitext on standard input and prints the revised wikitext on standard output. It's not perfect but takes out some of the drudgery.

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;

my %fr_en = (
"langue" => "language",
"titre" => "title",
"lire en ligne" => "url",
"consulté le" => "access-date",
'auteur(\d*)' => 'author$1',
'prénom(\d*)' => 'first$1',
'nom(\d*)' => 'last$1',
"périodique" => "periodical",
"numéro" => "number",
);

my %month = (
 "janvier" => "January",
 "février" => "February",
 "mars" => "March",
 "avril" => "April",
 "mai" => "May",
 "juin" => "June",
 "juillet" => "July",
 "aout" => "August",
 "août" => "August",
 "septembre" => "September",
 "octobre" => "October",
 "novembre" => "November",
 "décembre" => "December",
);

# =e flag means produce verbose debug on standard error
my $err = ($ARGV[0] && $ARGV[0] eq "-e" && shift);

# Grab old wikitext from standard input
my $page = slurp();

# Call translate() on each {{Article|...}}} template
$page =~ s/\{\{\s*[Aa]rticle\b(.*?\}\})/translate("{{Cite journal$1")/egs;

# Dump new wikitext onto STDOUT
print $page;
exit 0;

# Grab all of standard input
sub slurp {
	local $/ = undef;
	return <>;
}

# Translate one {{Article}} template
sub translate {
	my ($ref) = @_;
	my $mois = "";
	my $annee = "";

	$ref =~ s/\|\s*mois\s*=\s*([^|}]*)//i and $mois = $1;
	$ref =~ s/\|\s*année\s*=\s*([^|}]*)//i and $annee = $1;
	$ref =~ s/(?:\{\{|\|)\s*\K(?:jour|date)\s*=\s*([^|}]+)/join_date($1, $mois, $annee)/ie;

	# Translate each expected French parameter name
	for (keys %fr_en) {
		$ref =~ s/(?:\{\{|\|)\s*\K($_)(?=\s*[=|])/fr2en($_,$1)/ieg;
	}

	# English language sources are not worth marking at enwp
	$ref =~ s/\s*language\s*=\s*en\s*\|//;

	# French language sources are marked at enwp
	$ref =~ s/\s*language\s*=\s*(français\s*)?\|/language=fr|/;

	# Fix |date= if d,m,y arrived separately
	$ref =~ s/(date\s*=)\s*([^|}]*)/$1.fix_date($2)/eg;
	
	print STDERR "$ref\n" if $err;
	
	# Return the modified citation
	$ref;
}

# Translate a parameter
sub fr2en {
	my ($subst, $fr) = @_;
	#print STDERR "$fr =~ s/$subst/$fr_en{$subst}/s\n";
	$fr = eval "(my \$x = q[$fr]) =~ s/$subst/$fr_en{$subst}/s; \$x";
}

# Join day, month and year
sub join_date {
	my ($jour, $mois, $annee);
	for ($jour, $mois, $annee) {
		$_ = shift // "";
		s/^\s*(.*?)\s*$/$1/;
	}
	my $concat = !$mois ? "" : $mois =~ /^\d+$/ ? "/" : " ";
	my $date = "date=" . join($concat, $jour, $mois, $annee);
	#print STDERR ">>date = j=«$jour » m=«$mois » a=«$annee » before. ";
	fix_date($date);
}

# Translate the month and change date format to an acceptable one
sub fix_date {
	my ($date) = shift;
	print STDERR "Entering fix_date($date)\n" if $err;
	$date =~ s/\b$_\b/$month{$_}/i for keys %month;
	$date =~ s!\s*(\d+)\s*/\s*(\d+)\s*/\s*(\d+)\s*!sprintf("%d-%02d-%02d",$3,$2,$1)!e;
	print STDERR "fix_date returns '$date'\n" if $err;
	$date;
}

Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed! Thanks for sharing. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pages to be fixed are listed here (along with actual links to dab Article, which aren't citation problems but need fixing anyway). Certes (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What causes actual people to show up on this list? Is it that their date of birth/death is missing? BD2412 T 00:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not in any categories with names containing "people", "births", "deaths", "character", "disambiguation", "name", "century", "pseudonym" or "biograph". That should weed out most people with a date of birth/death, as they'll be in a category such as "1987 births". There's no explicit check for birth/death dates because the query doesn't have access to the wikitext, only data about the page such as categories. I could also check for templates such as {{birth date}} but I'm not sure it would eliminate many more false positives. Certes (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've admittedly not had very much experience with regex in the past, I constructed my rule after analyzing what similar rules appeared to do. Testing indicated that the inclusion of how it's, on it's, when it's, where it's, and why it's would be confounded with contractions too often, so I decided to only go with for it's and in it's. Testing indicated that in it's could be confounded with the it's contraction at times, but at a rate far less than the ones mentioned previously. Is there anything I can do to improve it further to make it more useful and mitigate the odds of false positives?

<Typo word="its" find="\b([fF]or|[iI]n) (it[’;´ˈ׳᾿‘′Ꞌꞌ`]s)\b" replace="$1 its"/>

Thanks,
CoolieCoolster (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

lookbehind because that is much more efficient than doing things the simple way.

When I started adding rules, I discussed them on the AWB/T talk page first. I would recommend doing that for now, even if you feel confident. Many clever people watch that page. They may be able to improve the expression, or even know subtle reasons why this change is not a good idea. Certes (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]