User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2013 December

Previous · Index · Next

Jump-to links
2024   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2023   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2022   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2021   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2020   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2019   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2018   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2017   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2016   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2015   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2014   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2013   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2012   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2011   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2010   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2009   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2008   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2007   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2006   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2005   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2004                                                           Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

This 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.

This edit should be reverted. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Done, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says:

Combined with Australians favoring an outdoor life-style, when temperatures are warmer, under high levels of UV, the associated risk of skin cancer will increase.^{[sk 1]}

I have not been able to find support for this statement in reference (except for the broad relation between UV and skin cancer - which would be better cited to its source F El Ghissassi, R Baan , et al. A review of human carcinogens–part D: radiation. Lancet Oncololgy 2009;10:751–2) in the source. I think this should be re-written.

Combined with Australians favoring an outdoor life-style, when temperatures are warmer,^{[citation needed]} under high levels of UV, the associated risk of skin cancer will increase.^{[sk1 1]}

The first part could be completely removed. I think there is danger also of original synthesis here.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you; I've changed it. [1] —rybec 02:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 09:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

"Coldplay sparked an interest at Hispanic influences after having recorded in churches and in Spanish-speaking countries such as in Mexico in America and Spain in Europe, adding an African-sounding influence to the song."

The source cited merely says recorded in, and inspired by, Spanish churches and paintings and other artsy atmospheric stuff (though how one records in a painting remains a mystery). No reference to Mexico or Africa. Moreover Viva la Vida indicates the recording locations of:

• The Bakery, London;
• The Magic Shop, New York City;
• The Nunnery, Barcelona;
• A church, Barcelona

I suggest the sentence be recast:

"Coldplay sparked an interest at Hispanic influences^{[citation needed]} after having recorded in churches in Spanish-speaking locations, Mexico^{[citation needed]} and Spain^{[ss 1]} (Barcelona), adding an African-sounding influence^{[citation needed]} to the song."

and the uncited parts be raised on the talk page. (It does seem that any African influence comes from family or musical background, rather than the location of the recording.)

(Note: I am assuming the on-line and print version are not substantially different.)

Also worth noting, there is an interview with Shynola at http://www.coldplay.com/newsdetail.php?id=448 which may be a useful external link or even reference.

Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 09:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

As well as being completely unsourced (and a little dubious) this section repeats itself and could do with a quick re-write. (Also the lead might mention "mix tape" which seems to have been a very common spelling.)

Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 10:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Winchmore Hill Station.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tiffany Page has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

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. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I have to make these edits to make Template:Articles with too many wikilinks progress show the correct total?

It used to show 1 dated, 1 undated, and 2 total, but since the one entry in the undated category is the "All" category, it should have shown 1 dated , 1 undated, and 1 total, as it does now, after my edits.

According to the documentation of Template:Progress box, the progress box should have been able to do this automatically, since the undated category is simply "All"+the dated category. The documentation says: Where there is no "All" category specified and one is not found by prepending "All" to the undated category name, the total is calculated by adding the component categories.

Do you have an explanation? Debresser (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's this bit of code:

| align="right"|'''{{<includeonly>Safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{3|}}}|{{<includeonly>Safesubst:</includeonly>PAGESINCATEGORY:{{{3|All {{lcfirst:{{{1|}}}}}}}}}}|

It should read

| align="right"|'''{{<includeonly>Safesubst:</includeonly>#ifexist:{{{3|All {{lcfirst:{{{1|}}}}}}}}|{{<includeonly>Safesubst:</includeonly>PAGESINCATEGORY:{{{3|All {{lcfirst:{{{1|}}}}}}}}}}|

(Alternatively, and maybe better, a /core template could be used - or indeed Lua though I'm not sure how well that supports the safesubst: - which incidentally allows (should allow?) one to take a snapshot of the category set, to track progress with individual months.)

Further you can improve the call in the specific progress box thus

{{Progress box|Articles with too many wikilinks|factor=1}}

Articles with too many wikilinks

(refresh)

Subtotals

June 2024	1
August 2024	1
January 2025	1
Undated articles	0

All articles

3

Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 08:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Also, why does Category:Articles with too many wikilinks say there is a backlog, if there is only one article? What is the trigger for showing the backlog parameter in this case? Debresser (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Parent monthly clean up category}} template was not cut from whole cloth, but made to reflect current usage, as such it calls the {{Backlog subcategories}} which reflected the then usage (except it used text for sub-cats) - but takes no parameters, presumably because no reliable mechanism for counting entries in sub categories then existed (I am guessing that with Lua all things are possible). It is not clear, of course, what constitutes a backlog, arguably one article does - and mathematicians would doubtless appeal to the empty backlog.

The purpose (or part of the purpose) of the "Safesubst" version of the template was to enable record-keeping to define what constitutes a "backlog" - under the definition "significantly more work-in-progress than normal" (the other part, of course, to see where there is no "normal" but simply an ever increasing pile of issues).

If you think this problem (the presence of the message box) is worth attention there are six quick solutions that spring to mind:

1. Get rid of the message box, it is redundant
2. Make it supressable by parameter "backlog=no" to {{Parent monthly clean up category}} - pragmatically most (I dare not say all, though I suspect it) categories are either backlogged permanently, or never (like uncategorized), for some value of "backlogged".
3. Drive it from the "All blah" category size
4. Drive it from the existence of a "one month ago" or "two months ago" category
5. Drive it from the corresponding Category:Monthly clean up category (<blah>) counter.
6. Use the counting code from {{progress box}}.

Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you say in solution 1 that the backlog template is redundant? I think I may agree, but I'd like to hear your reasoning. I do understand correctly that you mean it is redundant in the {{Parent monthly clean up category}} template, right? Debresser (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do mean that. Either there is a backlog or the sub-cats are empty - which is plain to see, and pretty unusual. Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I made the change to {{Progress box}}, and now we are back to counting the "All" category in all cases, regardless of whatever the third parameter is. I thought the idea was to exclude the "All" category from the total, no? Debresser (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the idea is to use the "all" category if it exists, because that is far more efficient than 72 calls to {{PAGESINCATEGORY}}. The explicit naming is just for when the obvious naming convention is not followed (and, for example, names like "All Wikipedia pages needing...." where the template would assume "All wikipedia pages needing...." was the name of the "All" category). As you know I consider the "All..." categories pretty useless anyway, but they do at least allow that small benefit. Seasons greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your replies. It was nice speaking with you again. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The navbox at the bottom is redlinked: it should be {{UK private and military police forces}}, not services. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 07:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

 Done, see here. Shall we be seeing you on Sunday? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope so. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 04:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The image (shown to the right) included in the infobox on this article describes the main figure as "Aion-Uranus". Aion (the Anatolian one at least) is more commonly identified with Kronos (a son/grandson of Uranus) or possibly according to Eurpides a son of Kronos. Indeed, although much confusion is engendered by other uses and associations (and the strong distinction between Aion and Chronos, the latter often conflated with Kronos), I am not aware of any serious identification of Aion with Uranus, though I am no expert, and my Greek mythology reference books are mostly not accessible right now. I would suggest that this matter be raised on the talk page, with a view to replacing the image.

Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 06:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:AD. Since you had some involvement with the Template:AD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). WOSlinker (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:MI. Since you had some involvement with the Template:MI redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). WOSlinker (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

How do you like this edit to Template:Merge sections? I understand there is no difference between "y" and "yes", but I think the addition of the parameters target and discuss, which are after all used in {{Merge}} as well, was a good idea.

By the way, I added a target parameter to the code of {{Merge to}}, just like we have it in {{Merge}}. I find it confusing that the same parameter we are allowed to use in Merge for indicating the target can not be used in Merge to. I hope you agree that is a good idea?

I wanted to ask you the following. In Merge and Merge to, {{Merge partner}} passes on only the parameter {{{1|}}}. I think that in Merge to this could also be the target parameter. Do you agree? In that case, should the code be {{{1|target}}}? I agree that the word partner was initially meant to mean two articles merging together, but in the case of Merge to, the partner is the target (or the target is the partner, perhaps), wouldn't you say? Debresser (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's {{{1|{{{target}}}}}}. I agree with your sentiments I think. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the fix. Done. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you see a way of removing Merge sections, Merge sections to and Merge sections from, from Category:Articles for merging with no partner, Category:Items to be merged and in the case of Merge sections also Category:Pages with misplaced templates other than copying the whole codes of Merge, Merge to and Merge from into them (with the necessary adjustments for the fact that section=yes, of course)? And I do not mean wrapping the whole template in includeonly tags, because I think that showing the template in action is a good idea. I have no idea how Merge, Merge to and Merge from do it. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can do this by wrapping the category in {{Merge to}} in a suitable namespace conditional. As to self-documenting by display on the template page I agree in principle. It can make better sense to do this in the {{Documentation}} though. Many many templates (specifically infoboxes) have the overhead of making parameter-free stuff look good on the template page, which is carried to every invocation. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Wrapping the category in a conditional that would remove template namespace would remove the functionality for template altogether, and that is not what we want. If I put them on the documentation, won't the documentation and the template page be categorized? Debresser (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it would, however the instructions make it clear that {{Merge to}} should not be used on templates.
• Yes you are quite right, I was suggesting that as a solution to templates containing special code to "rig" their display on one or two pages. E.G. instead of providing a default value that is only displayed on the template page itself the documentation instantiation can include sensible dummy values, that cost (almost) nothing on every other transclusion (depending how smart the Mediawiki software is).

Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Another small question. Is there any difference between #default={{DMC|||Items to be merged}}, and #default={{DMC|Items to be merged}}?

But these merge templates are still sometimes used in template namespace. That is the problem we have to deal with: how to still detect the merge proposal, but exclude those 3 merge sections templates. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Functionally, no. Semantically yes. It's like constructing a sentence with an empty subject, no verb and an object that is a full sentence - its a valid sentence, but funny way to go about it. Or saying "We have a car design where the front offside wheel is replaced by a traditional car, and all the other components are rendered obsolete." Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  

I see. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a less small question. If I want to sort template namespace with an additional parameter, like in Template:Broken ref which uses an ω, how would I do that with DMC? Debresser (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to change DMC so that the category calls look like this:

[[Category:{{{4}}}|{{Namespace Greek}}{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]

Of course this behaviour might not be wanted by all callees, if so it would either need a switch or a fork. A fork is more efficient (probably) but people will likely complain of a "maintenance nightmare" even though this template has only had one substantive edit in 3 years. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Is there any reason that code would be problematic in any other cases? I could suggest it on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems basically a Good Thing to me. See the documentation for {{Namespace Greek}}, and note that new namespace needs adding to the template. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Could you please check all the references for "Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood" page and also the page for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.27.142 (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ Clear, Royal Children, p. 78
2. ^ The Times, 29 March 1965
3. ^ Yvonne's Royalty Home Page — Royal Christenings
4. ^ Leodis, Leodis - Leeds city Archives UK. "Leeds UK Government". Leodis Archives. Leeds City Council UK Gov. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
5. ^ "Royal babies 1920-1929". Country Life.
6. ^ Bradford, Sarah (1989). King George VI. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 424. ISBN 0-297-79667-4.
7. ^ Royal Styles and Titles – 1898 Letters Patent
8. ^ After the accession of her father, George V, she became the child of a Sovereign, and therefore her title changed to The Princess Mary
9. ^ Heraldica – British Royal Cadency

1. Needs more details : Celia Clear (1981). Royal children, 1840-1980: from Queen Victoria to Queen Elizabeth II. Stein and Day. p. 78. ISBN 978-0-8128-2826-9. (if indeed it is the 1981 edition, not the 1984 or other) - in the text it seems odd to say "paternal great-grandmother" without explaining "paternal great-grandmother - Queen Victoria" the first time it is mentioned. (Of course there are two paternal great grandmothers, making the wording even more infelicitous.)
2. This is not available to me right now, but the Times is considered a paper of record.
3. This does not look like a reliable source - it seems to be someone's hobby page (which is not to say it isn't well done, and properly researched, it simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's preferred standards). It does however list wealth of useful published sources.
4. Splitting this up into:
   1. http://www.leodis.net/display.aspx?resourceIdentifier=201069_170837 and
   2. http://www.leodis.net/display.aspx?resourceIdentifier=20041110_49352664

   would probably be better. Better still to find a source about the subject, rather than about postcards.

5. Similarly, this supports the fact, but it may not be the best (or most stable) way of doing it.
6. Can't refer to this book, but it seems a good source on the face of it.
7. This is a reasonably good citation since it is a straight copy of the document. Again better to refer to the National Archives original, linking to Heraldica if no better on-line repository is available. London Gazette is a good place for things like this.
8. A citation to support this would be nice. I would format it ... changed to "The Princess Mary"
9. This supports only the cadency, but suffers like #3 from possibly not qualifying as a WP:RS. There are heraldic directories in most public libraries which might help here.

Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Track length needed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a category would be trivial (you can use "what links here" instead). Low usage of a maintenance template is not necessarily a sign of non-utility, it can be a sign of the very opposite - {{Uncategorized}} for example. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

reposted at TfD —rybec 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In these edits I made the template do what it was supposed to be doing. That is, as I understand the idea of all those parameters based on their functionality and the documentation.

By the way, I reworked the documentation as well.

After all that is done, I am left with the feeling that parameters 4 and 5 should be completely removed in favor of |old= and |new=. That will simplify the coding, and the documentation accordingly. If somebody is smart enough to use 4 parameters (|1=, |2=, |4= and |5=), then he can certainly use 2 (|old= and |new=).

What do you say? Debresser (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well I have sympathy with what you say. I suspect that this construction was not ab initio but based on some perceived need at the time, for example allowing passing of parameters from other templates. However these components could be easily enough re-added if they are required in the future (and are not currently in use).

By the way ise vs ize...

Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Then I'll try and make some time for this simplification later this week. Why did you remind me of ise vs ize? Debresser (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you change the spelling of "categorises". Happy New Year, Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

These edits removed the parameters 4 and 5. These edits removed a repetition that I never understood why it was necessary. Debresser (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering to replace [[Category:Pages using deprecated templates]] by {{#ifeq:{{{old|}}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}||[[Category:Pages using deprecated templates]]}}, to avoid categorization there of non-template pages that are themselves tagged (like Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote e.g.). Will that work? Without side-effects?

Also, will it be correct to say |{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}} in the code excludes not only transclusions on /doc pages, but also /sandbox or /testcases pages? Debresser (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This assumes that {old} is fully qualified.

Yes I believe so.

Happy New Year, Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Done, and works. Thank you. Can you please help with my (hopefully last) question below? Debresser (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guess this was sometime in December : ): Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC).