Jump to content

User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

DYK nomination instructions

Hi Mike! Re this edit, a week ago, I boldly revamped the bloated instructions on the DYK nominations page (compare before and after). The impetus/strategy behind this I shared a while back at the discussion about making DYK easier for student editors/other newcomers; please read that for context. Collapsing the manual method and instead emphasizing the DYK helper is the key change, and I think it's essential for usability that we keep the instructions looking short, since if they look long/complex as they did before, that deters new editors from even starting. I didn't remove it entirely because of the small minority of editors who don't have javascript enabled or otherwise don't want to use the helper (it looks from your contributions/js page that you're among them). You can uncollapse the banner whenever you need to, but removing the collapsing for everyone entirely defeats the point of the revamp. Are you willing to let the collapsing stay to improve the experience for newcomers at DYK? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for working to improve the DYK process! It definitely needs it. I think it's too early to hide the manual instructions, though. I suggest two things: first, rather than having a bit of javascript in userspace, turn it into a gadget and get it appearing at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets - so that it's just a matter of clicking a checkbox in preferences to turn it on. Second, track the number of users that are posting nominations using the helper script vs. doing things manually, and when that gets sufficiently high, then hide the manual instructions. Ideally please also demonstrate consensus to hide them. That's my tuppence: I'm only one editor, so feel free to revert me if you really want and if no-one else is complaining about it, at least I now know how to unhide them when I need to post a nomination. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Awarding the DYK helper gadget status to make it easier to turn on sounds like an excellent idea to me! It looks like that'd require a VPT discussion. Pinging creator SD0001—would you have any objection to me starting a thread proposing that? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Sure go ahead. Ideally though there's an even better way – the script could be rewritten so that instead of creating a cramped modal window on the article page, it creates a form on a psuedo-special page (like Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease/Form). The advantage is that it can be loaded via mw:Snippets/Load CSS and JS by URL – only on that page and for everyone (so users don't even need to turn on a gadget). But that's quite a bit of work, so making it a gadget would be a good step in the interim. – SD0001 (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good; launched here. Having it ultimately become a form would be amazing; I know there's been some discussion recently around trying to get a usable form system built in to MediaWiki. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I've supported the !vote there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption

On 2 October 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As you're taking an interest in ITN and are an astronomer, you may be interested in this nomination. This is quite slow-burn as a news item but I just learnt about it from the latest The Sky at Night and so the word is getting out and we can do our bit to help... Andrew🐉(talk) 21:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Nice spot. It looks like the nomination's already been closed, though, sorry to see that. In general ITN seems extremely conservative, so it's not somewhere I plan to hang out at much. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion was closed in just 4 hours which is obviously improper. This dysfunction is explained by the iron law of oligarchy, "By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have..." Naturally, the law applies to Wikipedia too.
Anyway, there are also news reports about the recent coronal mass ejection but the resulting aurora only reached as far south as Scotland and that's not especially unusual. Of course, when we get a really big one, we won't be able to post on Wikipedia because the Internet will go down. But ITN wouldn't post that anyway – see another recent example.
So, you see, we're actually doing quite well with the volcano. Count your blessings not your problems!
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's the latest space story FYI. The Klingons are being difficult as usual. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

By "Klingons" I imagine Andrew means those who object to yet another tabloid-/clickbait-based nomination. What a pity Andrew can't formulate an RFC for ITN reform which would better suit his approach and reduce the background moaning and tiresome misunderstandings that are posted there every single day. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Now I'm disappointed that this isn't something about Worf. ;-) But sorry, I'm generally not a fan of space tourism. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Mike must be in the next generation. Me, I watched Kirk as a teenager, starting on the BBC in July 1969 – just before the first moon landing. I watched the Apollo missions closely too and felt the same excitement watching the Blue Origin launch yesterday. And I still get a kick every time I see a rocket land on its tail, as they do now. Meanwhile, ITN leads with the Boston Marathon, just like it did yesterday and the day before and the day before that. That marathon is actually older than Shatner, having started in 1897, but its readership yesterday was just 3,723 while Shatner's was 285,917. Even the volcano did better with 8,392 and so Mike's updates are getting more attention. Well done! Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata question

Someone (or perhaps multiple editors, I haven't checked), keep merging duplicate entries for Philippine places. The result is sometimes an item with multiple values (2 or 3) for the elevation (and I've never seen one that has a source). The articles here pull the elevation (along with many other things) from WD, but expect one value for the elevation and there is a ugly convert error in the infobox. I fix these by going to WD and deleting the extra elevation entries and leaving just one with a source (which often doesn't match any of the values that were there). This happens probably every several days or at least weekly. I'm getting tired of cleaning up WD to fix articles here. Is it valid for WD to store multiple values for elevation (I don't mean min_elevation, max_elevation, I mean the just elevation)? Can this be blocked so the person doing the WD merge is forced to do the research to figure out the best value. This isn't like population that can have different values at different points in time. This recently happened in [1]. I notice there are multiple values for the coordinates also, but that doesn't seem to cause a problem in the article here. Why is that? Does the template just pull one value. If so, can the template be modified to pull just one elevation (although since the WD is so crappy, finding and sourcing the correct elevation is certainly much better). This also begs the question, what is elevation anyway (the average, at a certain point considered the center of the town/city/other subdivision). Without a corresponding coordinate, it's an imprecise term which probably explains why there are different values floating around. I have been ignoring this and just adding a value with a source, figuring that is better than multiple unsourced values. MB 00:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@MB: You'd have to check the item histories for why items are being merged, or where the elevation info came from. Having referenced info is definitely a good solution, but in general Wikidata allows multiple values that can reflect records in different places - the best should be a 'preferred' rank, and ideally all should be referenced. If you link between items, then they can't be merged.
For the template, it depends how it's been coded. If it's using en:Module:WikidataIB, then you can set the maximum number of values to be shown. I can help with the code if you want, but I'd need to be pointed to the specific template that's being used here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The last article where this happened was Mendez, Cavite, which got the elevation using {{PH wikidata|elevation_m}}. MB 18:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@MB: Thanks, looking through the code, I think this issue needs raising at Template talk:Convert. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Why, this has nothing to do with convert. Convert takes one number and converts it to other units. {{infobox settlement}} expects one number for |elevation=. Convert is not the problem, and the expectation of one value for a parameter is quite common operation in infoboxes. MB 18:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@MB: Convert has built-in Wikidata support, if you look at the code of Template:PH wikidata you can see it being called as {{safesubst:convert|input=P2044|3=m|disp=number}} in that template. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
That is an invocation of convert from PH wikidata. Convert doesn't know anything about WD. The first parameter to convert needs to be a number. MB 19:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@MB: Nope, you're wrong. Go ask @Johnuniq: or at Template talk:Convert. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption

On 23 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that more than 22,000 earthquakes occurred in the eight days before the 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 La Palma volcanic eruption. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #491

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • QID ("Initialism of Q-identifier, a unique identifier for an item in Wikidata. [from 2012]") now has an entry in Wiktionary
    • The 3rd edition of the Coolest Tool Award is looking for nominations (see announcement on wikimedia-l). Please submit your favorite tools by October 27th. The awarded projects will be announced and showcased in a virtual ceremony in December.
  • Development
    • The new WDQS Streaming Updater now fully shipped to production. This will help the Query Service better deal with the amount of edits happening on Wikidata. (more information)
    • Mismatch Finder: Continuing work on the results page where mismatches are shown for review. We are focusing on showing all necessary information for a mismatch to make a good determination if it is a mismatch in Wikidata, the external source or neither.
    • Finishing the work on the new change dispatching system that improves how Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects are notified about edits happening on Wikidata that affect them. Currently tying up some lose ends.
    • Preparing for WikidataCon.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Commons categories

Hi! This edit seems to be mistaken – that Commons category does indeed include a number of images of Fomm ir-Riħ, some of them with that name in the title. Fomm ir-Riħ is a small bay, Ras ir-Raħeb is a headland on the southern side of it; many photos of the area are likely to include both. What made you remove the category, I wonder? I really hope it wasn't Wikidata, but just case it was: if Wikidata can't accept incoming links from more than one page to the same Commons category, it's Wikidata that needs to be changed, not our articles – removing working Commonscat links from Wikipedia is not helpful. Anyway, here's a request: if you're planning to remove any other link of this kind, would you please consider instead either creating the missing Commons category and adding relevant images to it, or adding the category to our page as a See-also? I'm asking at length because this isn't the first time I've seen you do this, though I can't remember where the earlier instance was. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: The Commons category commons:Category:Ras ir-Raħeb quite clearly belongs with Ras ir-Raħeb, not Fomm ir-Riħ. I made the edit as part of my general clean-up of enwiki <-> Wikidata <-> Commons links - yes that includes Wikidata, but the motivation is to properly link the correct Commons categories (so, e.g., the right Wikipedia article is linked to from Commons). There's a small number of bad links I'm removing because I can't see a better solution (e.g., there's no obvious match, and it needs people who know the article well to properly fix them, if they are interested) - wherever I can I'm correcting the links. It's simple enough to create a new Commons category - I've done so at commons:Category:Fomm ir-Riħ, and moved over the photos that have Fomm in the name. But I don't know the area, so please double-check this! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a good outcome! I've added a couple more to it. There'll surely be other cases like this where no one category is the "right" one (these are inter-dependent entities, the bay defines the headland and vice versa). May I hope that in those cases you'll consider one of the options mentioned above – or perhaps create a |wd=no parameter for the commonscat template so that it works as it used to? Anyway, many thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Thanks for adding more images to the new category. If you want to help more, I'm working through the contents of Category:Commons category link is locally defined (I suggest skipping to a later letter in the alphabet rather than looking at the A's!). Some just need a simple tweak to Wikidata or a new Commons category to fix; others are obviously misplaced; and others are rather more complicated. I'm hoping that a "wd=no" parameter isn't needed - but let's see how the rest of the tracking category goes (it's now about 1/3 of what it used to be before I and some others started working on this!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 October. It will be on all wikis from 28 October (calendar).

Future changes

  • Diff pages will have an improved copy and pasting experience. The changes will allow the text in the diff for before and after to be treated as separate columns and will remove any unwanted syntax. [2]
  • The version of the Liberation fonts used in SVG files will be upgraded. Only new thumbnails will be affected. Liberation Sans Narrow will not change. [3]

Meetings

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Pi bot edit

Hi Mike, I received two notifications for the following pages that I created: Kyun Dooriyan and Muh Dikhai that the pages were connected to Wikidata items Q108502185 and Q108502098 respectively, "where data relevant to the topic can be collected." I clicked both items to view them but am not sure if I'm supposed to actually do something about these pages or if these were just general notifications. I'd like a little help in understanding what the pages getting connected to Wikipedia items means, generally speaking. And, if something's wrong with the pages and needs fixing, please let me know. Thank you for your time and help. Priyanka2330 (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Priyanka2330: OK, this is kind of a big question. :-) For the background about Wikidata, perhaps start from d:Wikidata:Introduction. Basically, Wikidata holds metadata about the contents of the article - which includes authority control, interwiki links, and more. Each article should be associated with a Wikidata item, and Pi bot auto-created items for the articles you started You don't need to do anything more, but if you want to you can add more info to the Wikidata items (in structured formats). You may also see content from Wikidata appearing in the articles over time - particularly through "authority control" and in the sidebar, but maybe also in the infoboxes as well. Hope that helps, let me know if you want more info about any part of this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thank you so much, Mike! Priyanka2330 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Statistics across languages on Cite Q usage

During my WikidataCon lightning talk, I was asked "Do we have any statistics across languages on Cite Q usage?" We didn't, but I just compiled: Template talk:Cite Q#Transclusion_counts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks, interesting statistics! Higher numbers than I thought, but still a long way to grow. Sorry I missed your lightning talk, will watch it when the recordings are available! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #492

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • WikidataCon! \o/
    • Continued the work on the first version of the Mismatch Finder. We are getting closer to the polishing phase now and will have something ready in the next weeks.
    • Lua access for Lexemes is now ready to test on English Beta Wiktionary.
    • Concluded work on the improved behind-the-scenes system for notifying Wikipedias and co about Wikidata edits that affect them. Nothing should have changed for you.
    • Started working on a new implementation of the search box to be ready for the upcoming skin changes the WMF is working on.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-44

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a limit on the amount of emails a user can send each day. This limit is now global instead of per-wiki. This change is to prevent abuse. [4]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 November. It will be on all wikis from 4 November (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons category on Akunk

Hey, I saw that you removed the commons link c:Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Akunk, Gegharkunik on Akunk, there is no parent category for the village on Commons - so can't the link remain without issue as it is relevant and useful for the article? AntonSamuel (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: It's easy enough to create a new Commons category if needed, to match the article. I've set up commons:Category:Akunk, perhaps you could add other relevant images to it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help and quick fix! AntonSamuel (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons category on Pure Michigan Byway

All of the states have a "Scenic drives in <state>" category. Wikipedia and Commons don't have to have an exact naming match for the category to be useful. In short, I'd just leave the box alone. Imzadi 1979 → 19:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: The problem is that the Commons category has a much broader scope than the article here, which isn't useful for readers that want to see images specifically related to the road. Could you set up commons:Category:Pure Michigan Byway and link to that instead? I can create it if needed, but I think you'd do a better job at it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Warrenton Junction Raid

Hello Mike Peel - I'm sure your intentions were good, but why remove 1st West Virginia Cavalry Regiment from the Wikimedia commons link at the bottom of Warrenton Junction Raid? They were the ones Mosby attacked. TwoScars (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@TwoScars: Looking again, the other two links also shouldn't have been in the article, so I've removed them. If there's enough media, then the best approach would be to create commons:Category:Warrenton Junction Raid to directly match the article, rather than including links to categories that are only tangential to the article topic. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #493

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Mismatch Finder: We finished adding “next steps” dialog and a “more info” dialog to tell users more about the import a mismatch was added in.
    • We had discussions about how to best make the SearchBox WVUI component for the new Vector skin work well for Wikidata (phab:T275251)
    • We have put a version of WBStack on wikibase.dev. We will start work to deploy to wikibase.cloud in the coming weeks.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Tech News: 2021-45

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Mobile IP editors are now able to receive warning notices indicating they have a talk page message on the mobile website (similar to the orange banners available on desktop). These notices will be displayed on every page outside of the main namespace and every time the user attempts to edit. The notice on desktop now has a slightly different colour. [5][6]

Changes later this week

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

DYK for Marguerite Dunlap

On 12 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marguerite Dunlap, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marguerite Dunlap sang in the first radio broadcast of WEAF in New York? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marguerite Dunlap. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Marguerite Dunlap), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Indian art

Wtf, Mike? This is obviously wrong, & I've reverted. Please stop doing these. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

and the Japanese, and Zafarnama (Yazdi biography). Please actually look at the articles before fiddling with the Commons cats. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Thanks for the feedback. I've changed the links on Wikidata (so Commons now links back to the right items). I've also changed the Commons category links in Category:Arts in Japan, Category:Japanese art, Category:Indian art and Category:Arts in India (which it seems is where the confusion came from) - please could you check that these are now right? For the third one, I've created commons:Category:Garrett Zafarnama, which solves the problem (I didn't realise that Garrett Zafarnama was only about a specific version). Hope that's all looking OK now? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, as I said, it helps to read the first line of the article! In fact we have only one image of the Garrett Zafarnama & hardly need the Commons category - we have about 20 of the MET's one, with no cat. The category Commons ones seem ok now, thanks. Cms "Art in..." categories are a pain, & arguably should not have been created - "Art of..." should normally be the main ones. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Mike has been doing this across all sort of articles for a while. I am not sure that it is right or helpful. The guidance is that the link should be relevant, it doesn't have to be exact. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, he also seems to work on the presumption that Wikidata is probably right, then Commons, and en:wp should be adjusted to match. In fact this is exactly the wrong way round. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm correcting things on Wikidata, as well as here and on Commons, as needed in each case. It's all part of a general sync of the three, so that we have the right links from Commons to Wikipedias, as well as the other way around. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Segne du, Maria

Not sure why a category can't "belong" to two articles. Of the six present items in c:Category:Cordula Wöhler, the last 2 are about her poem. I thought an extra category for it was a bit too much, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I think a category specifically for the song works well - I've set it up at commons:Category:Segne du, Maria and added it to the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Scanning electron microscope

Hi Mike, are you running a bot? Is this Special:Diff/1042875111/1055094433 a bug? Your edit summary says "Removing Commons category link that does not match this article (commons:Category:Scanning electron microscope) (Commons category belongs at Scanning_electron_microscope)". But "Scanning electron microscope" = "Scanning_electron_microscope". Ponor (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ponor: It's a semi-automated script. Sorry about that edit, I'm not too sure what happened, but I meant to remove the other Commons category link, which I've now done - the article only needs one Commons category link, there's the category tree at Commons if you want to see more. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: unfortunately, in order to see the images in c:Category:Scanning electron microscopic images (that you just removed from Scanning electron microscope) you need to climb up one level in the category tree from c:Category:Scanning electron microscope (and choose the right branch to climb at the bottom of the page first), and only then go down the tree to reach c:Category:Scanning electron microscopic images. In order to do that, you need to *know* there actually *is* a category with images produced by the microscope, i.e. you need to be a Commons specialist. I must say, I don't understand why WP articles and Commons categories *should* be 1:1. Ponor (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ponor: My suggestion would be to improve Commons categories so that they are easy to find from one linked category. But I'm no longer working on this, so at this point, just do whatever you want. Mike Peel (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Information icon Hello, I'm Picard's Facepalm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mixing console have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Anyhow, looking back at this article, there is a correct Commons category at commons:Category:Mixing_consoles so I've fixed the link. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:Do template the regulars. Your linked commons cat is incorrect as it is far broader than the scope of the article, and actually contains the correct cat within it. If you disagree with this then we need to engage in some dialogue in the article's talk page and it will likely result in an incorrect re-naming of the article itself to match the commons cat. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Picard's Facepalm: OK, it does sound like a renaming of either the article or the Commons category so that they match would be good here. Which do you think it should be? If the article, do you want to start the discussion? If Commons should be reorganised, I'm happy to start the discussion there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think this is going to end up as a double-edged sword, and neither outcome is going to be correct.... allow me to explain;
In the industry - "mixing console" is used interchangeably with "audio console", "audio mixer" or just plain "mixer" (the last of which opens the floodgate of a whole other group of WP:DAB issues.) Lighting consoles are always referred to as just that - lighting consoles, and never as "mixing/mixers", although they do technically do mix light much in the same fashion an audio console mixes sound. Same for video.... mostly referred to as "Video Switcher" or simply "switcher", or even "video console" - but never as "video mixer" - although again, technically - it does exactly that. This is where the potential for things to get messy comes in. Honestly, while I do agree with you to a point on the renaming of one or the other - this is also why I am more inclined to leave it point specifically to the commons subcat of audio consoles vs. the parent cat of mixing consoles which includes the article-specific subcat, as well as the other 2. To me - as someone who has been involved in the live audio and recording production industries as well as the television broadcast industry - there are stark differences between the 3. If the idea of the commons is to keep it to the specified article - then I would point to the subcat. Think of it this way - Boeing 747 currently has a commons link to Boeing 747, instead of Boeing or even Airplanes - the latter of which would equate to the Audio mixing console page pointing to the "mixing consoles" commons cat. At least to me. Thoughts? And again - would this be better discussed on the article's talk page? Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Picard's Facepalm: Taking this to the article talk page does sound best then, can you do that? I agree with the Boeing 747 example (it shouldn't link to 'Boeing', but should link to 'Boeing 747'). Given what you say; looking through the article and the Commons categories again; I suspect that the easiest outcome would be to specifically include 'Audio' in the article title here, maybe as 'audio console' (which is currently a redirect to the article)? But it seems clear that the current Commons category link should stay, and I have some rearranging to do on Wikidata so that things match up correctly there. So I won't be changing the Commons category link again in this case. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
BTW, the same also seems to apply to Category:Mixing consoles. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The mislinking is now resolved from my point of view, having rearranged things on Wikidata (and hence also in the Commons infoboxes). I saw your AN/I comment, and understand where you're coming from. As a bit of background, I'm very active on Commons also, and I generally want to see many more links to Commons added here (I've mostly been doing this via the sidebar rather than adding the template), but I also want to make sure that the links are correct in both directions (from here to Commons, and from Commons to here). They weren't in this case, but now they are. So this is a good outcome from my perspective, albeit rather more drama-filled then I like. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons cat removals

What's the benefit of this, this, this...? How does it improve the page for enwiki readers to not have those highly relevant and logical, but not 100% identical links? Such removal seems bot-like, not really thought out. Your edit summary, "commons category X belongs at article X" doesn't help; as there is no reason that two enwiki pages can't point to the same commons category. Category:Commons category link is locally defined is not necessarily a problem. Some of your edits don't make any sense at all, and seem to indicate that you are using an unsupervised script: "Sunbeam S7 and S8 ‎ Removing Commons category link that does not match this article (commons:Category:Sunbeam S7) (Commons category belongs at Sunbeam_S7_and_S8)". The place where you claim this commons cat belongs, is the place you removed it from... How so? Well, the (faulty) "logic" is that Commons category Sunbeam S7 should only be coupled with enwiki article Sunbeam S7. Too bad for you that that article is a redirect to Sunbeam S7 and S8, where you just removed the link from. Please stop this script, and revert your changes, and then only reinsert them where they are truly wrong, not simply a minor mismatch that someone deliberately inserted, and you blindly removed. Fram (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of The Amara Sulya Freedom Movement for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Amara Sulya Freedom Movement 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/The Amara Sulya Freedom Movement 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.

WP:ANI discussion

I have started a discussion about your edits (with a suggestion for a topic ban) at WP:ANI#Mike Peel's undeclared automated edits make articles worse. Fram (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Peel/Archive_68&oldid=1060696887"