Jump to content

User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 75

Wikidata weekly summary #504

21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Kludgy ping, WMF BoT consultation

I replied to your comments at Meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Discuss_Key_Questions; you asked to be pinged and I've just realized I forgot. Apologies. HLHJ (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@HLHJ: Thanks for letting me know. Those are great replies! I have a follow-up question I'll ask there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I need help to correct a repeated consensus violation in the article Antoni Gaudí

Hola colega:

Le escribo en idioma español porque en su página de usuario dice que usted domina este idioma, así que imagino que entenderá lo que escribo. Soy un usuario que edita principalmente artículos de Wikipedia en inglés y Wikipedia en español, con la intención de mejorarlos. Pero ahora tengo un problema: hace algún tiempo noté que el artículo de Wikipedia en inglés del arquitecto español llamado "Antoni Gaudí" se refiere a él en el encabezamiento del artículo (lead) como "Catalan architect".

Actualmente, existe un gran debate y conflicto acerca de cómo describir la nacionalidad de los españoles nacidos en Cataluña, principalmente por motivos ideológicos. Debido a esto, y para evitar las guerras de ediciones, actualmente existe una solución de consenso. MOS establece que el país de origen debe usarse en la introducción. El "Spanish from Catalonia" o "Catalan from Spain" se planteó en un RfC sobre la materia como solución intermedia. Pero a pesar de que esto es un consenso establecido, en el artículo de Antoni Gaudí este consenso no es respetado y está siendo violado. Por eso hace algún tiempo edité el artículo y puse "Spanish architect from Catalonia", pero mi edición fué revertida y el usuario que la revirtió alegó en su explicación que mi edición era un vandalismo: Pero eso es falso... ¡Yo sólo estaba haciendo cumplir el consenso! Posteriormente, otro usuario añadió la otra fórmula de consenso: "Catalan architect from Spain", pero esa edición también fue revertida por el mismo usuario que revirtió la mía.

Por eso solicito, por favor, la ayuda de usted. Teniendo en cuenta que usted es administrador, tengo fé en que me pueda ayudar a corregir ese problema para que el consenso pueda ser aplicado en ese artículo. Porque en mi humilde opinión eso representa una parcialización del contenido de Wikipedia por motivos ideológicos. Además de que también es una violación de consenso.

Si usted pudiera responderme, se lo agradeceré mucho. De antemano, muchas gracias. Aziyade Gil (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aziyade Gil: Hola, I can read Spanish reasonably OK, but I can't write it very well, hence this reply in English, sorry! It looks like this has been something that's been discussed on the talk page at Talk:Antoni_Gaudí as well as in the archives (e.g., Talk:Antoni_Gaudí/Archive_2). If you want this change, then you need to discuss it on the talk page with the other editors, and get a consensus there. Gracias. Mike Peel (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Muchas gracias por sus explicaciones.

Translation: Thank you very much for your instructions. Aziyade Gil (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Cite Q

Hi Mike (and cc Andy)! Replying to your comment here, I considered using Cite Q after seeing Andy's presentation at Wikimania (or another conference) when I was working on my FA, Pomona College. I forget precisely which issues came up, but basically, I would've needed it to be able to replicate CS1 results precisely to pass FAC, and it wasn't able to do that when I checked for the sources in the bibliography section. It just didn't have a lot of the more niche CS1 parameters or didn't display them the same way.

I did end up using a lot of references drawn from Pomona's Wikidata item (a showcase item, not that I suspect anyone's actually verified it haha) via {{Wikidata}}, though, so I can certainly speak to the challenges there. (I'm not sure if any other FA uses Wikidata as extensively, so my perspective is perhaps unique.)

One which didn't come up but could've is the |work= vs. |publisher= distinction, which is a major thing in CS1 but just done using publisher (P123) on Wikidata. This is a messy, huge ticking time bomb for those of you working on transferring Wikipedia references to Wikidata. Someday in the future, we hope there will be a big discussion about whether to go forward with the transfer, and at that point, you want to be able to say that none of the parameters will change and nothing will change for readers. You can't do that unless there's a one-to-one correlation between Wikidata properties and CS1 parameters, and (title of broader work (P6333) aside) that's not yet the case. The sooner that gets resolved, the less path dependency issues there will be down the road.

Another big issue is duplicate references. There were several instances where I was drawing one citation from Wikidata and placing another in the article directly, and with current technical structures that leads to a duplicate reference. This is phab:T274432, and there's a barnstar waiting for anyone who fixes it.

I hope that helps illuminate some of the issues currently hindering Wikidata reference usage at the FA level. Btw, while I'm here, if you'd like to pick up the effort to add Wikidata functionality to the university infobox anytime, just let me know. I recently imported a bunch of data from IPEDS to Wikidata, so if we got that working it'd make a lot of articles more complete. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a possibly related thread about |publisher= at Template talk:Cite Q. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Thanks, interesting to know. Work vs. publisher is a good point, which needs generally resolving on Wikidata, will have to look into that. Duplicate references you can sort of already handle - just make sure the name is the same, when I was experimenting with auto-refs in the infobox at South Pole Telescope I think this could be handled OK. Better if you just use the auto references though. ;-) And apologies for infobox university - that's still on my to-do list, and I'll get back to you about it at some point. However, note that meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Check if a page exists without populating WhatLinksHere (which you opposed) directly came out of the infobox work here - particularly with occupations, but it also applies more generally. It's when you want to see if we have a redirect or an article for a given term (e.g., astronomer) where there isn't a sitelink in the Wikidata item, which was a big issue that was holding up automated infobox deployment. So by opposing that you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

Wikidata weekly summary #505

17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

COI Edit Requests - Brian Keating Article

Hi User:Mike Peel: I am in a COI relationship with Brian Keating and he is inquiring about some updates/improvements to the page about him. I have put some suggested content on the talk page of that article. I was wondering, since you've done some work on the BICEP and Keck Array page if you might find it a good use of your time to review these edits to the Dr. Keating article. I respect and adhere to Wikipedia's rules and criteria, and am proceeding accordingly. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have on these edits/updates. One request is reverting the deletion of the section on his book 'Losing the Nobel Prize'. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best LeepKendall (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@LeepKendall: I can potentially have a look - although I'd do a general rework of the article at the same time. However, I'm concerned about your COI relationship - please could you explain more? Is Brian paying you to get his article improved? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
It is true User:Mike Peel as I have declared, I am in a COI relationship with Brian. He contacted me looking for help to update the article about him after a colleague wrote to me about the POLARBEAR article and how Simons Array needed it's own page. That never went anywhere. If he is now in contact with you as a volunteer and you are interested in helping with improvements, this is the best case scenario for Brian. And I am happy to bow out of the process. Best LeepKendall (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@LeepKendall: Thanks for the follow-up. I appreciate your transparency here. I would recommend that in future, you explicitly say that you are a paid editor. Saying 'a COI relationship' could mean many things, and it's better to be clear about it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Wikidata weekly summary #506

21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2022





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Wikidata weekly summary #507

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Brian Keating Article

Hi User:Mike Peel. I just wanted to reach out and see if you think you might have some time to rework Brian Keating's page as you had mentioned. He and I are no longer working together, so he is relying on a volunteer noticing he has updates. Thanks and best! LeepKendall (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@LeepKendall: It's on my to-do list, although I haven't managed to get to it yet. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you User:Mike Peel. LeepKendall (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #508

19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox aircraft begin/Wikidata

Template:Infobox aircraft begin/Wikidata has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022