User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70 ← Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80

CWGC cemetery template

I am trying to work out why something has gone wrong with {{CWGC cemetery}}. When I created Dunkirk Memorial, I think the link from the infobox worked. Since then, you made this edit to the template that calls the URL for the CWGC cemeteries. I noticed this because the link from the infobox in Doiran Memorial also fails to work. But maybe it is something else? The link from Thiepval Memorial isnt being generated properly. Neither are the links at Chatham Naval Memorial or Portsmouth Naval Memorial. But strangely Plymouth Naval Memorial is OK (well, it was until I did a null edit and then that went pear-shaped as well). In all cases, the URL being generated looks like this: http://www.cwgc.org/search/cemetery_details.aspx?cemetery=91800}}/%7C}}}}}} Have you any idea what is causing this? Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Oddly I couldn't recreate the error on any of those pages, but I could see a bug in my code, which should now be fixed. Please try again; and thanks for letting me know. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. I presume you mean this edit. It is worrying that you managed to effectively break a template without realising it. Do you check the effects of what you have done after making edits like that? And I see that you have made this edit, saying 'use wikidata'. That is completely incomprehensible to editors who don't understand how wikidata pulls the value across. All they see is data vanishing. I am really queasy about that sort of approach. Carcharoth (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Use wikidata if available, and if no local value

In this edit you use the edit summary "Use wikidata if available, and if no local value". I get that a local value can over-ride the wikidata value, but why did you remove the local value here? That just leaves the infobox entry as {{cwgc cemetery}}. This looks wrong to any editor familiar with the old system. Surely there must be a better way to do this? Why can't the Wikipedia editing page actually display the Wikidata value being pulled over, so an editor knows what is there? Carcharoth (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

CWGC casualty and cemetery IDs

I have been looking into this a bit more (I have a vague memory that you worked with the CWGC or there were plans to work with them, do I have that right?) and I found the following examples of URLs using the CWGC burial ground IDs and casualty IDs (there were two URL formats used, possibly more):

Maybe you are aware of all that already. Is the idea that eventually it will be possible to tie all those links into Wikidata by simply using the CWGC burial ground and casualty ID numbers? I said more at User talk:RexxS, see particularly the bit about property P1920 and Q7745463. Are there plans to create a property for the CWGC casualty ID numbers? I think P1908 is what I was looking for. To my eye, that looks like it needs a lot of tidying and stuff doing to it, but have no idea what. There are also 17 results from a search over there for 'CWGC'. Is a lot of work needed there to tidy things up - should they all be associated in some way and linked together? Hmm. 212 results from a search for 'Commonwealth War Graves Commission'. And funnily enough, 2 hits for Imperial War Graves Commission, which led me to Imperial War Graves Commission Staff Association - that was a nice obscure find! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Response

@Carcharoth: I've merged the three discussions you've opened on my talk page here; and invited User:RexxS to reply here to the fourth you've opened on his talk page. There's another you opened under a question I asked on a template help page, fragmenting a discussion over five areas makes it harder for people to track.

To be clear, I have never worked with the CWGC (I recall that one of their staff attended an editathon which I also attended, but did not organise) and have no CoI in this issue.

Of course I test my edits, but as I have already pointed out, I could not replicate the error you saw.

The URLs you describe which use the string /search/ redirect to a URL with the /find-war-dead/ format, and should be updated, whatever else happens. They should all be switched (like this) to use the appropriate template (one for cemeteries (etc.), the other for burials/ individuals. If they already used the template we would have updated the URLs instantly, and in one edit. once that's done, the values can be copied to Wikidata. and once that's done, the data in the templates is redundant and can be removed, as they can (or will be able to) call it from Wikidata.

No-one in their right mind would design a database where one piece of information is stored (and needs to be updated or corrected) in 290 or more locations. Yet that mess is what we have evolved with a Wikipedia in each of so many languages, plus other sister projects, Wikidata addresses this. It also allows for regularly-updated data (football team scores, batting averages, and so on) to be updated from a source database, automatically, promptly and efficiently.

Work is in hand to provide tools and scripts which will show values held in Wikidata to Wikipedia editors, and allow them to change them as they edit Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and apologies for the incorrect recall (I do remember that editathon at the British Library as I was there as well, and what I was remembering was the talks with Edward Madigan). Apologies also for fragmenting the discussion, and thanks for consolidating it. I have no idea what fixed the error, and it might have been another edit that got fixed elsewhere, so I shouldn't have said that you broke that template (sorry). It would be nice to know what caused the error, but we may never know. I am aware that one of the useful features of using the templates is to allow updating across all uses of the URL, as was done here. Am not sure why the other template was set up the 'correct' way originally (am still trying to work out which one is correct and which isn't). Re: "Work is in hand to provide tools and scripts which will show values held in Wikidata to Wikipedia editors, and allow them to change them as they edit Wikipedia." - I don't mean to be horrible, but surely that should have been done first as a priority? Hopefully it will be done sooner rather than later, before editors get too frustrated with Wikidata. For Wikidata to work, it is vital to harness the resources of editors willing to help, and breaking down technical barriers to participation is a big part of that. May I ask you for assistance when I come back to trying to work on some of the things I raised here and on RexxS's talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If we were building a top-down IT system in the traditional mould, then such things would be done in advance; that's not possible in a massive wiki-based community like this one. What specifically do you need help with? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Still confused. P1920 has 'source website for the property' for the 'find-a-cemetery.aspx' and 'formatter URL' for the 'search/cemetery_details.aspx?cemetery=$1' bit. Over at {{CWGC cemetery}}, the URL fragment used is 'search/cemetery_details.aspx?cemetery='. Switching to P1908, the source website is 'find-war-dead.aspx' and the formatter URL is 'find-war-dead/casualty/$1/', and the {{CWGC}} URL fragment is 'find-war-dead/casualty/{{{id}}}/'. Are you saying that the {{CWGC}} template uses the correct URL, which was updated here (as I said above), and that the {{CWGC cemetery}} is using the wrong URL (the form of URL that redirects) and needs updating to the 'find-a-cemetery/cemetery/' format? Incidentally, some of the URLs at the CWGC site redirect anyway to one that appends the cemetery/memorial/casualty name, so that is another layer of redirection (compare [1] with [2] and [3] for the Doiran Memorial and [4] and [5] [6] for Cecil Rawling). The 'search' ones redirect to the 'find' format with the name appended to the URL. The 'find' ones with the ID appended don't redirect to the form with the name appended to the URL, but don't always work (see Doiran Memorial example above). Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for causing confusion. Having checked, we can't use the form:

http://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/1015461

for cemeteries, because an error is returned. We have to use the /search/ form. This is because the URL format used by CWGC is the ungainly and ill-advised:

http://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/1015461/JOHANNESBURG%20(WEST%20PARK)%20CREMATION%20MEMORIAL

It would be helpful if CWGC fixed this. I'll reach out to them to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Am still confused about this. How does Wikidata hold the value for all 1.7 million people in the CWGC database? When deciding whether or not to use a value in that template, someone has to check whether the value is present on Wikidata? Or is it better to just use a value and let others import the data to Wikidata? Is this, like, a way of crowdsourcing a partial pull of information from the CWGC database? The process goes: (i) Over a number of years, people slowly and carefully add information using CWGC references - with the ID in an URL or as a template parameter. (ii) The URLs are turned into template calls. (iii) The template calls are changed into Wikidata calls. Is that right? But how does the data get onto Wikidata in the first place? As far as I can tell, you spent 20 minutes creating Q26225463 for the Doiran Memorial - is the process not automated in some way? Is that process needed for every memorial? Is that process needed for every casualty in the CWGC database? Maybe I am misunderstanding. The process only works if there is an article, such as at Cecil Rawling? Then it is possible to add something to Q1052339 that will call the CWGC casualty number (156680). I might just try and work out how to do that... (was that correct?). What happens if there is no article? e.g. For this edit I used the CWGC casualty number for the son of Ivor Herbert, 1st Baron Treowen. Is that currently not much use for Wikidata or can it be added in some way to Q6099414? Similar questions (regarding this edit and this edit) for this photo of the gravestone of Gilbert Talbot (CWGC ID 478040). The Wikidata item for Toc H is here, but I doubt there is a way to associate that with the Gilbert Talbot data, is there? I suppose the photo could be tagged in some way with the CWGC ID number? Carcharoth (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you check my contributions on wikidata and see if they are OK? Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Your Wikidata edits are fine. My work on Q26225463 was spread over 20 minutes but didn't take anywhere near that amount of time. Every Wikipedia article must have a corresponding Wikidata item, but many more things can beside. There is no intention to have a Wikidata item for every person with a CWGC grave. I'll review the other edits you mention, later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If you use a CWGC ID for one person as a citation in an article about someone or something else, that won't be fetched from Wikidata and you'll use the CWGC ID in the Wikipedia template, as before. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Crosses of Sacrifice photos

I hope you both don't mind if I just respond to one issue here for the moment. I'll try to survey what exists so far. c:Crosses of Sacrifice has a 'Wikidata item' link to Crosses of Sacrifice (Q21159417) which links back to the Commons gallery (P935). There is also the article Cross of Sacrifice which has a 'Wikidata item' link to Cross of Sacrifice (Q2735243). The Wikidata item Cross of Sacrifice (Q2735243) also links directly to the Commons gallery. What is more interesting is that Cross of Sacrifice (Q2735243) also has one image statement, linking to c:File:Cross of Sacrifice, Ypres Reservoir cemetery.jpg. Now, what I would suggest to Andy is that we should not be putting 300 image links into Cross of Sacrifice (Q2735243), but we should instead be creating a Wikidata item for each of the 300 crosses, each of which would contain a link to its image on Commons and be an instance of (P31) Cross of Sacrifice (Q2735243). That would allow more information to be stored on each cross (like its parent cemetery and its coordinates) and we would then be ready to pull information into Wikipedia in a consistent way. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's exactly right. There should also be an instance of commons:Template:Wikidata on each cross's image page (or category), for now, to facilitate conversion when proper, Wikidata-style, structured data comes to Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I think I understand that. Maybe someone will do it for gold post boxes as well? I ran into a conflict trying to get Commons:Category:2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics gold post boxes linked to the en-wiki page. Will return to all this later, am taking a break now. Many thanks for all the advice so far. Carcharoth (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #221

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 09:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A birthday

Precious again, your creating of Albert Ketèlbey, born on 9 August, an article improved in collaboration!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2016



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Change to Template:Cite Racing Post introduced citation error (apparently)

Please see King George VI Chase, in which your change to Template:Cite Racing Post appears to have caused a citation syntax error. Thanks – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the error is in the way that the template was (mis-)used, contrary to its documentation and resolved in this fix, not in my edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Cite Tweet

Hello,

I recently used this template following your example "@Pigsonthewing (February 7, 2015). "This is an example tweet. Hello, Wikipedians!" (Tweet) – via Twitter." However, when saving it gives a ref error "url value" which continues even when adding a url param. Removing the number param. removes the url error but it then asks for a number. The offending diff is here. It's probably something blindingly obvious I've done wrong! Can you help please? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks. When I tried it with just the number it asked for the url: so assume it was the user name which caused the anomaly. Noted for future. Thanks again. Eagleash (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Henri Fouquet

Hi,

I've just learned by RexxS that you corrected a mistake I made some days ago regarding the interwiki link for this article. Let me thank you for that, I would never have been able to fix the problem myself... LouisAlain (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-33

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

Problems

  • Last week Tech News announced you will get a notification when you mention yourself the same way as if someone else had mentioned you. This caused some problems and will happen later instead. [7]
  • Creating and editing links to sections on other pages on the wiki now works again in the visual editor. [8]
  • For some users, cross-wiki notifications haven't been working properly. The count has been wrong when only cross-wiki notifications were present. The cross-wiki bundle has been showing only the names of wikis and not the actual notifications. This will be fixed soon. [9][10]

Changes this week

  • The login session when you choose "Keep me logged in" will now last a year. Previously it was 30 days. This will happen on August 16. [11]
  • Some abuse filters will have to be updated during the week. This is because a bug will be fixed. [12]
  • In compact language links, two new kinds of languages will be shown in the shorter language list: Languages that are used in the article's text, and languages where the article has a badge like "featured article" or "good article". [13][14]
  • The visual editor will be available by default for logged-out editors on Wikipedias that use the Arabic script. It is already default for logged-in editors. [15]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 16. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from August 17. It will be on all wikis from August 18 (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on August 16 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Starting the week of August 22 there will be three software deployment windows. They will be at 13:00, 18:00, and 23:00 UTC. This is to have more times when software of the wikis can be updated and make it easier for developers in different parts of the world. [16]

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

19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

update - please could you help me

Morning Andy

You very kindly helped me before updating my page - i have written the below update are are able to check that you are happy with it and then make any changes and post it ?

Do let me know if you need anything more from me. I tried doing the link but did not know if i was doing it correctly so stopped after the top one.

Many thanks again

On the 24th June 2016 ITV broadcast Oscar Pistorius: The Interview, (http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week25/oscar-pistorius-interview ) in which the former Paralympian spoke in a world exclusive to Williams-Thomas, in his first television interview about the night he shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day 2013. (http://www.standard.co.uk/stayingin/tvfilm/oscar-pistorius-the-interview-itv-the-paralympian-talks-about-reeva-steenkamp-s-killing-with-a3280541.html) .

Oscar Pistorius :The interview has been broadcast around the world and was broadcast in Pistorius's home country of South Africa immediately after the ITV programme finished . (http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/2016/06/24/Heres-when-you-can-watch-the-Oscar-Pistorius-interview-in-South-Africa)

In June 2016 it was announced that Simon Cowell (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Cowell) had joined forces with Williams-Thomas to make a 4 part investigative crime series on ITV http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/simon-cowell-turns-detective-find-8290139 (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/the-investigator-a-british-crime-story-carol-packman-true-crime-making-a-murderer-simon-cowell-mark-a7107221.html

Williams-Thomas was the Reporter and Investigator of ITV's new crime series 'The Investigator : A British Crime Story' which re-examined a 30 year old previously ‘closed’ murder case. The murder of Carole Packman, whose body has never been found . The series was broadcast over four consecutive weeks on ITV : Thursday 14th July (http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week28/investigator-british-crime-story), 21st July (http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep2week29/investigator-british-crime-story ) ,28th July (http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep3week30/investigator-british-crime-story) & 4th August (http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep4week31/investigator-british-crime-story)

On the 3rd August 2016 the Mirror reported that there will be series 2 and possibly 3 in 2017 of 'The Investigator' ( http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/investigator-real-life-murder-story-8556430 )

On the 5th August 2016 Dorset police (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_Police) re-opened the 30 year old murder investigation of Carole Packman's murder to review the new evidence presented to them following Williams-Thomas's ITV Series The Investigator. (http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2016-08-05/dorset-police-will-consider-new-evidence-in-carole-packman-case/)

MWT579 (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, with some changes for house style. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #222

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 08:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Bach cantatas

Template:Bach cantatas has been nominated for merging with Template:Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ineffectual system

Hey - I'm writing this on your page and another editor's page because you were both involved in (a very short) discussion about the my proposal for the renaming of a template recently.

Just to be clear from the start, I am not holding either of you responsible for the terrible state of the editing system of Wikipedia! But I wonder if either of you have the time to respond, or even help improve the system.. or perhaps even suggest it to someone else.. an admin or something.

My background: I am only ever going to be a casual editor of Wikipedia. I became sick of the WP:Systemic bias which led to mob rule in Wikipedia on certain subjects. More than that, I became sick of being hounded by certain individuals to the extent that my account was compromised. An admin informed me that there was no way to trace who had done this.

Anyway, I had a look back at the proposal I had made just now. One of you had suggested "SNOW KEEP" (I have no idea what that means), because I had nominated it for deletion. I recall, only a few years ago, that in order to rename something, you had to do an Afd (or equivalent).

I presume that mechanism has been changed, at some point.

Now that I'm no longer a regular editor, I haven't bothered keeping up. I have a strong background in coding, but the mechanisms for editing here now seem exhaustive! And inconsistent. And often ineffectual. Take this case, for example: it isn't a particularly important change for the inner workings of Wikipedia, I'm happy to admit. However, it is a change and I did attempt to take it through the proper procedure.

Thankfully, one of you has taken the time to put in an indirect. Had it not been for that editor, or admin, this procedure would have presumably completely stalled! I would like to think that some procedure is in place for closing admins so that a proposal does not merely get dropped just because it is in the incorrect place (deletion nomination instead of renaming nomination, for example).

I'm not sure that the solution is the best one, but I'll go with it because, frankly and with no disrespect, I really don't care enough to lend any more creativity, logic or time to the issue.

I just thought I'd point all this out and see what you guys think.

Thanks, Anon --98.122.20.56 (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Austen

Perhaps there is no point in leaving this note, but by changing the heading levels, you are making the page harder to navigate. It also prevents archiving. It's okay to re-arrange things if there is a good reason to do it, but when three editors revert you, it's time to stop restoring your preference. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] SarahSV (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how nesting parts of a discussion under a common heading "[makes] the page harder to navigate", perhaps you could explain that one to me? Nesting sections correctly does not "prevent" archiving, but it does prevent sections from being archived separately to those to which they respond - that's a good thing, right? I haven't "rearranged" anything - the sub-sections are still in the order in which they were posted - unlike the editors who have removed a subsection I started from beneath the section to which it was a response. I have already explained to the editor who made the most recent revert why she was wrong to do so - a matter of accessibility, something about which you yourself were apparently concerned quite recently. Oh, and while I have your attention, any chance of a reply to my question to you on Tagishsimon's talk page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I second Sarah's note here. Andy's nesting of the headers does not make sense, given the flow of the original discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I refer you to my response to her, above yours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Specifically: "Full protection?" should not be under "Citation style". It was intended by the OP as a separate section, and it has nothing to do with the scope of the "Citation style" section, which is only about developing a consensus citation style for the article. Same with "An offer" and "An offer, part II". You created a section called "The case for citation templates", which could properly be moved up into the "Citation style" if you wish; it addresses the call for consensus raised there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
It's clear to a blind monkey on galloping horse that anything titled "..part II" is part of the same discussion as the (unnumbered, in this case) "part I". The first part discusses ""robustness of the citation style" in its opening sentence, and is thus a continuation of the "Citation style" discussion. Likewise, "Full protection?" discusses "continuation" of editing in relation to citation styles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_77&oldid=1145684974"