BacklogEdit

Transcluded from User talk:Wugapodes/Tasks

Message regarding Capricorn from BrandonXLFEdit

The script seems to work well and is very comprehensive with the list of categories it has (unlike Twinkle), but I do have suggestions.

1) When using the script, the edit summary implies the redirect target was changed when only the categories where modified. For example, this edit has the summary Redirecting to Roller coaster#Strata coaster () When it should be something like Removing/adding categories ().

2) The script still runs of when viewing diffs (as you already know). This can be fixed by not running the script when the url contains &diff in the query string.

3) Implement a search bar, so it would only show matching checkboxes and presumably removes the headings.

4) Add a save button near the top (after the redirectText input area)

5) Have a button in the top right corner to hide/show the UI.

BrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I also just realized there's no way to goto the destination page of the redirect. You could add a button after the text input or maybe add a link beside the title.BrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @BrandonXLF: Thanks! I've added them to the To-Do section of the documentation so that I don't forget about them. Some thoughts/notes on each:
  1. This has been something I've wanted to fix but kept forgetting about since I don't view the histories often. It should be pretty easy to implement though, just check if the target has changed, and if not say that it's only modifying categories.
  2. I need to think about this. In the same way that we can edit old revisions to undo recent ones, this allows modifying previous revisions as a more powerful undo. I may add it as a configuration option. In the meantime, the work around is to put the logic in your own common.js page.
  3. This may be difficult. I'd need to look at the code for things like the stub sort script, but it may not port well to this code. What I do is use my browser's built in search feature using ctrl+f to look for the particular template, though that may not work for everyone.
  4. This should be relatively easy. There is an advantage to the button at the bottom, though. Because a save button at the bottom encourages users to look through the categories when they edit a redirect, it's more likely that redirect categories will be added or corrected.
  5. This should be relatively easy and might be able to piggy back off our existing show/hide javascript.
Wug·a·po·des​ 00:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
For adding a button to go to the target, that may clutter the UI since it is redundant with the "Article" tab. Even if you're on the article page, clicking the article tab will take you to the target of the redirect. I'll think about that one as well. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't even realize the article and read tabs goes to the target, but it still not very clear that they do so and seems like an weird functionality (that could change?). You could also add it as an option in configuration. You could also add the option to show the second save button near the top in the configuration too, so first time users will likely go to the bottom of the page, showing them the categories. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 00:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
If you're concerned about space when for adding the button to the target, you could make the arrow act as a link by adding an absolute link after the li in the ul.redirectText element, or you could always just append a link to the page title.BrandonXLF (t@lk) 00:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@BrandonXLF: Concerning 4): You can use enter in the redirect target field to save the page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

GAN report: mystery solved?Edit

Wugapodes, you may recall that in the GAN report's Malformed nominations sections, an "Unknown nomination" link to the Film section of the page, but with no other information beyond that, showed up for this first time on June 1, 2019. It finally disappeared last night, and I have a tentative diagnosis.

I believe the nomination in question was for Rushmore (film), which was originally made on May 31, 2019, during the day and with a subtopic of "Film". It was clearly a handmade GA nominee template (people are supposed to substitute the GAN template): what I thought was the problem here was that there were no links for the nominator or their talk page, which I fixed. What I missed when I finally started investigating in mid-June—and what I think caused your bot to pick up on the error—was that the date/time field was malformed: all times are supposed to have two digits for the hour and two for the minutes, and this was formatted "8:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)" rather than "08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)", something I didn't notice until today, when I was trying to figure out what went wrong.

I think it was the problematic date that caused the problem, though there may have been something else about this nomination that caused it—this is a tentative diagnosis, after all, and it may be accurate, partially accurate, or not the actual issue at all. Still, this info might help you track down where in the code the error might have been generated, and why the link was to the section rather than the actual (problematic) nomination.

Hope all is well, and best of luck tracking this down. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, that's probably it. The regular expression which parses the noms assumes that the timestamp has two digits for the hour, so that's an easy fix. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

GANs to doEdit

New Years GreetingsEdit

I've noticed that some of these GANs directly above are either done or on hold. In case you might be interested, I've recently listed the biography for the film director Martin Scorsese as a nomination. He is nominated for an Oscar this year and I thought it might be nice if his article could be brought to peer review quality before the Oscars next month, if you might be inclined to look at it. CodexJustin (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome templateEdit

More readable articleEdit

Thanks for listening to me and making the changes. May I also suggest you consider changing the rather long sentence: "It used to be only the study of the systems of phonemes in spoken languages, but it now may also cover any linguistic analysis either at a level beneath the word (including syllable, onset and rime, articulatory gestures, articulatory features, mora, etc.) or at all levels of language where sound or signs are structured to convey linguistic meaning." I count about 66 words which requires a grade 31 to read (how many PHDs is that :). Here is a suggested revision: At one time it only related to the study of the systems of phonemes in spoken languages. Now it may cover either a) any linguistic analysis either at a level beneath the word (including syllable, onset and rime, articulatory gestures, articulatory features, mora, etc.), or b) all levels of language where sound or signs are structured to convey linguistic meaning. I will leave it too you. Cheers. John (talk)

Racial views of Joe BidenEdit

Given the proposed version is contested, I've copied the discussion to Talk:Racial views of Joe Biden for wider comment on what version we should return to. Wug·a·po·des 00:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I object to locking the article right after user:Volunteer Marek removed large portions of material. This is an attempt to influence the AfD by removing content and sources. He also falsely claimed he was removing BLP violations when everything was sourced to reliable sources. He removed CNN, the Washington Post, and Politico as sources. How can people fairly evaluate the article at AfD when he basically just blanked the article? Please reconsider.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rusf10: Per the banner I left: "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version". If you can identify a stable version prior to the edit war, I will consider reverting to that (see WP:PREFER). Personally, I had a hard time finding one, so I just protected the version it was at when I got there. As someone familiar with the article, you may have an easier time identifying one. You can also discuss changes on the talk page to establish consensus and then request an edit. Wug·a·po·des 21:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, I'm about to go offline, so unless you see me making some edits, you may want to ask an admin who's active at the time. Wug·a·po·des 22:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't fault you for locking it. But, since the article is at AfD, the version presented should not have large amounts of content removed. I would support this version just prior to the mass removal (blanking) of content.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
That version is a BLP vio. You don’t get to “commit BLP vio because the article is being considered for deletion”. Lol. Volunteer Marek 22:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a false claim. Where is the BLP vio. You even removed direct unedited Biden quotes from reliable sources. Something is not a BLP violation just because it makes Joe Biden look bad. Also, if you were serious about BLP violation, you wouldn't be laughing.(I certainly don't find anything funny about this)--Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Rusf10, that version was full of BLP violations. And what's the rationale provided by the tiny minority of editors who have not voted to delete the article? That, based only on their own OR and with no source making the comparison, they would like to hold up random remarks from Biden's 77 year life as somehow equivalent to Trump locking up dark-skinned children to die in filth behind chain-link fences in South Texas? Or any of the other well-sourced, RS-verified content in the Racial views of Trump article. Nobody's with you on this. Drop it. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not clear why we would discuss reinstating BLP smears that are not based on the weight of or for that matter on any RS interpretation that supports them. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-30Edit

19:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

GS template changesEdit

Hey. I've proposed a few changes/additions to the GS system of templates. Wondering if you might be interested / have any thoughts to add, since you created a couple sanction-specific templates in the area. The threads are alert proposals, talk notice proposal, and using alert as a proxy for both DS/GS. Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-31Edit

13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Interactive graphEdit

Greetings Wugapodes, I have been trying to make an interactive map of covid cases similar to Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Cumulative confirmed cases. I am not getting it to work, don't know where it goes wrong? Since you made the mentioned one, I'm asking you this. If you get a free time, can you have a look at this? I get "TypeError: undefined has no properties" when I preview it at mw:Special:GraphSandbox. (Links for dependent sub-pages.) Thanks - Timbaaa -> ping me 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've done some debugging and threw the results up at User:Timbaaa/sandbox/6/wugapodes. You can see the difference between that one and yours at Special:Diff/969815756/970375160 Some notes:
  • The main issue was your map json. Essentially, the graphing software was looking for data fields that didn't exist. I downloaded a fresh json file for Indian states and added the needed fields which you can see in the history at User:Timbaaa/sandbox/6/wugapodes/India Map Data.json. There are some differences between it and your data, so you may want to take a closer look at it.
  • For similar reasons, there were some issues in the mouse-over and hover text code which prevented region name display and case count display. There's debug code which displays that info, and it shouldn't be hard to rework it for your desired style and placement.
  • Your data are weekly updates instead of daily, so for days without data the map bugs out. You'll need to figure out some way to get around this. The two main strategies are to modify your input data format or to modify the graph scale:
  1. Modifying the input data requires automatically adding the needed fields on every update (see the data backend for an example) which is a fair bit of overhead, but modifying the graph code will be easier.
  2. Modifying the scale minimizes overhead since you don't need to do your own data ingest, but the graphing library may not be able to do exactly what you want. If it can be done, it will require some ingenuity, so it will be a lot harder to do at first (if it can be done at all) but will minimize maintenance requirements down the line. Personally I would not recommend this option.
  • I added scale and offset parameters to the map data. You can toy around with positioning of the map by modifying those. I got it pretty big and centered, but you may need to tweak them later on depending on any changes you make.
I'm a little busy with meatspace work at the moment, so I'm sorry I couldn't help more. Ideally we could write a little tutorial on how to do country-specific graphs based on your experiences so let me know how it all goes. The interactive parts of the graph extension are not well documented, so I think that write-up would be a useful supplement to the interactive graph tutorial. If you run into more problems, feel free to get in touch. Wug·a·po·des 23:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, Thanks for taking your time to work it out and for the detailed explanation. I'll tweak around.
I am just starting to get the hang of Vega. If I hit any roadblock(or hopefully once I get what is required), I shall contact you.
One question,
Since the mark.debugmouseposition.update uses text from csv, is there a particular need for geometries.[].properties fields in map json? I'm in no hurry, reply at your convenience. - Timbaaa -> ping me 02:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, Got the required working version. I thick they can be moved to template namespace(without leaving redirect), where I shall parameterize it.

COVID EditnoticeEdit

Hi Wugapodes. I noticed your comment above that you're a bit busy right now; my query is low priority, no hurry on this. Just wanted your thoughts on a matter I came across whilst doing overhauls of the Template:Gs system, whenever you have spare time and can get around to it.

Regarding {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}, which was created in response to this request back in March, and ref this, my understanding of edit notices for DS is that they follow ArbCom's procedure on page-level restrictions: if there are page restrictions (either for a whole topic, or for a single article) that an editnotice is required (alongside a talk notice) to meet the sanctioning requirements. The COVID GS doesn't authorise 1RR or other page-level restrictions, instead solely standard discretionary sanctions, whose awareness procedure doesn't require an editnotice. The COVID GS would seem like an anomaly here, as it's the only DS or GS with an active editnotice without any page-level sanctions on the topic.

If my understanding here is correct, would it be okay to delete this editnotice? There are a small number of pages like Coronavirus disease 2019 which have custom page-level sanctions, so would continue to require some form of custom editnotice. Aside from principle/consistency, my bigger concern is that a big red editnotice on articles isn't great for encouraging newer editors to participate (COVID EN reads harsher than the ArbCom DS editnotices imv), so if not required by the bureaucratic powers that be (ie the awareness rules) I was hoping it'd be possible to get this one deleted?

Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Everything that followed - mass editnotice tagging of COVID pages - seems to just be a misunderstanding of the system. The discussion here misinterpreted the editnotice requirement of Administrators should add an editnotice and talk page notice on restricted pages. Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator only if the editor was warned about this decision and an editnotice describing the page restriction was placed on the restricted page., resulting in a few editnotices for pages without page-level sanctions. Following that, some editors mass-created COVID editnotices, to the point where about 200 pages are now tagged with them. Somewhat delayed to request deletion now, but they do appear to be improper, and anything that unnecessarily discourages participation should be scrapped imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: That template's used on about 160 pages, which is mainly why I would not recommend deleting it. My understanding of WP:GS/COVID19 is that it allows page restrictions like any other DS/GS topic area, sysops have just preferred page protection (which is a page-level sanction) and individual sanctions. If you want to usurp the title and move the template and point its transclusions there, that's fine, but the COVID editnotice serves a purpose on the pages that use it.
As a bit of an aside, I think your understanding of the general sanctions is too rigid. The point was to give community support to administrators strongly enforcing WP:V and WP:MEDRS without having to invent a connection to the Pseudoscience ArbCom sanctions. The specifics have about as much consensus behind them as a guideline. Actually following them strictly isn't even really possible: a warning about COVID GS requires the editor be "linked to this decision", but there is no decision since it wasn't an ArbCom case. The COVID general sanctions are like the Affordable Care Act: hastily drafted and pretty much only comprehensible if you ignore what words mean.
So unlike ArbCom-created discretionary sanctions, COVID general sanctions is one of the cases where practice dictates policy, rather than policy dictating practice. Given that the template is used so widely, I think this is a question of policy, not technically a template. My understanding is that the COVID GS editnotice is sufficient warning, and the template seems to be used to warn editors that failure to comply with MEDRS will result in them being sanctioned. While that may scare people, we're first and foremost an encyclopedia. Biomedical information is a topic where we have a duty to our readers to ensure the information is correct, even if it means a slow or restrictive editorial process. Wug·a·po·des 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Given that, especially my understanding is that the COVID GS editnotice is sufficient warning, and the template seems to be used to warn editors that failure to comply with MEDRS will result in them being sanctioned, do you mean that for COVID the editnotice is treat as the 'awareness' for sanctions, and so {{Gs/alert}} is unneeded to sanction an editor? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: That's my understanding, yes. The COVID GS text just says editors must be given a warning, not {{Gs/alert}} particularly (though it's preferred I'd bet). If an editor is repeatedly not complying with MEDRS on a page tagged with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} they can be sanctioned under the COVID GS regardless of whether they have received a Gs/alert template. The only exception I can think of is when the editor is on mobile, since editnotices don't display on mobile devices. This is just my perspective, so if you're going to rely on this, you may want to post at WP:AN or WT:GS/COVID19 to get wider opinions. Wug·a·po·des 18:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate your thoughts. I think I've spoken to over half a dozen subject admins, and read a bunch of archives, whilst revamping {{Gs}} to try understand the system better to clear up some ambiguities in the templates, but some areas just seem fundamentally hazy. For ArbCom's system, this motion was passed in 2018 to clear it up, but of course that doesn't automatically apply to the GS system (as acknowledged in the discussion). Most GS' seem to authorise "standard discretionary sanctions" so I'd think that they align with ArbCom's full procedures on the matter, including updates, and most (but not all) admins I spoke to seem to agree those awareness procedures apply, but I can't see any formal discussion to say that they should be aligned. I guess to clear it up the best course of action would be to ask at WP:AN, but I don't know whether clarity is a good idea or if it'd just either reduce admin ability to clean up COVID-related disruption just for the sake of principle, or perhaps make the system more broad, depending on which way consensus swings. Maybe it's best to just let it be, until someone feels wronged by current practices and wishes to raise the point themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
There's a lot to unpack here, and I don't have a ton of time at the moment, but as I've looked into this more, I think I may be wrong. The two most recent GS regimes, WP:GS/COVID and WP:GS/MJ, seem to be anomalies compared to the other GS pages. Those two use "warn" instead of "aware" and do not explicitly require the use of {{gs/alert}}. There's also some discrepancy among other regimes about whether {{gs/alert}} is a should or a must. I'll post at AN about this. Wug·a·po·des 21:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe both the sanctions use the terminology "standard discretionary sanctions" intentionally so that the structure remains similar to WP:AC/DS, hence making alerts (or "warnings" on talk pages basically) compulsory. I am probably at some fault here because I wrote GS/MJ, which is also what GS/COVID19 is modeled after. In any case, I think it's in the best interest of editors involved that alerts be required, also keeping GS more in line with acceptable practices. Noting that the sanction itself states Editors ... may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator only if the editor was warned about this decision and an editnotice describing the page restriction was placed on the restricted page." (emphasis mine), implying that an editnotice is distinct from a warning. For the sake of transparency, just adding that PR raised this question on IRC and I responded, but since I have your talk page on my watchlist, I'd have come here to clarify anyway.   --qedk (t c) 22:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely think consistent is better, but it's not just these pages. In my AN post I point out that GS/IRANPOL and GS/Wrestling differ on whether notification is "should" or "must", and while WP:GS and WP:AC/DS refer to this as "awareness" all four of those pages use "warn" instead of alert which is annoyingly vague. I don't disagree that you can read the text as requiring a warning distinct from an edit notice, and I'd even agree that consensus is likely in favor of requiring. If only to deprive disruptive editors of a chance to wikilawyer, getting firm clarification on these inconsistencies will be a net positive. Odds are it will be snow closed in a few days and then someone can replace the text with a consistent boilerplate. Wug·a·po·des 22:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll take it, for the clarification, but honestly when I said "maybe it's best to just let it be, until someone feels wronged by current practices and wishes to raise the point themselves" I wasn't being sarcastic (and I was honestly going to drop this issue here - my IRC query was back on the 31st). After your latest response I was starting to lean towards the idea that GS being able to diverge from ArbCom's requirements is a pro, not a con. Consensus may well be in favour of requiring due to the broadness of sanctions, but if we're being honest, if tightened up this change might allow more problematic edits through on COVID as well. Not sure wikilawyering would've mattered, since I don't think too many questioned or cared about the inconsistencies/ambiguities in GS; DS instead gets the spotlight it seems. Either way, if we're going for clarification we might as well decide if GS should remain aligned with amendments to DS by default, so an ambiguity doesn't arise again in a year, or result in the need for legalese 'motions' to be passed at AN periodically. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Summer greetingsEdit

July
 
pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

... with thanks for what you do! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt and for your work as well! I hope you're having a good summer. Have you read this month's Signpost? There's a research report on how the "thank" button increases editor retention that QAI members might find interesting. Wug·a·po·des 00:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

  Administrator changes

  Red Phoenix
  EuryalusSQL
  JujutacularMonty845RettetastMadchester

  Oversight changes

  GB fan
  KeeganOpabinia regalisPremeditated Chaos

  Guideline and policy news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020Edit

Tech News: 2020-32Edit

15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)