This is an archive of past discussions about User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

→

Archive 130

May 2017

Please comment on Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

JavaScript RegExp problem

Moved to User talk:The Transhumanist

I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#Nested RegExp.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: You're already getting better answers than I would have provided. I don't know much about Twinkle at all, have just used it for anti-vandal stuff before. My JS experience is largely "vanilla" WWW JS (technically ECMAScript). I concur that the parentheses (round brackets) appear to be grouping characters, as used in mathematics. Many flavors of regexp do this (e.g. that used by BBEdit). Should be fairly easy to test to be sure. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm past the grouping problem -- there appear to be different kinds of groups, so that $3 matched the group that I thought $4 should have matched. Now I'm chasing another bug: I want to delete a bullet list entry that doesn't have a deeper bullet list item under it. That is, I want to delete a bullet item if the entry after it doesn't have more bullets than it does. So, using grouping parens around the bullets of the initial entry, allows $1 to back reference that, so $1\* should match the bullets plus one more. Except that it doesn't work.

Hi there
- This has one more asterisk ("bullet") in the source than the item above.

In the above list, the script should not delete the "Hi there" line, because it has a child list item beneath it. But it erases it anyways! :( The Transhumanist 10:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:W56

Disregard

– Not a valid RfC.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:W56. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2017

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can review your changes visually?

When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "Review your changes".

In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding the new visual diff tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

A new wikitext editing mode is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The 2017 wikitext editor has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures to enable the ⧼Visualeditor-preference-newwikitexteditor-label⧽.

A new visual diff tool is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. More features will be added to this later. In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components. [1]

The team have added multi-column support for lists of footnotes. The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. You can request multi-column support for your wiki. [2]

Other changes:

You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this. [3]
The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow. [4]
The Categories item has been moved to the top of the Page options menu (from clicking on the icon) for quicker access. [5] There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there. [6]
You can now create <chem> tags (sometimes used as <ce>) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor. [7]
Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed. [8]
The Special character menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) . The team thanks the volunteer developer, Tpt. [9]
A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed. The team are sorry for the disruption. [10]
There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations: Control+Shift+K on a PC, or Command+Shift+K on a Mac. It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is Control+K on a PC or Command+K on a Mac. [11]

Future changes

The VisualEditor team is working with the Community Tech team on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of <ref> tags and other types of wikitext syntax. You will be able to turn it on and off. It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017. [12]
The kind of button used to Show preview, Show changes, and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use OOjs UI. The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read. The labels will remain the same. You can test the new button by editing a page and adding &ooui=1 to the end of the URL, like this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1 The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes. [13]
The outdated 2006 wikitext editor will be removed later this year. It is used by approximately 0.03% of active editors. See a list of editing tools on mediawiki.org if you are uncertain which one you use. [14]

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Peace offering

You seem to hold a lot of animosity towards me and I'd like to address that. What can I do? Thanks. --В²C ☎ 17:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry it looks that way, and I appreciate you reaching out. Animosity is not really what it is. While I do have some annoyance that you're still pursuing policy interpretations that consensus has been against for years, it's mostly a desire to get you and IIO to drop your title-and-style war, by just keeping you both off your mutual battlefield for a little while, mandatorily if necessary. The feud is disruptive to others and the project. I'm also trying to ensure that the pile-on against IIO (whom I do not always agree with, and do agree has been doing some problematic things) is not so one-sided. Too much of your "evidence" was cherry-picked instances among thousands of spot-on moves, then spun in a demonizing way that isn't supported by careful analysis, and/or was just your own IDONTLIKEIT opinion. And your own past in this area is too checkered (or chequered, depending on dialect), per the unclean hands principle. Every time someone opens up an ANI thread that shouldn't be opened, or was not opened cleanly, it's yet another drain on editorial productivity. You may note that I pretty much never file any kind of noticeboard action against anyone over a style/titles matter, and this is for similar reasons about my own history and temperament.

I closed my larger response to you at ANI with a suggestion that you have admins deal with future "someone is a bad mover" concerns, rather than bring them yourself, given your previous admonitions and sanctions, and your difficulty in presenting a just-the-facts case without drawing attention to the fact that it's a personality conflict, of a sort you've been raked over the coals for before. I did that because I don't want to see the long-term or indefinite, total T-ban from move discussions applied, not because I do want to see it applied. Otherwise I wouldn't be trying to help you avoid it. "What you can do" is probably implicit from what I've said; there isn't any kind of playing-nice-with-SMcCandlish stuff I'm fishing for. This sort of stuff ultimately is the same general kind of pattern as why I took action against Darkfrog24, after 7+ years of patience (though I was not the first to act; I think I came in on AE case no. 2 out of the four or so cases filed against her back-to-back). At some point the distracting battle just has to stop so we can get back to doing good work for our readers. Every one of these "stylistic holy wars" that won't go away furthers the perception that the AT/MOS crowd are bad apples, that ARBATC didn't go far enough, that maybe we should scrap both AT and MOS and let every wikiproject do whatever the hell it wants, that WP's true heroes are blatantly anti-MOS/AT admins who violate WP:INVOLVED to punitively always side against MOS/AT regulars when any axe-grinder picks a fight with them no matter how uncivil those others are, etc., etc. So I try to shut this stuff down more and more when I run into it. (Old timers probably think this seems inconsistent with my own history in the late 2000s to early 2010s period; they should consider that I have "seen the light".) My #1 concern with the AT/MOS/NC stuff is stability, not whether it is "correct" or "best", because all of these matters are ultimately arbitrary to a degree, and subjective. It's more important that we agree we have a set of rules and play the ballgame, than argue about what the rules should ideally be changed to, continually manufacture pointless nit-picks about their interpretation, or try to "game" them.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking for common ground. Let's start with this: "My #1 concern with the AT/MOS/NC stuff is stability, ...". Have you read what my goal is? User:Born2cycle#A_goal:_naming_stability_at_Wikipedia. Stability has been my goat at AT/RM for years before I stated it explicitly in 2011[15] --В²C ☎ 23:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As to IIO, I'm not looking for conflict with him. To the contrary. I know those examples might looked cherry-picked, but they're not. I have not gone through his history of RMs and picked out the ones I thought to be problematic. I picked the ones I had encountered through my normal editing, and maybe occasionally checking his recent history. Most of the older examples in that AN/I were brought up by others, also presumably from their normal encounters. It's a real problem. There are are disagreements about titles. This is not news, nor the issue here. On many issues consensus has not settled. But there is consensus on this: potentially controversial moves should not be made; they should go to RM. IIO has been reminded of this repeatedly by a number of editors, but he won't stop making such moves. I don't understand why. He won't even explain why he makes most of these moves, much less why he won't stop. And he does have a strange aversion to primary topic, and many of his moves reflect this view. But I also don't understand why bringing these concerns to AN/I is an issue. Many others I never heard of or ever encountered have chimed in with specific examples supporting exactly the impression I have of the issue. Besides bringing this issue to AN/I, as far as I can remember nobody has ever suggested that my disagreements with IIO are somehow a problem in and of themselves. But if that's the case, I'd be happy to address that too.
And I want to address too: "you're still pursuing policy interpretations that consensus has been against for years". I would like to know what policy interpretation you think those are. I really believe we have a misunderstanding there. I mean, sometimes RMs are resolved consistent with my interpretations, sometimes they don't. But I don't think that's different from anyone else. I did have a hard time giving up the whole US city, state thing, but I finally did, years ago. The only other situation I can think of was using common name for plants, but scientific names won out, and I gave that up years ago too. Of course, I pursued Yogurt for a long time, but consensus finally came down in agreement with my interpretations there. The move to Hillary Clinton still seems recent but that was 2015. Oh, Kim Davis finally got disambiguated per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as I advocated for a long time, and that was in March. That's really the main point of disagreement between IIO and myself - whether primary topic should be considered at all. I mean, in cases where I see there is no primary topic, I do support keeping or moving the dab page to the base name. The more controversial position I arguably hold is opposing unnecessary disambiguation. But I'm far from the only one, and a survey of our titles suggests consensus is with me on this. That is, disambiguation in titles when it's not necessary for disambiguation, but is desired for clarification of the subject, is very rare. An editor I don't recall ever encountering before, despite their history going back to 2005, just stated as much this the other day: "Parentheses are used in Wikipedia article names for disambiguation, not clarification"[16]. So I don't think it's fair to say that "consensus has been against [that view] for years" either. So I would like to know what views of mine you believe are contrary to consensus. --В²C ☎ 00:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Due to injury, can barely type. IIO's talk indicates he's agreed to change approach. I can't discuss policy in depth with a lot of pain and one usable hand; will have to wait. Best discussed if/when such an issue arises, rather than in abstract. Also don't want to do some kind of "dredge up every disagreement you've ever had" thing. People's views change; maybe yours have more than I know. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, shit. I hope you can still work, or have good disability coverage! Anyway, take care of that, of course. There is no emergency here. In the mean time, if IIO backs off on his unilateral moves that should take care of it. --В²C ☎ 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies links

Inserting links to Wikispecies and other external wikis seems to be an increasing practice. Editors dislike red links, in spite of WP:REDLINKS, and argue that a link to Wikispecies or the like is better. See the linked articles in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Links to Wikispecies and also Stanley B. Mulaik for another approach. This practice seems very undesirable to me: the links are "Easter eggs", since the reader has no reason to expect to be taken off the English Wikipedia, and the lack of the red link disguises the fact that an article is needed as per WP:REDLINK. I'd welcome your views, and if you agree with me, advice on how to tackle this issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Peter coxhead: {{ill}} is a wonderful template for this. I would personally favor linking to the content on Wikidata (which is supported by the ill template). --Izno (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead and Izno: Lean toward agreeing. Will look into discussions. Broke my wrist today; aside from being doped up and exhausted, I'm typing one-handed, so I prolly won"t say much. Which many would consider a godsend, heh. May have time to chime in this weekend. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your wrist. Hope it improves soon. As for not saying much, it's always good to hear your views, even if occasionally we don't agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noël Coward

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noël Coward. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of information from Blue Army

I thought your observations were well said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: Thanks! Was this in relation to anything in particular? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It was, but I don't remember specifically. Our paths crossed once again. It's a gigantic encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

In retrospect, it must be about the thread immediately above this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

local consenus

Done

you might want to take a look at this Gonejackal (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello SMcCandlish,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 816 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)