Knife-in-the-drawer, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Knife-in-the-drawer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at
the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Samwalton9 (
I'm a Teahouse host)
I think this is the one you have to help me now. There are many pages that the {{Please check ISBN}} template has just to be removed since the ISBN has already been fixed. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 22:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Magioladitis:The first article that I worked on...I randomly picked because its title was interesting, and if it contained ISBN errors, I guessed they would be easy to fix. As you advised, no ISBN errors, but lots of {{Please check ISBN}}, which I deleted. Remember--randomly picked. The article:
The Good Witch of the West. A manga article! That's funny!!! The gremlins of fate have a huge sense of humor!!! Can you recommend a good lawyer for when I get dragged before the tribunal? :-)
Knife-in-the-drawer (
talk) 04:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)reply
As long as we team-up to fix the errors in the Manga articles, you'll need no lawyer :) --
Magioladitis (
talk) 06:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)reply
In the morning, I need to do
Manlio Sgalambro (it has lots of problems). All other articles that remain on this "Category" page also appear in the 070/072 dumps. After I put those dumps to bed, I will return to this "Category" page to see what still remains.
Knife-in-the-drawer (
talk) 20:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I am fast, not faster than you, but unfortunately I am running out of ideas of how to fix the remaining pages. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 14:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Magioladitis:I'm not sure how to interpret your message. My plan: 1) Get 070 dump down to zero by tomorrow. 2) Get 072 down to zero in a few more days.
If you have a different plan, let me know.
I guess now is as good a time as any...the July dumps will probably contain ~300 articles each in 070 and 072, which WPCleaner should catch this time. The ISBN beast isn't dead quite yet. :-)
Regarding the missed "=" should be a pipe that you wrote below...I need time to research it. Maybe my fault, which I'll admit. Maybe WPCleaner's fault (that poor scapegoat :-). Maybe the template's fault. I need time to research it. Now, however, I'm heading to 070 dump unless you have another plan for me.
Knife-in-the-drawer (
talk) 15:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)reply
If you see the WPCleaner list I fixed almost all cases. I'll check the others in a few days. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 09:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Magioladitis: At the risk of looking thick, I'm not sure what you meant by "WPCleaner list". Would you please point me to a specific article you fixed that had something like an ISBN (paperback) and an ISBN (hardcover) in the "isbn=" parameter of the Infobox book? Thanks.
Knife-in-the-drawer (
talk) 09:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)reply
"
Daniel Keys Moran" has 20 ISBNs, so of course, I'd rather not go through them manually to fix the ISBN. If you need me to go through them manually to help find the inconsistency between
Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/073 dump and the detailed dump list, let me know.
Knife-in-the-drawer (
talk) 09:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I do not think that it is a good practice to add wikilinks to technical templates in Wikipedia articles. I am not quite sure but I have not seen this before. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 18:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)reply
1. You would rather have readers go hunting for templates? I just googled "wiki template ISBN"--no hits for the "ISBNT" template in the first three pages of hits (I stopped looking after three pages). You would rather hope that readers happen upon the search form buried in the middle of "
Wikipedia:Template namespace"? One fundamental characteristic of Wiki is links to ease access to information for readers. Key words wikilinked throughout the article. Relevant external links. Relevant links to other Wiki articles in the "See also" section.
2. "I am not quite sure but I have not seen this before"
Currently, there's a gaping disconnect in Wikipedia between articles and directly related templates.
3. Hopefully, when readers see an intriguing template mentioned in an article that interests them, they will be inclined to start using it.
4. "I do not think that it is a good practice..."
I don't think it's a good idea to stick wikilinks to templates in the middle of an article's text. I think it's an **excellent** idea to start putting wikilinks to directly relevant templates in the "See also" section of articles.
1. By technical templates, did you mean only
Template:ISBNT? I'm not done linking. I only wanted to put a few out there and see what dissent arose (but I didn't expect it from you). As an example (not fully thought out yet), I think the "
PubMed" article should have a link in its "See also" section to
Template:PMIDand to
Help:Magic links#PMID. Again, the gaping disconnect between the "
PubMed" article and its directly relevent templates / magic link seems ludicrous.
OK. Let's see if this is going to work. As I wrote I have no strong feelings. On 1.2, See also section to Wikipedia space such as
Wikipedia:ISBN is OK for me. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 07:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)reply
The see also sections are there for readers (not editors). We don't link to templates for the same reason we don't link to "Wikipedia:" pages or userpages, it's too meta/too "self-referential". Each article needs to be able to stand on its own (for example if someone printed it out and/or included it on a different website between different content) -- they're not supposed to refer to/mention Wikipedia or its inner workings. Templates are tools that editors use. —
Jeraphine Gryphon(
talk) 15:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi Knife-in-the-drawer, I just noticed one of these edits that the others in this thread have been complaining about. I agree with them that this is an improper way to use templates. I can see from your edit summaries that your intention is to increase awareness of underused and obscure templates and I recognize your concern that nobody will find them in "
Template namespace", but as others have suggested in this thread, "
Articlespace" is not an appropriate place to link templates directly. The proper place to link to templates like this is on
talk pages. Specifically I would recommend the main talk page on associated WikiProjects and article talk pages (where you can even place alerts like this in an appropriate
talk header template for greater visibility). You can find out what are the associated WikiProjects by looking at the article's talk page where they should be listed at the top. If you need any clarification please ask before carrying on with these additions. The way you are currently linking them is improper. -
Thibbs (
talk) 10:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I've just reverted the four directly-linked templates you recently included at "National Diet Library", "CiNii", "Choral Public Domain Library", and "Bibliothèque nationale de France". Please don't consider this a rebuke. If you'd like some help coming up with ideas for where to go to publicize/raise awareness of these templates then I'd be happy to make some suggestions and help you. -
Thibbs (
talk) 13:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Hm... Now that I look back I can see you've been doing this at a number of articles since the middle of the month. I'd like to revert those additions as well but perhaps this would be a good time to pause and address the question to the community instead of undoing all of your work. My understanding is similar to that of User:Jeraphine Gryphon (who posted above). Direct in-article references to Wikipedia or implicit instructions for readers to take an action on Wikipedia (e.g. links to templates only used by editors of Wikipedia) would seem to be a violation of
Wikipedia's guidelines on self-reference. The concept of
Cross-namespace linking is controversial and I believe the practice is generally frowned upon. It's worth noting that
Wikipedia's guidelines on the "See also" section suggest adding "internal links to related Wikipedia articles" (emphasis added) and not "Wikipedia templates, help pages, manuals of style, etc." Do you agree with my interpretation of the guidelines? If so, could you help me to revert the templates that have been added to article space since mid-June? If not, then we could pose the question at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout and see what the community thinks. Sorry for cluttering up your talk page with so many notes today. Let me know your thoughts on what I've said. -
Thibbs (
talk) 14:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi Knife. Having run into and removed a couple of these occurances, I see that a discussion on this has already started. I acknowledge, that templates are sometimes hard to find, but nevertheless, links to them don't belong into article space (or article category space, or any other page aimed at users in the role of a reader rather than editor), it's a name space violation. If the contents of the template belongs into an article, invoke the template rather than adding a link to it. And to promote the existance and usage of a template, please put it on the article's talk page, as other's have suggested already. Thanks and greetings, --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 18:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply