User talk:Andrewa/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1

←

Archive 5

Request

I'm posting here because it appears to me that you are capable of being objective, and I would very-much-appreciate reading some objective opinions so I can do a personal sanity check.

1) Have you looked at highest military ranks? (If not, I would very-much-appreciate it if you did so.)

2) For my information: Are you familiar with the history of the six-star rank article?

(Your answer makes no difference to anything - I just want to get some idea of your background knowledge.)

3) It appears to me that the current zealots are trying to turn six-star rank into highest military ranks. In your opinion, is my observation accurate, or have I missed / am I missing something?

As I said, I would very-much-appreciate reading your reply. Many thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with highest military ranks, and with some of the history of six-star rank (although I'm still digesting some of the talk page archives), and I'm involved in discussions currently on its talk page.

And yes, I think your observation is generally on the money. I wouldn't perhaps put it quite like that, but it's making a valid and important point that is the key problem there. I wouldn't put it like that largely for fear of being accused of being one of the zealots myself.

I certainly think that part of the problem is that people are equating six-star rank with the highest military rank, and that's not true. Specifically but not only, George Washington has never held a six star rank.

Hang in there... None of us is right all the time. That's why we collaborate. Mind you, in Time Enough for Love Robert Heinlein says Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides? Andrewa (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't perhaps put it quite like that - ROTFL!! (How diplomatic of you!)

I wouldn't put it like that largely for fear of being accused of being one of the zealots myself. ;-) There's no risk of anyone calling me a zealot - I'm just a "grumpy old man".

Thanks for the reply. (Most appreciated!) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That sentence is at least misleading, and it could be argued that it's just plain false. - ;-) Yes, that's exactly what I (and others well before me) have done. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Digression(s)

(Digression: Heinlein! Good heavens!! I haven't read any Heinlein since the 1980s, at which time I read him obsessively. Thanks for poking the enjoyable part of my memories! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC) )

He had a devastating turn of phrase at times. Without Heinlein, there could have been no Hitchhikers' Guide or Red Dwarf, and civilisation would be that much the poorer.

He had a devastating turn of phrase at times. - Or failing that, to a naïve young man, he provided MUCH food for thought, and much entertainment!

Without Heinlein, there could have been no ... - Really? My personal POV is that Douglas Adams was unique and a genius, and that he carved his own path which was quite independent of Heinlein. (i.e. tangential. No disrespect for Heinlein intended - as I implied, he was my "author of choice" during the 1970s.)

BTW: Insufficient knowledge to make "deep" comments about Red Dwarf, (I just enjoyed watching it!!), and, regarding: "and civilisation would be that much the poorer", beyond "I agree", what more can I usefully say? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lose your sense of humour and you start to worry about things that don't really matter, and that ain't funny. - Peter Ellis, scholar, gentleman, ten years older than me with only one lung and still always finished ahead of me in the City to Surf, and chief of Instrumentation and Control section at the AAEC when I had the pleasure of working there. He said it on a training run for said race. And I've never heard it said better. Andrewa (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW: Another of my favourites from that era was Harry Harrison. Particulary, but not limited to, The Stainless Steel Rat trilogy. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, stimulating escapism. I read and reread the first three of the Deathworld novels and have only just discovered there were any more of them, but they seem only available in languages I don't speak. They would give my mind a much-needed rest from saving Wikipedia and the World... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahaha!!! To quote Basil Brush: "Boom boom!" Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Observation

And neither of these are new issues. The appalling state of the current article can't be fixed just by writing an equally appalling lead to match it. - Excellent! Concise, accurate and complete. (Thank you.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disappointment

Only just noticed Talk:Six-star rank#For comment. Sorry! I'll have a look at User:Andrewa/sandbox and "the draft" tomorrow.

However, I'm not off to a good start! For example:

A six-star rank is a rank immediately superior to a five-star rank.

Says who!

Several militaries have or have had such a rank.

Ambiguous grammar: "Several militaries have or have had such a rank."

If 5* - So what?
If 6* - I'm not aware of ANY militaries which "have or have had such a rank".

Six-star ranks may include General of the Armies, Admiral of the Navy, Wonsu and Taewonsu.

Says who!

Sorry, but so far, what you've said is rubbish. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being frank and to the point.

Says who #1... grammar and semantics. What do you think it means? Agree sources would be good.

Agree about the ambiguity, good catch. I'll have a go at fixing it. The intended reading was 6*.

I'm not aware of ANY militaries which "have or have had such a rank"... they are of course listed in the draft for discussion. Which would you like to start with?

Says who #2... other Wikipedia articles for a start, and hopefully therefore their sources in some cases at least!

Good points all, with the possible exception of rubbish. But even that's constructive IMO. We need to investigate exactly why this topic arouses such strong feelings, if we're to achieve stability for the article. And without stability there's no hope of quality (and vice versa of course). Andrewa (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. You'll recall I previously mentioned I'm a grumpy old man. It seems that I'm becoming a jaded, short-tempered, grumpy old man. (i.e. my dis-satisfaction is general - it is not specifically, nor only, aimed at you.)

I'll have a go at fixing it. - Why? Once you've had a look at my latest comments on the 6* talk page, you'll realise that I believe that effort on the 6* page is a wasted mis-direction of your not inconsiderable abilities, and further effort is an even bigger waste of your efforts and abilities.

they are of course listed in the draft for discussion. Which would you like to start with? - Ummmm. Errrrr. ... No. Sorry. They're not. As I've stated, I have yet to see ANY evidence from ANY relevant reliable source that ANY of them are six-star ranks. Please "SHOW ME THE ~~MONEY~~" evidence.

other Wikipedia articles for a start - Ouch!! Surely I don't need to point out the holes in that statement?

and hopefully therefore their sources in some cases at least! - Seriously, I do not enjoy on spreading doom & gloom, etc., but, what can I say, as I've already either implied or stated, "I have yet to see ANY ..."

We need to investigate exactly why this topic arouses such strong feelings, - Pause. Longer pause. Interesting!

That's the first new topic I've seen in these discussions for years.

Whilst I agree that would be an interesting scientific and social experiment, and I'm sure I'd be fascinated to read the results, I don't see how it would improve this, or any other article. i.e. My personal opinion is that your time and efforts would make far more useful contributions elsewhere in places where your time and efforts are seriously needed.

And without stability there's no hope of quality (and vice versa of course). - Agree. (Completely agree.)

BUT, (to use the current "buzz-phrase"), I believe that Wikipedia would get a MUCH better ROI (return on investment) if your efforts were expended in other areas. (For example: highest military ranks). Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Onward and upward!

Now, it's been an absolute delight interacting with you, and I hope our paths continue to cross frequently.

But there are other things I wish to achieve, and trying to talk you out of what I consider is a mis-guided cause is keeping me away from them.

Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Seniority vs # of *

I may be wrong, but you seem to be confusing seniority with number of stars.

Pershing was still alive and although retired still held his rank of General of the Armies, and it was explicitly stated that his rank was superior to the new five-star ranks.

Yes, but that did NOT mean that Pershing was a 4, 5 OR 6 star - he was: General of the Armies, and it was explicitly stated that his rank was superior to the new five-star ranks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Which, if it was immediately superior, is exactly what six star means, surely? What am I missing?

(Sorry - missed this one) - Well it appears to me you've answered your own question in the next paragraph. As I said (implied?) in the section h3: don't confuse "seniority" with "superiority" (whatever that means) with "# of *".

we need to be very careful about confusing seniority with rank - Exactly. (i.e. I agree.) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree that we need to be very careful about confusing seniority with rank. There are many factors that determine precedence, of which rank is only one, and date of appointment is another. And the term outrank is, confusingly, often applied to differences other than rank. A serving officer may outrank a higher ranked one on the retired list, or an officer of the RNR may be outranked by an officer of the RN despite the higher rank of the RNR officer. (And as a lance-corporal of cadets I was myself outranked by every private in the "regs".) Or that's the way it works in British Commonwealth countries, and I imagine that the USA is no less complex.

But fortunately, our best sources are equally careful. It is explicit for example that Washington is senior to all other officers, past present and future, and that Dewey was senior to the 1944 five-star officers, both by virtue of their rank alone. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Highest military ranks

AND, you seem to want to include "stuff" irrelevant to six-star rank which would be quite at home in "Highest military ranks". Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to include anything irrelevant, but the fact that stuff belongs there doesn't preclude mentioning it here too. We shouldn't have unnecessary duplication of course.

But a very relevant point. Is six-star a highest military rank? Currently, yes, in a sense it is, in some militaries at least. Intrinsically, no. If armies continue to grow, so will the top ranks.

And that's what makes it misleading to call Washington's rank six star. Newspapers have done exactly that of course, but AFAIK the army has not, and they have good reasons. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If a six-star rank is the highest grade of military rank, then of course Six-star rank and Highest military ranks will have overlap. There's nothing wrong with overlap. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If a six-star rank is the highest grade of military rank - Given that NO-ONE can, or even has attempted to, (let alone succeeded in), PROOVEing to me, or anyone else for that matter, ANYTHING about "six-star rank", that statement is ... what? (Fantasy?) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There should be overlap anyway, even if we can find reliable secondary sources that confirm my observation or POV or logical deduction or OR or whatever you wish to call it that Washington's rank is superior to six star.

Hello? (Ground control to Major Tom.) Tell me: What are you on, and where can I get some? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see a great deal of hope for the highest military ranks article. It's something of a non-topic, created in a pointy and to date unsuccessful attempt to redirect and merge the six-star rank article.

To quote John McEnroe: "You can NOT be serious". It is a FACT, (not an opinion, a FACT), that some ranks are higher than others. It is a COMPLETE FANTASY AND FABRICATION THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A SIX-STAR RANK. (And yes, you can bet your "bippy" that I think, (and do so justifiably, AND with supporting evidence from reliable sources), that what you say is (What's the politest word I can think of?) "inaccurate", not to mention mis-leading.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see that you and probably many other reasonable Americans with an interest in military history believe that It is a COMPLETE FANTASY AND FABRICATION THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A SIX-STAR RANK, and believe it with religious fervor. That's obvious.

How interesting!

1) I'm not American.

2) I have little or no interest in what ANYONE, much less Americans, think.

3) I'm MUCH more interested in what can be verified as FACT.

4) It is a FACT that: It is a COMPLETE FANTASY AND FABRICATION THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A SIX-STAR RANK.

5) I have ZERO interest in religion.

6) Sorry I don't understand what you think is "obvious".

Further, your comment seems completely irrelevant. i.e. You've lost me. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

But I'm still struggling to see why. It makes no sense. Not only is the statement false, it's not all that important, surely? Why do people seem about to pop a blood vessel over this?

But I'm still struggling to see why - You're still struggling to see why ... what?

It makes no sense. - What makes no sense?

Not only is the statement false, it's not all that important - Which statement?

surely? - (big sigh) If ANYTING were "sure" it wouldn't be the topic of debate. (Suggest you choose your words with more though beforehand.)

Why do people seem about to pop a blood vessel over this? - They don't. They pop a blood vessel over other people making statements that are independent of, and irrelevant to, the statements they have made, and the questions they have asked. (And even more usually, because they have asked their questions / made their statements SEVERAL times, yet they have never received and response bearing even a passing resemblance to the topic they are seeking information and/or responses to. Pdfpdf (talk)

And why do they think I would have any interest in promoting a COMPLETE FANTASY AND FABRICATION? What's in it for me? Isn't there a reality check needed somewhere here? Andrewa (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To reply with a very Australian expression which has, strangely, been popularised by that "well-known-Australian-company-Toyota"(!!) (yeah, it puzzles me, too), "Buggered if I know". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be two myths here. One is that the world will end if Washington doesn't outrank every other soldier in the world. The other is that he does outrank every other soldier. He doesn't, and Congress have no more power over this than they have power to repeal the Law of Gravity. Andrewa (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You've lost me on that one - i.e. As far as I'm aware, that statement is completely unrelated to the discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is to be kept, it should probably be arranged by country rather than by rank title, as for example the rank of rear admiral is the supreme rank in Iceland, but perhaps nowhere else. And there, it's a relatively junior rank compared to say Captain in most navies, in terms of resources under command.

Sorry, disagree. The article's title is Highest military ranks, not List of highest military ranks by country. And the difference is significant! The first is an article - the second is a list. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't apologise just for disagreeing, it's one of the more important things we do on talk pages! Perhaps a list would be a good idea, and perhaps that would even make the highest military ranks page unnecessary, redirected to the list. The bottom line is always reader experience. What information is there, or should there be, in this article that wouldn't fit the list article?

But what I'm proposing is not to change the scope of the article to that of a list, it's just to change the organisation of the information it contains in order to be more useful to the reader. If they're after information on a particular rank, we should have an article on that specific rank and direct them there. And perhaps a List of highest military ranks by name would also be useful. Or, perhaps just a List of highest military ranks with a sortable table... hey, I like that. Andrewa (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

But it's a nebulous topic at best, and perhaps that should be no surprise. The intent was I think to show that six stars is the highest possible rank anywhere, ever, and always will be, and that's a complete nonsense, let alone POV. Andrewa (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

But it's a nebulous topic at best - What is? Highest military ranks? If so, COMPLETELY disagree! The article's lead is specific, definitive, and unambiguous.

The intent was I think to show that six stars is the highest possible rank anywhere, ever, and always will be, and that's a complete nonsense, let alone POV. - OK, so now I'm very confused. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Which reminds me of a bad joke: "How do you confuse someone? Show them two shovels and ask them to take their pick." Pdfpdf (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is your creation originally, and your lead reads The highest military ranks are generally classed as five-star ranks and are discussed on that page. A number of armed forces have used or proposed ranks such as generalissimo which are senior to their five-star ranks. This page summarises those ranks. That's exactly the POV you're still expressing, is it not? Andrewa (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are some of the most helpful remarks I have seen so far in all this. Qexigator (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm new here. I'd like help.

Hello! I'm just starting to edit here. I'd like some help (forgive me if this format is all wrong, I have no idea how to properly leave messages here). I edit very frequently on wikiHow, and I'm a Booster, Welcomer, and Featured Author. You can see my profile here. Anyway, I'm so used to the wikiHow format, and I'd like to know how things are done here. Thanks! WritingEnthusiast14 (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—July and August 2014

The VisualEditor team is currently working mostly to fix bugs, improve performance, reduce technical debt, and other infrastructure needs. You can find on Mediawiki.org weekly updates detailing recent work.

The biggest visible change since the last newsletter was to the dialog boxes. The design for each dialog box and window was simplified. The most commonly needed buttons are now at the top. Based on user feedback, the buttons are now labeled with simple words (like "Cancel" or "Done") instead of potentially confusing icons (like "<" or "X"). Many of the buttons to edit links, images, and other items now also show the linked page, image name, or other useful information when you click on them.

Hidden HTML comments (notes visible to editors, but not to readers) can now be read, edited, inserted, and removed. A small icon (a white exclamation mark on a dot) marks the location of each comments. You can click on the icon to see the comment.
You can now drag and drop text and templates as well as images. A new placement line makes it much easier to see where you are dropping the item. Images can no longer be dropped into the middle of paragraphs.
All references and footnotes (<ref> tags) are now made through the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" menu, including the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" (manual formatting) footnotes and the ability to re-use an existing citation, both of which were previously accessible only through the "Insert" menu. The "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-referencelist-tooltip⧽" is still added via the "Insert" menu.
When you add an image or other media file, you are now prompted to add an image caption immediately. You can also replace an image whilst keeping the original caption and other settings.
All tablet users visiting the mobile web version of Wikipedias will be able to opt-in to a version of VisualEditor from 14 August. You can test the new tool by choosing the beta version of the mobile view in the Settings menu.
The link tool has a new "Open" button that will open a linked page in another tab so you can make sure a link is the right one.
The "Cancel" button in the toolbar has been removed based on user testing. To cancel any edit, you can leave the page by clicking the Read tab, the back button in your browser, or closing the browser window without saving your changes.

Looking ahead

The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon. Your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted. Support for upright image sizes is being developed. The designers are also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables. Work to support Internet Explorer is ongoing.

Feedback opportunities

The Editing team will be making two presentations this weekend at Wikimania in London. The first is with product manager James Forrester and developer Trevor Parscal on Saturday at 16:30. The second is with developers Roan Kattouw and Trevor Parscal on Sunday at 12:30.

Please share your questions, suggestions, or problems by posting a note at the VisualEditor feedback page or by joining the office hours discussion on Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 09:00 UTC (daytime for Europe, Middle East and Asia) or on Thursday, 18 September 2014 at 16:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Europe).

If you'd like to get this newsletter on your own page (about once a month), please subscribe at w:en:Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at Meta for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In Reply to Your Question

Sorry about the late reply. I'm not sure what the deal is on the CAPTCHA. Maybe you should email either krystle@wikihow.com or anna@wikihow.com (they both do a lot of "newbie" support). Let me know what the results are. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingEnthusiast14 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the reply. I couldn't find any way of contacting support there without signing in, which is exactly what I was unable to do! But I just tried it again and it seems to work now. I suspect it has been fixed. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Edit Conflicts

Is there any way to prevent edit conflicts? I keep running into them when reviewing new pages, and I often have to remove duplicate templates. WritingEnthusiast14 (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't need to remove duplicate templates.

But AFAIK there's no way to completely prevent edit conflicts, other than by temporarily blocking every other user. (;->

When I get an edit conflict I generally copy and paste my new text from the edit box to a text file on my own Windows desktop just for safety, and then open the page history in a new tab to see exactly what is going on. Often it's best to just let the other user finish what they're doing and then redo my own contribution from scratch. I often end up with a better considered result by this means, so I've turned the annoyance to a profit.

But they can be very annoying, particularly if you've done many small changes which can't be easily copied and so all that typing is irrecoverable. I always promise myself at that stage that I'll never be exposed in that way again... haven't kept the promise so far. Andrewa (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Some Help on Content Dispute

An anon is making some rather drastic content removals to After Earth. The IP is 82.41.251.96. I reverted the removals since I thought it was unnecessary, but the anon just went on to remove even more content. Any advice on what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingEnthusiast14 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

First thing is discuss it with them. Politely and attempting to be constructive of course. This should probably be on the article talk page, Talk:After Earth#Plot section seems the place, or if you feel it's more a behavioural issue than a content issue, on their user talk page... yes, IPs have them too.

But before doing that have a look at some similar articles... do they have a point? Was the plot section overly long?

I'll try to follow the conversation there and chip in if I feel I can help. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:All Things Are Possible

I've re-opened this discussion. I think that the creation of a dab page changes the discussion, so I am inviting the discussants to reconsider this move. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Great comet

Where is the article? Now it is just a re-direct to itself? -- Kheider (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, thank you, you're right. Don't know what has happened there. Some sort of glitch, and it looks like my fault. Looking into it. Andrewa (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Help required from more experienced hands. I hope we might recover from a backup, but it seems to be beyond my admin powers to fix it. Watch these spaces. And thanks again for bringing the problem to my attention. Not good. Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I also was not sure what had happened. For all I knew Wikipedia just had not flushed and updated internal system links. -- Kheider (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% sure what happened. That is, I know what happened, but not how I did it... which is a worry.

But AFAIK it's fixed now. Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rigoletto may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Adaptations of the opera's music include [[Franz Liszt]]'s ''[|Rigoletto Paraphrase]]'', a [[piano transcription]] of "Bella figlia dell'amore" (the famous quartet from Act 3) and a [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Li Yundi discography may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—September and October 2014

Did you know?

TemplateData is a separate program that organizes information about the parameters that can be used in a template. VisualEditor reads that data, and uses it to populate its simplified template dialogs.

With the new TemplateData editor, it is easier to add information about parameters, because the ones you need to use are pre-loaded.

See the help page for TemplateData for more information about adding TemplateData. The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing team has reduced technical debt, simplified some workflows for template and citation editing, made major progress on Internet Explorer support, and fixed over 125 bugs and requests. Several performance improvements were made, especially to the system around re-using references and reference lists. Weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org.

There were three issues that required urgent fixes: a deployment error that meant that many buttons didn't work correctly (bugs 69856 and 69864), a problem with edit conflicts that left the editor with nowhere to go (bug 69150), and a problem in Internet Explorer 11 that caused replaced some categories with a link to the system message, MediaWiki:Badtitletext (bug 70894) when you saved. The developers apologize for the disruption, and thank the people who reported these problems quickly.

Increased support for devices and browsers

Internet Explorer 10 and 11 users now have access to VisualEditor. This means that about 5% of Wikimedia's users will now get an "Edit" tab alongside the existing "Edit source" tab. Support for Internet Explorer 9 is planned for the future.

Tablet users browsing the site's mobile mode now have the option of using a mobile-specific form of VisualEditor. More editing tools, and availability of VisualEditor on smartphones, is planned for the future. The mobile version of VisualEditor was tweaked to show the context menu for citations instead of basic references (bug 68897). A bug that broke the editor in iOS was corrected and released early (bug 68949). For mobile tablet users, three bugs related to scrolling were fixed (bug 66697, bug 68828, bug 69630). You can use VisualEditor on the mobile version of Wikipedia from your tablet by clicking on the cog in the top-right when editing a page and choosing which editor to use.

TemplateData editor

A tool for editing TemplateData will be deployed to more Wikipedias soon. Other Wikipedias and some other projects may receive access next month. This tool makes it easier to add TemplateData to the template's documentation. When the tool is enabled, it will add a button above every editing window for a template (including documentation subpages). To use it, edit the template or a subpage, and then click the "Edit template data" button at the top. Read the help page for TemplateData. You can test the TemplateData editor in a sandbox at Mediawiki.org. Remember that TemplateData should be placed either on a documentation subpage or on the template page itself. Only one block of TemplateData will be used per template.

Other changes

Several interface messages and labels were changed to be simpler, clearer, or shorter, based on feedback from translators and editors. The formatting of dialogs was changed, and more changes to the appearance will be coming soon, when VisualEditor implements the new MediaWiki theme from Design. (A preview of the theme is available on Labs for developers.) The team also made some improvements for users of the Monobook skin that improved the size of text in toolbars and fixed selections that overlapped menus.

VisualEditor-MediaWiki now supplies the mw-redirect or mw-disambig class on links to redirects and disambiguation pages, so that user gadgets that colour in these in types of links can be created.

Templates' fields can be marked as 'required' in TemplateData. If a parameter is marked as required, then you cannot delete that field when you add a new template or edit an existing one (bug 60358).

Language support improved by making annotations use bi-directional isolation (so they display correctly with cursoring behaviour as expected) and by fixing a bug that crashed VisualEditor when trying to edit a page with a dir attribute but no lang set (bug 69955).

Looking ahead

The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon, perhaps in late October.

The team is also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables, and early work for this may appear within the month. Please comment on the design at Mediawiki.org.

In the future, real-time collaborative editing may be possible in VisualEditor. Some early preparatory work for this was recently done.

Supporting your wiki

At Wikimania, several developers gave presentations about VisualEditor. A translation sprint focused on improving access to VisualEditor was supported by many people. Deryck Chan was the top translator. Special honors also go to संजीव कुमार (Sanjeev Kumar), Robby, Takot, Bachounda, Bjankuloski06 and Ата. A summary of the work achieved by the translation community has been posted here. Thank you all for your work.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Wikipedia projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please join the office hours on Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 18:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Africa and Europe) and on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC on IRC.

Give feedback on VisualEditor at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta. To help with translations, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact Elitre at Meta. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flat bean, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pod and Cook. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Both good catches, and both now fixed. Andrewa (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flower drum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. Andrewa (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—November 2014

Did you know?

VisualEditor is also available on the mobile version of Wikipedia. Login and click the pencil icon to open the page you want to edit. Click on the gear-shaped settings in the upper-right corner, to pick which editor to use. Choose "Edit" to use VisualEditor, or "Edit source" to use the wikitext editor.

It will remember whether you used wikitext or VisualEditor, and use the same editor the next time you edit an article.

The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor. Not all features are available in Mobile Web.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and requests, and worked on support for editing tables and for using non-Latin languages. Their weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org. Informal notes from the recent quarterly review were posted on Meta.

Recent improvements

The French Wikipedia should see better search results for links, templates, and media because the new search engine was turned on for everyone there. This change is expected at the Chinese and German Wikipedias next week, and eventually at the English Wikipedia.

The "pawn" system has been mostly replaced. Bugs in this system sometimes added a chess pawn character to wikitext. The replacement provides better support for non-Latin languages, with full support hopefully coming soon.

VisualEditor is now provided to editors who use Internet Explorer 10 or 11 on desktop and mobile devices. Internet Explorer 9 is not supported yet.

The keyboard shortcuts for items in the toolbar's menus are now shown in the menus. VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme from the User Experience / Design group. The appearance of dialogs has already changed in one Mobile version. The appearance on desktops will change soon. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" design and the new "MediaWiki" theme which will replace it.)

Several bugs were fixed for internal and external links. Improvements to MediaWiki's search solved an annoying problem: If you searched for the full name of the page or file that you wanted to link, sometimes the search program could not find the page. A link inside a template, to a local page that does not exist, will now show red, exactly as it does when reading the page. Due to a error, for about two weeks this also affected all external links inside templates. Opening an auto-numbered link node like [1] with the keyboard used to open the wrong link tool. These problems have all been fixed.

TemplateData

The tool for quickly editing TemplateData will be deployed to all Wikimedia Foundation wikis on Thursday, 6 November. This tool is already available on the biggest 40 Wikipedias, and now all wikis will have access to it. This tool makes it easier to add TemplateData to the template's documentation. When the tool is enabled, it will add a button above every editing window for a template (including documentation subpages). To use it, edit the template or a subpage, and then click the "Edit template data" button at the top. Read the help page for TemplateData. You can test the TemplateData editor in a sandbox at Mediawiki.org. Remember that TemplateData should be placed either on a documentation subpage or on the template page itself. Only one block of TemplateData will be used per template.

You can use the new autovalue setting to pre-load a value into a template. This can be used to substitute dates, as in this example, or to add the most common response for that parameter. The autovalue can be easily overridden by the editor, by typing something else in the field.

In TemplateData, you may define a parameter as "required". The template dialog in VisualEditor will warn editors if they leave a "required" parameter empty, and they will not be able to delete that parameter. If the template can function without this parameter, then please mark it as "suggested" or "optional" in TemplateData instead.

Looking ahead

Basic support for inserting tables and changing the number of rows and columns in tables will appear next Wednesday. Advanced features, like dragging columns to different places, will be possible later. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon. To help editors find the most important items more quickly, some items in the toolbar menus will be hidden behind a "More" item, such as "underlining" in the styling menu. The appearance of the media search dialog will improve, to make picking between possible images easier and more visual. The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap.

The user guide will be updated soon to add information about editing tables. The translations for most languages except Spanish, French, and Dutch are significantly out of date. Please help complete the current translations for users who speak your language. Talk to us if you need help exporting the translated guide to your wiki.

You can influence VisualEditor's design. Tell the VisualEditor team what you want changed during the office hours via IRC. The next sessions are on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC and on Wednesday 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC. You can also share your ideas at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Also, user experience researcher Abbey Ripstra is looking for editors to show her how they edit Wikipedia. Please sign up for the research program if you would like to hear about opportunities.

If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: ad hominem

Regarding your comments at Talk:Flemish Giant rabbit#Requested moves, I think you need to review the meaning and applicability of the fallacy ad hominem. It's the use of personal criticism in place of logical argument, to make the opponent's argument appear weak or invalid without actually addressing its merits. "Calling foul" by observing that a debate opponent is using ad homimen (or any other fallacy) in place of substantive debate (and doing so consistently across a closely related series of debates) instead of defending their actual position with reason and facts, is not itself an ad hominem argument, unless in doing so one also avoids addressing the issues at hand and relies solely upon their own personal criticism as if it were substantive, which is something I certainly did not do. I followed the observation about ad homimen with a logical argument against the substance of the position taken by that party.

Your making a big point of trying to label me ad hominem (and then making no substantive argument pro or con the reasoned position I actually expressed against theirs, after I noted that the other party was engaging in ad homimen arguments), was itself precisely what you were wrongly criticizing me for. It did nothing at all useful in an RM discussion, serving no purpose other than personal criticism.

I also have to observe that the fuss you made months ago over my old AE restrictions means that you are by definition also aware of the terms of WP:ARBATC and its discretionary sanctions, with which you were impliedly threatening me. I've enjoyed us not having any conflict for some time, and even quietly agreeing on things in many cases (including most of that same RM). Let's keep it that way. I have to think you have better things to do than pop into not-necessarily-random AT/MOS-related discussions and make personalizing and aspersion-casting commentary about me. It's precisely what ARBCOM concluded to prevent in the ARBATC decision. Unprovoked bashing of me is not a legitimate pastime for you here. You won't find me doing this with you. Even when I have to mention the fact that the thread that concluded with WP:BIRDCON was started by someone else, yet I keep getting blamed for it and for people quitting Wikipedia over it (at least for a while - two of them come back periodically to attack me and do little else), I don't mention you by name. I want the scapegoating to stop, not to shift to someone else's head. You also won't find me doing this with others. One of the most personally antagonistic thorns in my side during those breed-name RMs, and among those who pilloried me at ANI for undiscussed moves, has in turn been making the same kinds of moves, directly against how RMs on the very pages in question closed. Rather than filing my own vengeful "gotcha" request at ANI, or even mentioning said party by name at RM, or revertwarring their moves, I've simply quietly filed RMs to rectify the situation. Nor did I fire up any AE processes despite truly despicable and continual personal attacks by three of those people, unrelenting for months despite administrative warnings to at least one of them to stop, and me mostly quitting editing for an entire month to get away from it. I have better things to do than play WP:DRAMA games. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrestling

Hi. First, sorry, because English isn't my native languaje, so I'll do my best. About wrestling, i udnerstand your point, but isn't right. Wrestling is a sport, true. However, Professional wrestling is the entire definition for the SE (Sport Entertainment). It doesn't mean (Real) Wrestling in a professional level. The (real) Wrestling is Amateur Wrestling (and various subsections, like Freestyle or Greco Roman). You'll never find a source talking about pro wrestling as sport, because the entire term (Professional wrestling) is the name for the sport entertainment. It's like... you argue against Sea lion beacuse isn't a lion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and similarly french toast is neither french nor toast, and that's a good point. Professional wrestling is an acceptable title and an acceptable disambiguator. But it may not be the best title, nor the best disambiguator.

The argument is slightly stronger for avoiding the term as a disambiguator than it is for avoiding it as an article title, and that is to say that if we were to get consensus to move professional wrestling to wrestling (sports entertainment) it would then settle all the other issues; On the other hand, if we reject that move, that doesn't necessarily also mean rejecting sports entertainment as the best disambiguator. Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

See also the new page at Styles of wrestling. Andrewa (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, if I may de-lurk. It's really unfortunate that the wrestling-based theatrical entertainment form has come to be called "professional wrestling" or "pro wrestling" in English, but we're sort of stuck with it, per WP:COMMONNAME. In an article, though, I would prefer to refer to someone as "a professional actor in wrestling entertainment" or something, not as "a professional wrestler". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

TU Berlin

Hi, we've been discussing the move of TU Berlin last year. After everything has gone very quiet I wanted to check back on this and ask if there is still an interest in resolving this issue. Looking at this a year later, all I see is that the whole Talk page of the TU Berlin has become a discussion wheather to use the Technische Universität or Technical University variant. I still think that "Technical" is a poor (but easy and common) translation. I still believe there is a chance for Wikipedia to resolve this naming issue (in general). Maybe the correct way actually is to discuss the guidelines instead of arguing for a single case. The last time I checked (a year ago) there were no specific guidelines that lead to a wiki-wide uniform handle for a university. In either case, are you still interested in this topic? Cheers, Maderthaner (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sexually transmitted disease#Requested move (2014)

You participated in previous related discussion. There is an ongoing move discussion, and I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—December 2014

Did you know?

Basic table editing is now available in VisualEditor. You can add and remove rows and columns from existing tables at the click of a button.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on table editing and performance. Their weekly status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

VisualEditor was deployed to several hundred remaining wikis as an opt-in beta feature at the end of November, except for most Wiktionaries (which depend heavily upon templates) and all Wikisources (which await integration with ProofreadPage).

Recent improvements

Basic support for editing tables is available. You can insert new tables, add and remove rows and columns, set or remove a caption for a table, and merge cells together. To change the contents of a cell, double-click inside it. More features will be added in the coming months. In addition, VisualEditor now ignores broken, invalid rowspan and colspan elements, instead of trying to repair them.

You can now use find and replace in VisualEditor, reachable through the tool menu or by pressing ⌃ Ctrl+F or ⌘ Cmd+F.

You can now create and edit simple <blockquote> paragraphs for quoting and indenting content. This changes a "Paragraph" into a "Block quote".

Some new keyboard sequences can be used to format content. At the start of the line, typing "* " will make the line a bullet list; "1. " or "# " will make it a numbered list; "==" will make it a section heading; ": " will make it a blockquote. If you didn't mean to use these tools, you can press undo to undo the formatting change. There are also two other keyboard sequences: "[[" for opening the link tool, and "{{" for opening the template tool, to help experienced editors. The existing standard keyboard shortcuts, like ⌃ Ctrl+K to open the link editor, still work.

If you add a category that has been redirected, then VisualEditor now adds its target. Categories without description pages show up as red.

You can again create and edit galleries as wikitext code.

Looking ahead

VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme designed by the User Experience group. The new theme will be visible for desktop systems at MediaWiki.org in late December and at other sites early January. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" theme and the new "MediaWiki" one which will replace it.)

The Editing team plans to add auto-fill features for citations in January. Planned changes to the media search dialog will make choosing between possible images easier.

Help

Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
Translations of the user guide for most languages are oudated. Ukrainian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Dutch translators are nearly current. Please help complete the current translations for users who speak your language.
Talk to the Editing team during the office hours via IRC. The next session is on Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC.
File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.
The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.

If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta.

Thank you! WhatamIdoing (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Action for World Development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Force 10. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of Tumor Treating Fields to Alternating electric field therapy

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for your contribution to the discussion over this requested move. I think we may be near consensus but there has been little recent activity - would you mind weighing in with your current opinion on the move? Thanks! Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 14:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect of Je suis Charlie and move of contents to Je suis Charlie (motto)‎‎

Hi I found this action rather strange and wonder if you would comment on it or reverse it. It was the editors first contribution on the Charlie Hebdo subject. It is becoming rather strange.Cathar66 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Now untangled. Sorry for bothering you. No need for further action.Cathar66 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the heads-up. Andrewa (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Woodstock

Since you !voted in a similar discussion that recently closed, I thought you should be made aware that a similar move proposal is occurring at Talk:Woodstock#Requested_move_28_December_2014, in case you want to weigh in.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Move review

There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)