User talk:Smith609/Archive 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Cambrian explosion
I've just noticed that your recent edit did not turn out too well: the previous distinction between "Types of evidence" (methodological, mainly for readers unfamiliar with the terminology; other readers might skip it) and "Evidence in the rocks" (the facts) was intentional; the deletion of section "Decline of stromatolites" left a few refs undefined. Wikipedia articles are like computer programs - the larger they are, the greater the risk that changes will produce undesirable side-effects, which means you have to check everything.
It can't be left like this. If I don't hear from you within the next 12 hours, I'll revert the article back to the version preceding your edit. Philcha (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The points you make about commented-out sections are fair, and it's no help that the stupid do
gibot left its visiting cards everywhere, creating nested HTML comments. - Nevertheless you need to check the results of all your edits - including the "references" section, which is often a good indicator that something's gone wrong - when doing major edits on on large articles I guess I spend about 25% of my time checking for such undesired side-effects; the really difficult ones are the ones that create inconsistencies in the text without creating red refs.
- I'll revert the article now, and then follow up your suggestion to removed the commented-out section but link to it in Talk. Philcha (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed that you're someone I used to know - my excuse is that it's Sunday, what's yours? dogibot is a pain because it leaves its little HTML doo-doos everywhere, and as far as I can see that's the root cause of our recent troubles with Cambrian explosion. Since I don't expect you to go around after it with a pooper-scooper, I suggest the mutt should be house-trained. Is there a Woodhousebot? Philcha (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Your use of Cite DOI template appears not to have worked very well. Your edit comment was "Use Cite DOI template for portability" - I'm no expert on templates and I'd be grateful if you could explain what that's all about. Best wishes, Philcha (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- It could certainly save a lot of hassle in many cases - I find I spend far more time than I like in checking for citation mark-up errors that mess up the main text (my Achilles heel). How flexible is it? For example does it allow editors to enter other parameters such as :
- url - I'm fanatical about this as IMO Wikipedia's main audience is people who don't have subs to academic journals, so I add at least the url of a freely accessible abstract wherever possible (and separately cite in the same footnote a freely accessible and less technical news article wherever possible).
- author, in case I want to wikilink 1 or more names.
- title, so I can wikilink taxon names or other useful elements of the title, e.g. Doushantuo Formation.
- I also suggest you should create private pages for testing this and other templates you're developing. Send me a message any time you want help with testing them (my professional background is computers and I've designed and run tests for some large, complex systems). Philcha (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Re testing, I suggest testing first on a private copy of a reasonably complex article that uses citations in a variety of ways, e.g. the basic usage plus footnotes that are mini-articles with several citations (a copy of Cambrian explosion might be suitable), and then on a real article you're actively working on - that way you'll spot any glitches pretty quickly.
- I won't pretend I understand all of what you told me, since I know very little about the mechanics of Wikimedia. But it might be a good idea to discuss the template with someone who does understand the mechanics well. My concern is about the impact on system performance: if I understood your comments at all (??), they seem to imply an additional database access per citation that uses the DOI template, and Wikipedia's servers already show signs of stress (as far as I can see the the frequency of "Wikipedia's servers are having difficulties - please save your edit in a file and try again later" messages is increasing).
- How does using the DOI template compare with using Google Scholar? I remember seeing a Village Pump discussion a couple of months ago where someone said the current Google Scholar beta has a citations tool. If so and it becomes part of the public Google Scholar failry soon it would have 2 advantages: editors don't have to know about yet another template; someone else's servers do the work. And no, of course I can't find the relevant Village Pump page now, which is annoying as it had a link to the Google Scholar beta. Philcha (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Damn, it's pretty bad when you can find my posts better than I can - and worse when I forget that it was my post. I think you're right, I was confusing Google Scholar with your Cite-o-matic.
- I think "Don't worry about performance" will bite Wikipedia sometime. From the point of view of performance the worst most users can do at present is add a dozen images to an article. An article on an "academic" subject could have 30 - 150 citations, and it could be bad news if a large proportion of these added another DB access each - assuming of course that I understood the DOI template something like correctly. On the other hand I don't know what % of page views the "academic" subjects account for - if very small, it's no problem.
- Forgive me if my responses to your efforts seem negative - you deserve better. What's really bugging me is that Wikipedia seems to be imposing an increasingly steep learning curve on editors, and citations account for the majority of it. There's a citation tool that can be displayed as part of the edit box' toolbar - but by default it's disabled in all users' preferences, so is available only for users who edit the 11th (!) tab of their preferences pages. There are other tools as well, but a new editor's chances of finding them are near zero, as are their chances of finding the citation template they need.</rant> Philcha (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
DYK
 |
On 12 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ice sheet dynamics, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
PeterSymonds | talk 18:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
P-Tr extinction patterns
We have to stop meeting like this. I've posted at Talk:Permian–Triassic extinction event#Extinction_patterns some comments about your recent edit. Philcha (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Cambrian explosion: Increase in abundance and spininess of acritarchs
I really hate doing this, but I don't think Stanley (2008) tells us when metazoan herbivory became significant - see Talk:Cambrian explosion#Increase_in_abundance_and_spininess_of_acritarchs. How can I convince you that I'm not out to get you? Philcha (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've added responses to your responses at both the Talk pages (CE and P-Tr). Brings back happy memories of our discussions of the CE in 2007 - hope it doesn't scare everyone else away. Philcha (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Guess what
- BTW it may be no bad thing that we're the only 2 who are actively editing CE and P-Tr - it's been known at least since The Mythical Man-Month that software projects can acommodate at most 2 lead designers, and I've long suspected the same applies to big Wikipedia articles. Philcha (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Non-breaking space
Yes, I know that, I removed it because it wasn't appearing correctly. I didn't see it at the time, but you typed &nsbp; instead. If I'd realised that what what you'd done I would have just corrected it but I didn't see the error at the time and it looked weird so I removed it intending to look into it later. --Canley (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Aglaophyton
In this edit, your bot included "From the cover" as part of the article title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
GA review of Chitinozoan
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:AstroLow.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:AstroLow.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Extinction intensity image
Well done! I complained ages ago that the previous version was bass ackwards for Western readers, but I lacked (and still lack) the tech skills to fix it. Philcha (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from :Image:AstroLow.gif, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's [[Talk::Image:AstroLow.gif|talk page]]. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 20:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Great bot!
I have watchlisted Arunachal Macaque and just saw your bot adding the doi! Great work.....just dropping in appreciation! CHeers. Prashanthns (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Bug report
See this test edit: [1]
I'm reverting the edit, as it didn't work. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- It still doesn't appear to be working. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Same here: There's a DOI Not Found error message for the URL your bot placed. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The doi the bot found, 10.1666/0094-8373(2004)030<0253:CHOPOM>2.0.CO;2, is correct. The problem lies with the {{cite journal}} template, and is being discussed on its talk page. The solution I thought I'd found there may not in fact work... I'll head over there and think about it. Thanks for the bug report! Smith609 Talk 16:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to revert to the bot's version when you get it working properly. :) This could be a hugely useful tool on WP:DINO. I wish you much luck. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The doi the bot found, 10.1666/0094-8373(2004)030<0253:CHOPOM>2.0.CO;2, is correct. The problem lies with the {{cite journal}} template, and is being discussed on its talk page. The solution I thought I'd found there may not in fact work... I'll head over there and think about it. Thanks for the bug report! Smith609 Talk 16:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Bug report II
See this edit [2], the bot forgot a "1" in the DOI. Other edits on the articles found in my watchlist were good additions. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. Thanks for pointing this out; I'll look into it before activating the bot again. Smith609 Talk 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed - thanks again for your diligence! 10:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Preformed v performed
- Also in this edit. I don't think it's safe to assume that "performed" is always the right spelling, and would suggest that this edit at least ought to be manually approved in each instance. Smith609 Talk 12:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hi Smith, thanks for pointing that one out. I've also added it to my exception list (along with exceptions for 'preformed' in 86 other articles there already). For what it's worth, I totally agree that preformed->performed is not the sort of substitution that can safely be done automatically, but I don't do any fully automatic editing with this bot. Every change it does has to be manually approved, it's just that occasionally I slip up when reading the diffs and an incorrect edit gets through. Anyhow, thanks again. CmdrObot (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey there
The DOI bot's been popping up all over my watchlist, and I have to say its hit-vs.-miss rate has significantly improved :) Thank you, and keep up the good work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey I added the widget to my monobook but I haven't noticed any new tags or anything different, any ideas? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Template taxobox questions
Hello from Brazil (sunny today but we have had a lot of rain recently). Is your telescoping taxobox ready for heavy-duty use? Also, I have requested the addition of "type_locality" as a parameter to be included in the taxobox (probably best located just below "type_species_authority"), but the request, although supported, has languished. Could you help with this? Many thanks for your time.--Wloveral (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Cycad
Thanks for adding the cladograms, but the accompanying reference citation is incomplete. It is creating an error with the {{Reflist}} template because it does not contain the publication info. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Evolutionary theory
PS This might explain our differences on another talk page, though.[3] I can't see how we'll reach agreement about the use of words describing evolution when one party dismisses it as completely non-factual. If this is the case, please be straight-forward about this to avoid confusion. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Wikipedia:DOI
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
