Jump to content

User talk:DePiep: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 157: Line 157:
::The most common are teams,years,playing_teams,playing_years,coaching_teams,coaching_years,administrating_teams,administrating_years,other_teams, and other_years. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 15:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
::The most common are teams,years,playing_teams,playing_years,coaching_teams,coaching_years,administrating_teams,administrating_years,other_teams, and other_years. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 15:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
:::{{done}}. Let me know if anything is wrong. (btw, these are the deprecated params, so they are in the other cat sure!). Better continue at the template talkpage. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep#top|talk]]) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
:::{{done}}. Let me know if anything is wrong. (btw, these are the deprecated params, so they are in the other cat sure!). Better continue at the template talkpage. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep#top|talk]]) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

== [[Template:Infobox gridiron football person]] revert ==

Why would you revert [[Special:Diff/673669714|this]]? [[User:Alakzi|Alakzi]] ([[User talk:Alakzi|talk]]) 18:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:20, 29 July 2015

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 8 as User talk:DePiep/Archive 7 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

The Special Barnstar
For your thoughtful, poetic contribution about learning chemistry, and the value of informative categories in science. You have my respect. Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Technical Barnstar
Thank you so much for all of your amazing work with the Chembox - and for putting up with all of my OSH data requests. :) You're awesome! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For creating the 'recent changes' pane for WPMed. Wonderful! LT910001 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
periodic table
The Non-metallic Barnstar for improving the Periodic Table
You've done a whole damn lot for our project. You've actually made it better. Please keep up.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For turning the trivial names of groups table in the periodic table article into a visual feast for the eyes Sandbh (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Template Barnstar
For repeated improvements on templates used in phonetics articles. Particularly admirable is the combination of seeking out explicit consensus and dutifully carrying out necessary changes once it is reached. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Guidance Barnstar
You're the hero of the day on this pickle of a problem. Thanks for the insight. VanIsaacWScontribs 23:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For your amazing work with the graph. It appears now better than what I thought of it to be before! With your learning ability, you're all up to be an awesome graphic designer, in addition to your template skills! Thanks, man R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Socratic Barnstar
Thank you for all your suggestion and opinion (as here or here) which are really very helpful. Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
THIS today is edit #50000 by DePiep on en:WP.
-DePiep (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OneClickArchiver

I noticed your archive at talk convert resulting in Template talk:Convert/Archive 1. However there is a problem because the bot follows a remarkably clever system so the current archive is actually Template talk:Convert/Archive May 2015. It looks like OneClickArchiver should not be used at that page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chembox changes breaking infoboxes

Your Chembox changes are breaking infoboxes. Examples: Cacodyl, Thiepine, Hydroperoxyl, Methyl radical, Hydroxyl radical, Cocamidopropyl betaine --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re Bamyers99. Dammit. (Background: in Cacodyl a closing }} was removed unintended, together with |ExactMass=... [1]. Reinserted now [2]). I'll fix these. Do you have a way to list all of them? -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was all that I found in this list of Template without correct end. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's it then. Thanks for taking care. -DePiep (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iodine infobox

Hi. I added the comment that Iodine is sometimes considered a metalloid because the metalloid article indicated this. Also, the comment that Phosphorus is sometimes considered a metalloid on that element's infobox seemed to me to legitimise the adding of the same statement to the one in the Iodine article. If you still consider Iodine's inclusion as a metalloid too rare to justify reference in its infobox, I would be glad to hear where you believe the line should be drawn for the info boxes of other rarely recognised 'metalloids'. Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is mentioned in there. Based on the List of sources I linked to, and by what is stated in metalloid ("very rarely", if at all), I draw the line with the <=5% group. This "rarely, if at all" grade should or can be described in the article text, but does not merit a formalizing in the infobox. We might wan to draw the same line for all <=5% elements. Note: better continue at Talk:metalloid or WT:ELEMENTS, this is not a personal thing. -DePiep (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility of tables

Hi ! Have you seen my reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Complex_tables.2C_accessibility.2C_and_Wikipedia ? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently erroneous edit

Can you please double-check this edit? It appears that you changed the Propadiene article to be about a different topic altogether (i.e., about Proadifen), which resulted in a confused RM request (see Talk:Propadiene). —BarrelProof (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 15924 codes updated

Hi, the ISO 15924 codes were updated on 7 July. BabelStone (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using AWB to handle deprecated parameters

Hi! I was referred to you by an admin at the registration for AWB as someone who knows a good deal about what I'm interested in using AWB for. I'm a first-time user of the program, so at the risk of sounding idiotic, I was hoping to run what I plan to use it for by an editor experienced with the program.

I plan to use AWB to help somewhat with replacing deprecated parameters. I believe you're familiar with the situation with Template:Infobox gridiron football person, as you helped me already with creating a category of the articles needing review (thanks, by the way). In particular, I'm planning to do the following:

If the article does not contain "<br>" OR "<br/>" OR "</br>" OR .... (I'll put in all the spacing possibilities, etc, here):

Find "playing_years" and replace with "playing_year1". Find "playing_teams" and replace with "playing_team1". And a few other simple find and replace commands with no possibility for accidentally replacing the text in the article.

The idea is to automate the simplest of the replacement by isolating the articles in which new parameters do not need to be added, and then doing a simple replacement of the deprecated parameter with the new parameter. I don't plan to touch the more complicated cases where the parameter values must be split into multiple parameters with AWB; it seems like that would be fairly difficult to do with automation. I'm sure it's possible, but I'd likely spend longer figuring it out than I would if I just manually did them.

I plan to turn general fixes off for this. As a major issue with these articles is the use of <br>, I don't want the general fixes that handle that mark-up to interfere with the articles. It likely would do more harm than good.

Does anything from this jump out at you as something likely to cause a problem? Any general pointers that might help a first-time user (beyond reading the manual, which I've taken a good look at and will read again before starting)? I'd appreciate any time/comments you put in towards helping me get this thing running. ~ RobTalk 04:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, it looks like some bot is doing the edits at this moment. A few hours ago there were 6700 pages in the category, now its 5200 5160 and counting down at a rate of 1/sec!
As for AWB: That can work, but it would help only a small number of articles. My general advise is: learn using WP:REGEX in AWB. But even with REGEX, it might be hard, esp when there are nested templates present (as can be). That said, and it that bot is not finishing it all today ;-),you could embark. AWB has lots of options to try (preview without saving). :Later more. -DePiep (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been working at it using AWB after reading up a lot on it, and have gone through an incredible amount. An insane amount of these meet the criteria I listed; many more than I thought. I'm going at a rate of around 5-10/minute. I think this should take care of at least 2500 of the original 7000, which is way better than expected.
Thanks for the advice! I'll look into REGEX for future use if I ever do this type of work again. ~ RobTalk 16:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good action! And switching the general's off, now & then check your edits in wikipedia, etc/. So I was off with the number - good too. Further improvements are not easy to explain here. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BU Rob13 Let me tip this too. Before you dive into REGEX, it might be worth getting familiar with the more basic AWB options. I had a lot of use for making the right page lists: from categories (with depth maybe), from "outgoing links on a page", what links here, by SpecialPages, transclusions of a template. Also, using the list Filter button, and especially "turn the list into talkpages" (or "...from talkpages" i.e. into subject-pages), saving a list in file: see the List menu. You also have found the 'skip' options etc. I myself never use the 'general standard edits' because they distract from checking my important edits. Success. -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for all the advice! I'll definitely follow up on all that before using AWB for anything advanced. ~ RobTalk 17:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don't be tooo careful: just pick a slightly advanced AWB job and learn some extra tricks with it. Is rewarding. Hands on, studying only may be boring. Wiki allows for learning by mistakes greatly :-) . -DePiep (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was surfing around Wikipedia and noticed this talk. @BU Rob13: if you want to split playing_years into playing_year1, playing_year2 etc. then you could probably contact @Frietjes:. I think she done something like that for cyclists. If not, then sorry - my bad! --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In working on replacing these deprecated parameters, I've found that many articles with Template:Infobox gridiron football person utilize small text within the infobox, which violates MOS:FONTSIZE. Most of the articles use it in similar ways, so I can address this with AWB easily enough. I just need a category to pull off of. Would it be possible to create a category of all articles using this template that contain any <small> tags? Failing that, a category that just contains all articles using this infobox would at least let me hit the most obvious uses of small text with AWB, although I couldn't ensure that I had removed it all. Is what I'm looking for possible? Thanks! ~ RobTalk 02:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13: I'd check the parameters that usually have <small> text added (or other style settings?) stringing them together). I think checking all params would be a bit big. Do you have such a list? -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The most common are teams,years,playing_teams,playing_years,coaching_teams,coaching_years,administrating_teams,administrating_years,other_teams, and other_years. ~ RobTalk 15:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Let me know if anything is wrong. (btw, these are the deprecated params, so they are in the other cat sure!). Better continue at the template talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you revert this? Alakzi (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]