User talk: Tom.Reding
Click here to start a new conversation. Thank you!
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
BarnstarA barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
Thank you! :) ~ Tom.Reding & his 200-some-odd lines of regex (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 02:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
There's nothing quite like cleaning up a good, 'ol-fashioned clusterfuck. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Barnstar awarded
A barnstar for you!
Another barnstar for you!
Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: {{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The AWB Barnster
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Congrats on joining the million edit club!
A barnstar for you!
A Dobos torte for you!
You have used your gifts well, Padawan
7&6=thirteen, thank you :) And I really should take the test, but I can't be bothered while editing...perhaps that is or should be one of the questions?? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC) A barnstar for your efforts
Preciousastronomy gnome Thank you for quality gnomish work on a large scale, making {{authority control}} available, creating redirects and talk pages, for writing and maintaining astronomy-related articles and categories such as Abell 665 and Category:Discoveries by Carl W. Hergenrother, - Tom, user conceived with a sploof in 2009, you are an awesome Wikipedian! You are recipient no. 2523 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
I see we both have OCD. I had no choice but to give you this barnstar. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
A Barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
For improving Navseasoncats
Barn!
A barnstar for you!
Another barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
|
Article confirmation
Greetings Tom.Reding, After your previous assistance, my article is now available on Wikipedia, it is confirmed. And that inspired me, now I wrote more articles which are exist in other languages, but they are not confirmed yet. Can you please check them out for confirmation this time too?
Thank you very much I appreciate it -Film Contributor
Film contributor (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done ~ I went through the above pages and found no significant corrections. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Request
Hi Tom.Reding, a couple of months ago you helpfully made an adjustment to the Module:Category described in year to add lichens. Since then, I've been populating the categories, and plan to continue doing so, as part of a long-term project to make article for all lichen species (especially those published after 2000). I was wondering if there would be a simple way to have the total number of articles in the subcategories displayed on the "Lichens described in the xxth century" page? I ask because every couple of weeks I manually add up these subcategory numbers to keep track of my progress, and I realised that there's probably a simpler way to do this that I'm not aware of. I think a "total articles" count would probably be useful for all of the "Module:Category described in year" iterations. Is this desirable/doable? Esculenta (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Esculenta: if you have WP:AWB, you can set "Source" to "Category (recursive)", and set as "Lichens by year of formal description" your search category. Currently, this returns 1925 results: 1709 articles + 216 subcategories. There's no way to do this on-the-fly on the category page itself, that I know of, but you can use either of these 2 PetScan links: with and without autorun (it takes a few minutes to run). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Notifications
Hello, Tom,
I apologize for overwhelming your talk page with notices but I feel obliged to inform editors when a page they have created has been tagged for deletion. And it looks like you created the majority of categories in Category:User pages with authority control information which were recently emptied (see discussion on Template talk:Authority control).
There is no need for you to do anything, if the categories remain empty for a week, they will be deleted. Of course, feel free to remove these notices from your talk page when you return to edit Wikipedia so you can see more urgent messages. And thank you for all of your work with templates! Liz Read! Talk! 20:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Liz: well, good thing I'm not that busy! No problem. I created them simply to follow the existing pattern of tracking categories that existed prior to when I began being interested in {{Authority control}}. I have no use nor interest in them, and, if no one else does either, then I'm glad to see them emptied. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Help!
Hello, I hope you are well. Please review Mehran Ghafourian's draft. I made some changes. If the article is rejected again, write the reason. Thanks for your following up Amir ghpro (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
How can I fix “Grace City”
I added a history section. You removed it. What do I need to do to fix it? Thanks, Konroy Konroyb (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
You have previously edited Cardiff Arms Park. An editor has decided to split the article (yet again). I would like to know your view on the new edit....see Talk:Cardiff_Arms_Park#Article_Split_(again). SethWhales talk 20:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
Tom.Reding: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RV (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Two years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Wiknic location
Hi Tom.Reding! Looking forward to hopefully seeing you at Sunday's wiknic. At Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/DC/Wiknic_2023#Different_location_for_the_wiknic? I raised a question about location — I'll copy it here for convenience but if you could answer at that talk page that'd be really helpful. Thank you!
Apologies for the late suggestion: How would folks feel about doing the wiknic at Dupont Circle instead of at Rock Creek Park? Dupont would be easier to get to for folks on the train. I originally chose Rock Creek Park because I was worried about the crowd getting too big (last time I hosted a CentralNotice'd event hundreds wanted to come!), but it looks like there have only been a small handful of signups, which makes Dupont plausible! I'll notify everyone who's expressed interest — please let me know if you have a preference one way or the other. Looking forward to seeing you all!
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
FYI
Please don't do this, the line feeds break the infobox in this specific setup. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Script errors
what is the fix for the red errors in Category:1863–64 in association football? looks like a large blow up in Category:Pages with script errors. Frietjes (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed, and all 56 affected categories null-edited to purge. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on Philosophical poets
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Philosophical poets, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I've noticed that the redirect page "Televisions" points to "Television". In every case that I checked, it's actually being used as the plural of "Television set", which is understandable, since television as a medium isn't normally pluralised. I'm bringing the matter to you because you were the last person to edit the redirect page, and because I'm inexperienced in these matters. Any thoughts? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Jean-de-Nivelle: I see your point, but I quickly found List of Nokia products, where televisions currently, and appropriately, links to Television, not Television set, given the immediately preceding text "
Nokia divested itself of the industries listed below to focus solely on telecommunications
." - There are 85 links to televisions, that I've redirected to the newly created WP:Disambiguation page Televisions (disambiguation), with a bias towards Television set. I haven't done much disambiguation in a while, in fact since long before Dab solver went down, but WP:WPCleaner seems to be the de facto replacement, if you want to go through some or all of the 85 links to correctly resolve them. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think in the case of "List of Nokia products" the appropriate target is actually "Television sets": the section gives a list of industries and products that Nokia is no longer involved with. It was previously a manufacturer of television sets, not a player in the television industry. If it had been, the appropriate link would have been "Television", not "Televisions".
- I don't think disambiguation is the right way to go: I think the best solution would be to make "Televisions" a redirect to "Television set" since that's the context in which it's being used. I'm happy to check all the pages that link to "Televisions" and make any necessary fixes. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Bkonrad: "totally unnecessary", even given the conversation here? If not to Televisions (disambiguation), Televisions should be #R'd to Television set. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've no strong opinion about what the target of televisions should be. It is customary for plural forms to redirect to the singular, but this may be an exception. However, the disambiguation set-up was totally unnecessary. If it is changed to redirect to television set, there should be a hatnote added there to [[television (disambiguation) rather than creating an unnecessary new dab page. older ≠ wiser 01:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Bkonrad: "totally unnecessary", even given the conversation here? If not to Televisions (disambiguation), Televisions should be #R'd to Television set. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Tom.Reding. Thank you for your work on List of minor planets: 626001–627000. User:Herpetogenesis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Fabulous work!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Herpetogenesis}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The Coronary Stenting and the DES Pages - A merger proposal.
Both articles are now about cardiac stenting - and PCI. I took the DES article on as a personal project and it has been fleshed out to include PCI and I have also attempted to follow best practices in the layout and structure for a GA type of article.
I am exploring how to merge the articles, they are so very similar but the DES article is I think a child of the CS article.
Just testing the waters - I think they can be rolled into one document - within the GA framework as described on the DES article tp.
Your name was on one or the other articles , and you are an experienced editor - so just politely reaching out.
Thoughts, ideas, how to?
Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- @BeingObjective: if the Venn diagram of DES vs. coronary stents shows considerable overlap, then merging probably makes sense, but that's about as far as my interest will take me. I see you've reached out to Maxim Masiutin, who will be much more useful than I am. I might swing by later, after the dust settles, for page and ref cleanup though... ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I am working with Maxim M., he has been very patient and thoughtful offering guidance and links for me to read, the GA effort and proposal came from him.
- As a total newbie - I just wanted to contribute and bring the article up to date - many comments seemed to have stalled out in 2009.
- Any clean ups and such would be appreciated, I think the DES article is now 'static' so if your get the time/interest - any help/collaboration is appreciated.
- Given the shear number of PCI/Stenting procedures performed in the US and EU, I think this an important article and the DES article seemed a little abandoned.
- To be honest - I initially wanted to change only the design criteria section - and then my interest became broader - naturally scope creep can occur - but I do not really think so - if the two articles are combined - I think this makes so much sense, 90 percent of stents used are now DES - Maxim gave me a proposed GA framework - and it made sense to me.
- I could not discuss DES design thinking without PCI - and modern DES offerings are really one integrated medical device. 20 years ago this was not always the case.
- Thanks BeingObjective (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Editor experience invitation
Hi Tom.Reding :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you
I was wondering why Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects had dropped by about 1,000 since I last checked it, then I saw Special:Diff/1188437036! Thanks for adding that - I have little to no experience in the subject area; but, on the face of it, it makes sense to me to separate the non-Wikidata-linked minor planet redirects to Category:Minor planet object redirects missing QID (as you’ve done). Now to do some more work on fixing some unlinked Wikidata redirects
All the best, user:A smart kittenmeow 17:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:TREE cleanup: would it be feasible to check whether Wikispecies or Commons have pages for a taxon?
At Asthenotricha amblycoma, you added a blank line after the taxobox, which I had asked for at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_48#Mass_cleanup_edits?. The other part of your edit was putting {{Commons}} and {{Wikispecies}} before {{Reflist}}, which I had not understood to be one of your proposed WP:TREE cleanup. There are many WP:TREE articles with templates for Commons or Wikispecies links that do not have corresponding pages on Commons or Wikispecies.
Would it be feasible for you to check whether Commons/Wikispecies pages exist in your WP:TREE cleanup efforts and remove the interwiki link templates when the pages do not exist rather than just reshuffling where the templates are placed? Plantdrew (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: I eventually stumbled across pages with {{Commons}}, {{Commons category}}, {{Commons and category}}, {{Wikispecies}}, etc. in other parts of the page (all over, really) that interfered with bullets #2, #3, #5, #12, #13, and #16, so I decided to add those templates to the etc. portion of #2, to move them to their correct locations.
- I could certainly check whether sister-wiki pages exist, but there's some grey area there. Like for Asthenotricha amblycoma, the only commons search results is for c:Category:Asthenotricha, but not c:Category:Asthenotricha amblycoma (strange that it shows up as blue here) - though presumably that's still helpful to show? Would it be better to only remove the templates if "There were no results matching the query", like for the wikidata search for Asthenotricha amblycoma? However, after whichever templates are removed, is someone going to recheck these pages for non-null search results, and put the appropriate templates back, at regular intervals? My thinking right now is that it's better to have an easily accessible search link to quickly confirm/deny existence (and find whatever related pages the search results return) than to have none at all. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- I had thought that Commons and Wikispecies link templates belonged in an external links section, not above references per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Links_to_sister_projects and Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#Where_to_place_links.
- There are far more English Wikipedia articles where there IS a Wikispecies page but no {{Wikispecies}} in the article than there are Wikipedia articles with OUT a corresponding Wikispecies page but with a {{Wikispecies}} leading to no search results. So yeah, nobody is checking for non-null search results and putting templates in place at regular intervals. The fact that that isn't being done isn't something that seems to me to be an argument for having interwiki templates leading to null search results.
- I would like to see links to Commons and Wikispecies made available in mobile view via Wikidata. Commons and Wikispecies links via Wikidata exist in desktop view, as do links to Wikipedia articles in other languages. In mobile view, other language links are available, but not Commons or Wikispecies. Adding the links to mobile view seems like a better long term solution than managing templates like {{Wikispecies}} and {{Commons}}. Plantdrew (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: they typically belong at the top of the last section of the page, which is usually the EL section, but
Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates
, so on small pages with no, or an empty, EL, the templates end up at the top of the references section. - I'm ok with looking for and removing just the null-result {{Wikispecies}}. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: they typically belong at the top of the last section of the page, which is usually the EL section, but
I don't know if you've spotted that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 3#Template:Back to top was procedurally closed a few days ago in favour of a TfD you indicated you'd be opening, but it doesn't appear you've done that yet. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: thanks for the reminder. It's on my todo list, albeit low priority. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)