User talk:Trappist the monk

CS1This user is responsible for those .

Comments are welcome. If your comments are about my work on a particular article, please make
them at the article's talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.

---

Hey!

These were facts that I’ve put there, because I’ve been reading accurate history of Blackbeard by the historian Baylus Brooks. The information that you have redone is completely fake, not real at all. Blackbeard's forename, and surname is already known, which is "Edward Thache". Kennythenuker (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn’t mean to be a little rude about, I didn’t know that Wikipedia doesn’t care about the truth. My apologies. Kennythenuker (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Blackbeard is a featured article. As such it has been subjected to a rather strict review of its text and supporting sources. If you believe that you have sources that show that the text of the article is incorrect or can be improved, you must include reference to those sources when you edit that article.

It might be best for you to start a discussion at Talk:Blackbeard before changing the article's text. Bring your sources and say what it is that you want to change. Other editors more familiar with the subject matter than I can help you there.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia is here to summarize what reliable sources have published about a subject (see WP:Reliable sources – a content guideline) and that which has been summarized must be verifiable in reliable sources (see WP:Verifiability – en.wiki policy). Please read those two pages; they are central to how wikipedia works.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry for not realizing about what Wikipedia is all about. I appreciate you being honest about it. People make mistakes. No hard feelings! :) Kennythenuker (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Help!

Hello, Trappist the monk,

There is a CSD tag SOMEWHERE that is causing Category:Articles containing uncoded-language text to show up as a requested page for speedy deletion. But I can't find the page that was originally CSD tagged. And the category hasn't been emptied yet so it would be a bad idea to delete it. Can you track down the page that has been tagged for deletion and figure out if a mistake has been made? Thanks for any help you can supply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I found it on Template:Lang-mis, it was tagged for uncontroversial deletion. Editors need to be careful about tagging templates for deletion as it can impact related but necessary pages. But I'll leave this message here any way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 5 § Template:Lang-mis

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the correct discussion forum. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

last → author

• |year=3 March 2022 → [Smallem helps] → |date=3 March 2022;
• |last=Klein Muçi (actually first + last) Can/Should we do a similar thing like in the case of the "pseudo-maint cat" above and convert these cases to author? I doubt we can provide auto-detection somehow, right? - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You can but it won't be easy because you have to look for a matching |first= and if found skip. It becomes more complex because these parameters can be enumerated so, unless there were a dire need to do it, I wouldn't.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

But there are also cases when you only have |last= with a correct last name value while missing the first name value and that shouldn't be converted to |author= ideally. But I think that would make it impossible right? So the task is more like "convert unmatched |last= to |author=", according to what you propose. I'm not sure how dire the need is. I got this idea while manually fixing multiple author names in 1 parameter. What I do is I open the article for edit and search for author= and then skip until I find the one with multiple values and start splitting it. And then I started stumbling upon many articles which didn't have a single author parameter and they still were part of that maint-category. After a while I understood/remembered that author parameters could also be expressed with |last= and that added a bit of chaos to my method. Not only it introduced a new variable I should be aware of but it also made me search for matching |first= parameters and values and many times I had to manually switch from |last= to |author= because of the reasons explained above and that's when I got the idea. - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Help, pt. 2

Hi, Trappist,

Category:CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2021 showed up as an empty category. Do you expect it to remain empty or is this a periodic emptying of dated categories? Thanks for any help, I'm not sure where to go with this questions about CS1 matters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It is conceivable that someone will, in future, add |doi-broken-date=November 2021 to a cs1|2 template but that is no reason to keep the category once it has been emptied. I notice that you deleted the categories for June–September 2021. What is different about this one?

Something or someone apparently trawls these categories and updates the date in |doi-broken-date= so that we don't have a list of categories dating back to the dawn of wikipedia which must be why there are only six subcats in Category:CS1 maint: DOI inactive.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, a little while ago, I found a script that allows me to look at the contents that have recently been put into a category or removed. I wish I had known about this script years ago as it comes in handy. And this category had contents that were removed by CitationBot today. So, I was wondering if this were temporary moves or more permanent ones. And the October 2021 category isn't empty. I don't recall deleting the other, older categories but I do delete a lot of empty maintenance categories once the relevant date has passed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene but I've been thinking of asking similar questions about the DOI-related categories myself as well. Are those categories continuously being deleted while new ones get created? In my homewiki that would be bizarre because I suspect their content to be most of the time (if not always) empty and basically we'd be creating and deleting empty categories periodically. - Klein Muçi (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

At en.wiki, the doi broken date categories are created as needed and deleted when no longer needed. At sq.wiki it may be that editors don't add that many |doi-broken-date= parameters so it may be that most of the time there is no reason to create a category that will never be used. Here, editors commonly add |doi-broken-date= parameters so a new category is created every month, someone or something empties older categories which are then deleted. The emptying process may be an automated tool that attempts to follow the doi. When the tool fails to find the source, it updates |doi-broken-date= to the current month. I suspect that that is User:Citation bot but don't know for sure.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm... I see... I guess we will stop creating them then. Feeling courageous though, I'll ask if we really need this kind of system. Do we need articles categorized by the date of broken DOI? We don't categorize articles by date of dead URLs or by access-dates, etc. If we do, can't we have them all in 1 maint category, not monthly ones? If we can't have that here, can we have that at SqWiki/other wikis that don't have such a dynamic use of that function? - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Trans-title/chapter/etc.(?)

Keeping up with peculiar global needs in regard to CS1, can we create some error categories about sources missing |trans-title/chapter/etc.(?)= when |language= differs from the local one? This can either be an universal proposal (pitchforks and torches aside, EnWiki could also benefit from English translated titles/chapters/etc.(?) in foreign sources, especially those that use different scripts), an only-foreign-wikis feature on or a specific request for SqWiki only. - Klein Muçi (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

There is some question about the validity of |trans-title= and its companions. The purpose of a citation is to help the reader locate a copy of the source. If the source only has an original-language title, a translation of that title into the local language isn't going to be much help to the reader because whatever translation is provided in |trans-title= won't be indexed. When the source itself provides a local-language title, that is the only time that |trans-title= should be used because when it comes to translations, every translator is different; who is to say which translation not done by the source author is the correct translation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That's, honestly, the first time I read this. So far, from what I've read in cite template docs, I've always thought that it served to provide a small window of context to the readers if the source was in a foreign language and that it was used "similar" to |access-date=, that is, a detail that is added by the editor, not by the official source. Do you have any information how that parameter is utilized here? Do editors make the same mistaken (?) assumption as I do when it comes to it? Is that really a mistake? I'm asking because, as a wiki that has most of its sources in English, we've treated that parameter really serious, going as far as making it one of the standards articles must conform to if they want the status of featured articles, that is, every foreign title must have its translated form. What you're saying above would change all of that. - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps |trans-title= does provide a small window of context but it won't help the reader locate the source unless the translated title is an 'official' title of the source. As far as I can tell, the cs1|2 documentation does not make that suggestion. The documentation describes what an editor is to give it and how the templates display the result:

trans-title: English translation of the title if the source cited is in a foreign language. Displays in square brackets after title. Use of the language parameter is recommended.

Were we to implement some sort of error or maintenance messaging for non-sq-title-requires-trans-title, you would end up with an enormous category that could not be fixed by smallem unless you know how to teach smallem how to translate non-sq |title= into sq |trans-title=. If an error message, almost every page will bleed red; as much or more than Mungon ose është bosh parametri |language=. If a maint message, then only those who can see maint messages would see the message. Still a damn big category and no automated way to clear it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I thought that. But that begs a philosophical discussion. Should we ignore the correct/right way (?) just because it is a really hard thing to accomplish? I'm asking in a neutral way because, after all, pragmatic approaches are valid on its own. I'd be interested in reading your opinion and hopefully of more editors on this aspect but I'm afraid in asking anywhere else because of all the pitchforks and torches people are so happy to grab against the red sea without giving much thought to any of its (supposed) benefits. - Klein Muçi (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Url status

Straightforward question: Can I just remove on sight any |Url-status=live assuming I won't break anything and IABot will deal with any needed details? - Klein Muçi (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi

If you remove url-status=live, and an archive link is provided, then the citation will redirect to the archived version instead of the live link (I think). In that case, only remove it if you know the link is dead (or you can remove both the archived link and url-status=live, but that is a regression IMO).

If you remove url-status=live and there is no archived link, then nothing will happen (url-status without archive-url is "mere clutter" as Trappist said). So you can feel free to remove that if you want. Rlink2 (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because |Url-status=live is not a known parameter.

If you really mean |url-status=live, then maybe:

• When |archive-url= is missing or is present without an assigned value, |url-status= (with any or no assigned value) has no meaning so may be deleted
• When |archive-url= has an assigned value
  • |url-status=dead (|archive-url= links |title=) may be deleted because that is the default state
  • |url-status=deviated, |url-status=unfit, |url-status=usurped, |url-status=bot: unknown require inspection of the url at |url= after which the parameter may be deleted when appropriate
  • |url-status=live (|url= links |title=) should not be deleted unless you are intent on invoking the wrath of other editors.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2, @Trappist the monk, I must say I'm kinda lost because I got bombarded with completely new information. My guess was that if the URL was live and working, there would be no need to state its status so |url-status=live would be redundant and could be removed. I also thought that IABot was already checking what URL was live or not continuously and wouldn't let us redirect to an archive link if the main URL was still live so it would fix any problems we would do while working with URLs. What you say is completely different from what I supposed. You say that actually |url-status=dead is what would cause redundancy. You also say that IABot allows us to switch to archive links even when the URL is still live and that it may be possible to have |url-status= without |archive-link=, again something I didn't expect to be possible because of IABot's work. - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

|url-status=live is redundant when |archive-url= is omitted or empty so may be (should be) deleted. |url-status=dead is redundant when |archive-url= has an assigned value so can be (should be) deleted.

I said nothing about IABot. I do not know if IABot updates the status of |url-access=; I have not paid attention to its edits except when those edits result in a broken cs1|2 citation template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Rlink2 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Trappist the monk to be Editor of the Week for their admirable dedication to the CS1 template and cite errors. We see all types of little things that need to be fixed around Wikipedia and Trappist is a leader in that regard. He takes the time to understand people and get the gist of things. He has fixed hundreds of thousands of cite errors, something that doesn't seem like much, but it is the type of arduous work that needs to be done. He also contributes to making the CS templates in the first place. His work with User:Monkbot is especially admirable.

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 ☎ 20:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)