Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:54, 21 June 2016

This is Voidxor's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

{{Cite web}} vs. {{Cite news}}

Hey. Are you aware that {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} have become 99.99% similar? So, the rule of thumb is: Unless your source is offline, use "Cite web" instead. Fleet Command (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Can you cite a policy or a guideline that says that? If so, I'll gladly change my practice. Also, I don't follow the, "Because A and B are similar, you must use A," implication. – voidxor 21:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In terms of rendering, a choice between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}, when the source is online, is just as meaningful as a choice between lowercase "cite" and first-caps "Cite". I just thought you might enjoy having one less decision to make. If you don't feel comfortable changing your practice and keep making the extra albeit inconsequential decision, please be my guest! The only policy that will force you to choose one of the two consistently is WP:FACR. This was just an FYI comment from a friend to a friend. Fleet Command (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I wouldn't have made this edit if, when I did it, knew that you had made a dedicated opposite change. I assure, I won't revert you over trivial matters like this ever again. Fleet Command (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: I'm always game for constructive criticism from my peers, so I appreciate you having my back. However, your original comment (above) and edit summary allude to {{Cite web}} being a requirement over its sister templates whenever |url= is used. Had you cited such a requirement, I wouldn't have reverted. If you cite such a policy, I'll self revert. Can you be more specific as to the location within WP:FACR? I can't find anything in there. And there is a rendered difference between the two templates, by the way: the parenthesis around the location and publisher. – voidxor 22:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that. The main difference is when a |url= is absent, {{Cite web}} returns an error. {{Cite news}} renders alright. There is one other difference too; something about |date=, which I forgot. (I think in {{Cite news}}, the placement of date is different depending on the presence or absence of a publisher.)

WP:FACR part 2c, says "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted ". That's it; the slight negligible difference between the two template is now so negligible that it is considered a mere inconsistency and ground for FA rejection. (It happened to me.) I think this was not the case before 2012; back then, people cared a lot about choosing them properly. FA is supposed to be strict you know. FA process can reject your article unless it "exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing".

My edit in the article was a so-called educational edit: To inform my pals that, if they want to, they can have an easier time not having a dilemma. But you don't need to self-revert or anything. Your comfort was my only concern. Fleet Command (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Although we don't see the answer in policy, I'll defer to your FA experience (of which I have none). I've self reverted and certainly don't want to leave any feeling of ill will. Can you link me to that FA rejection please? I believe you, but would like more insight into why {{Cite web}} is suddenly preferred for nearly every situation. To answer your original question, yes, I was aware that the templates have grown more and more alike. I wish they'd get the deed done and over with and just merge them already. But for the moment, they are still two different templates and the ref toolbar lists them separately. I've even schooled new users on when to use which template at editathons. – voidxor 02:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, here are the links:

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1 (Rejected)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive2 (Successful). Look for comment by Nikkimaria: "Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting. Compare for example FNs 50 and 51, or 55 and 56, or 22 and 63". Four hours later, the issue is resolved by User:Malleus Fatuorum.

Of course, it was 2012 back then and Malleus resorted to disposing of |work= instead to achieve the consistency and to get the clearance for FA. (You can't find a single |work= in this revision: ) It wasn't until seven days later when Codename Lisa completed more negotiations and discovered that the solution was to move to the unified use of {{Cite web}}. () The article was already FA at this time but it received an FA review 23 days later. If you look at the rendering result of the first diff, you see that in retrospect, Codename Lisa was right to move to Cite web, because the Malleus's hack is no longer generates consistent results with today's templates.

If I am not mistaken, Lua came to being in February 2013 and it was then that the unification efforts started.

As a matter of fact, if you wish, you can uniformly use {{Cite news}} instead of {{Cite web}} in an article and still achieve this consistency score in FA. After all, these two support all of one another's parameters. The problem starts with the newcomers who come, look at the sources, say "this is not a news site" and replace it with "cite web". As you can see, the only concern here is common sense. But maybe I should give the ultimate unification idea a nudge.

Fleet Command (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Splitting hairs like this is exactly why I've never attempted to push an article through the FA process. Yes, consistency is generally a good thing, but why dumb down our templates in order to achieve a few characters more consistency? I don't get it personally. Thank you for the info, though. Going forward I'll just use {{Cite web}} unless there's no URL. However, I'm not going to "correct" such existing inconsistencies without a policy to tell me to do so. If these editors are so bugged by it, they can fix it. Happy editing (and Thanksgiving, if you're in the U.S.)! – voidxor 22:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 100% of that! Fleet Command (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Trains Portal and Railways Portal Merger Proposal

You seem to be well acquainted with rail transport material, so I'd like your input on this proposal I made here: Portal talk:Railways#Trains Portal and Railways Portal Merger Proposal. Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. – voidxor 21:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer review for Light-emitting diode

I have requested a peer review for the Light-emitting diode article. Apparently, my issue is that the article makes little to no distinction on green vs. pure green LEDs, even though the former has existed since the 1970s while the latter wasn't introduced until the 1990s. The article seems to consider both to be one in the same, even though they are not. ANDROS_TALK 18:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andros 1337: Yeah, that article is still rough around the edges. My availability isn't very good right now, but let me know if you want me to weigh in on a !vote or something. – voidxor 23:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your removal of reliable information on the Shebang (Unix) article

Hi, please inform yourself about what reliable sources are. What you removed are no personal websites but the most reliable information that is available in the net. Schily (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I seem more informed than you as to what reliable sources are, and aren't. Per WP:NOTRELIABLE (again, please read it), personal websites—meaning websites or sections of websites controlled entirely by one person with no review process—are not reliable sources. As you pointed out, http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/ is entirely controlled by one person, Sven Mascheck. Thus, it cannot be used as a reference. Stop simply reverting me and explain why you feel policy should be ignored in this case. Furthermore, and as I said in my previous edit summary, the correct forum for such an explanation is the article's talk page, not my talk page! We want all interested editors to have a chance to chime in. – voidxor 18:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

With your interpretation, we would need to remove all references to fsf.org as this is entirely controlled by a single person, Richard Stallman. But your claims cannot be found in the reference you have given, so you claims are void. Schily (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." That's from the second paragraph, so I'm not sure why you're struggling to find it.

And no, www.fsf.org is most certainly not a personal website. The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. It has several employees in dedicated office space. It's not at all the same thing as Mascheck's personal directory on www.in-ulm.de. – voidxor 15:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

XHTML

Hi, why did you do this? MediaWiki has not served XHTML for several years - it now serves HTML5, where the <br> and <br /> forms are equally valid. Also, what does it have to do with accessibility? As it's a list, an edit like this would significantly improve accessibility. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Because that's the way that it's done in 99% of infoboxes?! If that's not correct then you're welcome to update the syntax as you see fit (i.e. across all articles). I am not familiar with HTML5 and was unaware the servers had switched; I was just following the previously established norm. – voidxor 00:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Spats

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, BMK (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Nice try, but I did not re-revert; I reverted for the first time. A "re-revert" is a second revert performed by a single user in a short period of time (i.e. 24 hours). The only person here who has re-reverted is you just now (hypocritically, I might add). 3RR only applies on the fourth such revert (a re-re-re-revert, to use your terminology). I got nowhere near that.

As to WP:BRD, that's an essay, not a policy nor even a guideline. Although you're citing it, you apparently haven't even read the first sentence: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus."

As to discussion, not all discussion occurs on an article's talk page. I have been making my case all along in my original edit summary, revert edit summary, and a pertinent thread I started on your talk page (although let the record reflect that you rapidly expunged my attempt at discussion and simultaneously came here to lecture me about failing to discuss). Again, and again, and again, and again, you've failed to counter my arguments on a point-by-point basis—choosing instead to troll with inarticulate and combative arguments such as "better before" and "Your layour sucks, it's made the article worse then it was. Our aim is to *improve* article not to make them worse." If you truly were committed to BRD, you would be articulating why we shall exempt one particular article from the wiki-wide policies and guidelines that I cited. – voidxor 23:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)