User talk:Jberkel/2018

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic Wikidata idea

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Jberkel.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


This page shows conversations on my talkpage from 2018.

16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

23:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

17:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Actualités du Wiktionnaire, numéro 34, janvier 2018 edit

Le dernier numéro des Actualités du Wiktionnaire est arrivé ! Retrouvez ici le numéro 34 de janvier 2018.

Merci de votre abonnement et de votre lecture. Vous pouvez participer au prochain numéro si vous le souhaitez.

EWDC #4 edit

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 23:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Help edit

At thwikt have error "attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value)" everywhere (like th:กากี). It seems it does not know the "mw.wikibase" (= nil). How can we solve this? --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Now I temporarily put direct link to WD intead. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80: that's probably because wikidata is not enabled over there. I've added a check in Special:Diff/49029418. – Jberkel 07:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pointless edits edit

Why are you making edits like this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

See WT:NORM. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Koavf: all my recent edits are an attempt to clean up misindented quotes, see Wiktionary_talk:Todo#Misformatted/indented_quotes. – Jberkel 10:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
This makes literally no difference. You may want to have the Flood flag added to your account temporarily if you are going to do this or ask for a bot. @Metaknowledge I don't see any value to this--I have seen this at NORM before and it seems wildly nitpicky. At the very least, this work should be done by a bot, no? —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
To a human a missing space makes little difference, but regular/normalized data is useful for automated parsing/error detection, which is the case here with @DTLHS's script. A bot might be a good idea to fix this in the future, but for this particular case there were maybe 20 instances, so I used AWB. – Jberkel 10:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks--this and the explanation below are very logical and helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Koavf: You say that you have seen it at NORM before, and you also say that it is "pointless" and pester somebody for making such an edit. That seems very odd to me. As an admin, you need to uphold the results of consensus, even if you personally may not like them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge Altho I am familiar with NORM, I did not remember every line of it. I don't see how I'm not "upholding" the results of consensus--it's not like I asked him to undo it nor did I undo it myself; I just suggested that if he's going to do many edits like this which do not change anything about the content or rendering of the page to get the flood flag first or have a bot do it instead, which is actually a very reasonable request. The issue here is clearly with the parser or script, not his behavior. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Removal of sources edit

Can you please explain this edit? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

He explained it in his edit summary: those aren't references. They could serve as quotations, but the entry already has more than enough quotations that illustrate usage better than those do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Koavf: What meta said. I thought about moving them to the citations page but they are already included there, so I deleted them. – Jberkel 10:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

EWDC #5 edit

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 00:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

19:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

15:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

20:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia in yaourt edit

I notice that you've placed the link to Wikipedia:fr:yaourt under "Further reading" using Template:pedia, while I originally placed it on the top of the entry using Template:wp. What's the reason behind the amendment? Professorjohnas (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Professorjohnas: It's becoming common practice to use a list of inline links in "Further reading" instead of cluttering the page with boxes. This way all project links are handled consistently. See {{wikipedia}}: "Consider using the inline version of this template instead". – Jberkel 11:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Jberkel: Ooops. Today I added Wikipedia boxes to a few entries. Should I delete them and add links under "Further reading" instead? And is this a consensus in the community? To me, boxes look better. Professorjohnas (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Professorjohnas: Don't worry, it's fine. There's no clear consensus at the moment. – Jberkel 14:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Jberkel: If there's no clear consensus, will your "corrections" potentially provoke edit wars? Professorjohnas (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Professorjohnas: See an older discussion Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/June "Where to place wikipedia templates?" – Jberkel 18:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

EWDC #6 edit

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 21:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata idea edit

Since you have technical knowhow and seem more optimistic about Wikidata than I am, I thought you might like this idea. We have about 4600 taxonomic entries that have image requests, and the images for many of them are presumably already in the image field at Wikidata. Because of the bijective nature of taxonomy, we can feel sure that those images are appropriate on those pages, and you could run a bot to add the images. What do you think? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: That's not too complicated to do. I checked a bunch of items and most of them had an image set. While we're at it we should also add {{projectlink/wikidata}} or similar to the "Further reading" list, so we explicitly link back to the WD item. – Jberkel 05:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
If you can do it by bot, it's technically not calling Wikidata and therefore doesn't need to gain consensus (sneaky, I know). I disagree about the projectlink, though, because I don't think it serves our readers; the links to Wikipedia and Wikispecies are more informative. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
The other advantage of bot inserted content is that it's easy to make changes afterwards, change the image etc. It's also consistent with all the other entries. About the backlink, you're probably right, I wasn't primarily thinking about human consumption. Maybe it can be it done the other way round, add a link from WD > WT. – Jberkel 09:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Shouldn't they be linking to us anyway? Also, what's your plan for when Wikidata specifies multiple images? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is heavily linked with Wikidata, Wiktionary is not. If there are multiple images we could just pick the first one, or skip and pick one manually. – Jberkel 19:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, I guess I don't care about what happens on the Wikidata end. Picking the first one seems like the easiest option (after all, it can always be changed later). Do you want to try a test run soon? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ok, will let you know once I have something to test. – Jberkel 00:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge: I finally managed to work on this. Have a look at my last few edits and see if they make sense. – Jberkel 02:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for remembering this! The edits mostly look good, but what happened at Actophilornis albinucha? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
There was a bug, it picked the wrong image from Wikidata, I reverted manually and ran the script again. What's the next step? Do I need to create a separate bot account? – Jberkel 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
You can run it under your own account if you get a flood flag. (Obviously a bot account is a better long-term strategy, but that requires starting a vote and waiting two weeks.) Just ping me when you want the flood flag given and removed (bearing in mind that I may not be able to get to it quickly when I am at work). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi Jan, salut :)
C'est trop cool ! Si tu veux tenter de faire tourner ton script sur le Wiktionnaire francophone, on est preneurs ! J'suis sûr que des gens comme Automatik ou Pamputt pourraient aider   Noé 08:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Noé: salut! oui volontiers, mais j'aimerais d'abord le faire tourner ici avec les 4000+ articles pour déboguer un peu.
@Metaknowledge it's ready to run, pass the flag please. – Jberkel 05:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I just gave you the flood flag, set to expire in 24 hours. Please ping me if you want it off sooner or extended longer (bearing in mind my slow response time). Don't ping me if it doesn't work, because the flood flag's always buggy and I can't do anything about that; you'll just have to throttle your edit speed a bit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge:, ok script ran successfully. The category is now down to 828 items. The remaining items have sometimes invalid Wikipedia links (article does not exist, or links to disambiguation page), or it's about that one type of butterfly only found in some remote part of Ecuador, which hasn't been assigned an image on Wikidata yet. Obviously we can't do anything about that, but for the other cases I could run another script to flag or remove invalid WP links if you think that's worth it. – Jberkel 22:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I think that removing/fixing invalid Wikipedia links (as well as invalid Wikispecies links) would be useful. I also don't see any reason not to run this for all the remaining taxonomic entries, not just those with {{rfi}} in them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Removing invalid Wikipedia links is mostly done, I still need to run some cleanup jobs. I didn't touch the Wikispecies links for now. We can run this on all taxonomic entries, if the image cannot automatically be determined the script could just insert the {{rfi|mul}} template. – Jberkel 14:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. I don't think the script should be inserting more {{rfi}}s, since (except for this operation) they are almost never fulfilled and when you can't get it from Wikidata, chances are that there isn't an image of it at all at Commons. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Another step, which will probably be much harder and may not be worthwhile, is to get a few more by automatically navigating the taxonomy. For example, Cardamineae still has an image request, but an image of any of its constituent genera (e.g. Cardamine) would be appropriate. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's worthwile to navigate the taxonomy to insert images. I find the translingual sections useful but we shouldn't aim to replace/rebuild Wikispecies or Wikipedia. I can easily run this on all taxonomic translingual entries (those without images). – Jberkel 14:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Jberkel, I was just looking at some entries and remembered how effective this was. Would you be interested in running it again to fulfil the requests that have accumulated in the last few months, and also for the many taxonomic entries that don't have rfi's but could still use images? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge: I might have lost the code, can't find it. It wasn't that much work but will take some time to redo. – Jberkel 20:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Jberkel, yikes — sorry for the trouble. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

23:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Timeless Newsletter • Issue 1 edit

 
Newsletter • July 2018

Welcome to the first issue of the Timeless newsletter! This issue is being sent or forwarded to everyone who has at some point expressed an interest in the project, give or take, as well as a couple of other potentially relevant pages, so if you would like to continue (or start) receiving this newsletter directly, please sign up for further updates on the meta page.


The news:

The Timeless grant has been selected for funding, and the project is now underway!

While I've had a somewhat slow start working on the project for health reasons, I'm pleased to announce that everything described in the proposal is now either happening, or on its way to happening.

Current progress:

  • The project now has a hub on Meta to serve as a directory for the various related pages, workboards, and local discussions and help pages. It's probably incomplete, especially with regards to specific language projects that might have local pages for Timeless, so if you know of others, please add them!
  • Outreach: I've been talking to various people and groups directly about skinning, desktop/mobile interfaces, project management, specific component support, and other things, and have begun to compile a very shoddy list of skinning problems and random issues on mw.org based on this. Some of this may inform the direction of this project, or possibly this project will result in building a more proper list that can then be used for other things. We shall see.
  • Some development - task triage, code review, bug fixing, and various rabbit holes involving ...overflows.

General plan for the future:

  • Triage the rest of the workboard.
  • Catch up with all the talkpages and other bug reports that have been left various other places that are not the project workboard
  • Do all the bug fixes/features/other things!
  • Some proposals aimed at Commons and Wikisource in particular (maybe, we'll see)

Essentially, the grant as written shall be carried out. This was the plan, and remains the plan. Timelines remain fuzzy, but while there have been some initial delays, I don't particularly expect the timeline for project as a whole to change a whole lot.

Also, for anyone at Wikimania right now: I am also at Wikimania. Come talk to me in person!

Thank you all for your interest and support thus far!

-— Isarra 12:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This issue has been sent regardless of signup status. To receive future issues please add yourself on the massmessage list.

Actualités de juillet en français edit

Salut !

Le numéro de juillet des Actualités du Wiktionnaire vient juste de paraître et nous avons à peine commencé à le traduire en anglais. Si certaines parties t'intéressent et que tu as envie de faire un peu de traduction, tu es le bienvenu pour aider   Noé 09:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dara a été plus rapide que toi, et je viens d'ajouter l'avis de publication. N'hésite pas à relire la traduction, tu trouveras sans doute des choses à corriger. Et sinon, bon été à toi   Noé 09:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

WikiCon² edit

Salut !

Cette année, la Wikiconvention francophone tombe en même temps que la WikiCon germanophone, pas de bol ! Ce sera le premier weekend d'octobre et on a déjà proposé dix rencontres autour du Wiktionnaire (alors que les germanophones, aucune !). Est-ce que tu as une idée d'où tu seras ? J'ai proposé que l'on essaye de mettre en place un temps d'échange par vidéo entre les deux événements. Je ne connais pas assez l'allemand pour aller traduire cette proposition aux collègues. Est-ce que tu pourrais éventuellement t'en charger ? Sans vouloir influencer ton jugement davantage, je serai très content de te revoir en France bientôt   Noé 10:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Noé: je sais pas encore ou je serai, mais je vais essayer de venir à Grenoble, allez Wiktionnaire! Bien sûr, je peux toujours vous aider avec une traduction. L'idée est de faire un échange des équipes organisatrices ou aussi pour les participants? – Jberkel 22:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
L'idée était de proposer ça entre les participants, mais je n'avais pas du tout le temps de m'occuper de ça. Tant pis. Est-ce que tu sais un peu mieux si tu viendras ? Et sinon, si tu veux pratiquer un peu de français, les Actualités de septembre viennent de paraître et nous serions content d'avoir de l'aide pour les traduire en anglais   Noé 09:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Noé: Je suis encore en Italie (Sicile), à vélo, donc un peu compliqué d'aller à Grenoble vites-fait :) C'est dommage, j'aurais bien participé encore une fois. Je veux bien vous aider avec la traduction, mais je n'ai pas toujours Internet, donc ça prendra un peu plus de temps. Ciao! – Jberkel 18:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Dommage ! J'espérais te voir pour te convaincre de venir essayer ton robot qui ajoute des illustrations sur le Wiktionnaire francophone ! Et puis, parce que ça fait longtemps que l'on ne s'est pas vu ! Mais si tu es en Italie, ton trajet de retour vers l'Allemagne passera bien un jour par Lyon, hein ? Et si tu es encore en Italie en novembre, tu pourrais profiter de l'ItWikiCon ! Ils n'ont rien encore sur le Wiktionnaire, et si tu as envie de récupérer les présentations que nous avons préparé, je peux t'envoyer les fichiers modifiables. Tu n'aurais qu'à changer les captures d'écran pour en prendre du Wiktionnaire italophone et ça serait prêt ! J'suis sûr qu'Otourly serait tenté de t'aider en plus   Noé 06:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Noé: Je serai à itwikicon, et j'ai proposé d'y faire une présentation, si elle est acceptée je reprendrais volontiers ce que vous avez déjà fait. – Jberkel 08:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Super !   Noé 07:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Noé: Ok, ils veulent bien que je fasse une présentation, alors j'ai besoin de vos fichiers, et peut-être t'as d'autres idées de quoi parler? J'utilise le Wikizionario italien de temps en temps, mais j'en sais rien. – Jberkel 14:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Images in taxonomic name entries edit

Thanks for adding images to these entries.

I'd appreciate it if you could add captions that include the species name, preferably enclosed in {{taxlink}}. You don't have to worry about any technicalities of the template, because I follow and empty the important tracking categories.

Wikidata may not be a reliable source for images that are closely matched to our entries. In two cases I've seen today the species did not appear to be in taxon. Papaveroideae (Papaveraceae) is the one that comes to mind. The picture is of a species of Dianthus (Caryophyllaceae, ie, different families).

When adding images I use the commons link in the entry. I try to find:

  1. images for the type species (for genera, families, orders, etc) whenever possible
  2. images that shed some etymological light on the name (vernacular or scientific).
  3. for vernacular names, which uncontroversially have translations, a geographic distribution map
  4. images of particularly distinctive, weird or beautiful features
  5. images that show interspecies relationships

I have also noticed that many species of trees, flowers, shrubs, vines, viruses, bacteria, algae do not look very different from hundreds of other species. So any species that has something other than a generic picture should be illustrated from the less common types of images.

If you keep on doing things exactly as you have been, that'll be fine too. DCDuring (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: The links were all added automatically as suggested by @Metaknowledge. I'd like to work a bit more on the script, and adding captions would be easy. I'm sure there are some errors in Wikidata, for this reason I've included the wikidata id in the diff (e.g. Papaveroideae => wikidata:Q596716). If you want to help fix the data: Wikidata statements can be "ranked" so you could just add another (maybe more representative) image and flag it as "preferred", which would get picked up by the script. We thought about running the script on all taxonomic entries, but I wanted to wait to get some feedback first. If the data quality isn't good then it might not be worth it. I personally find even the generic images useful – some taxonomic entries are quite technical and the images immediately tell you what kind of "thing" you're looking at. While running the script I also noticed that a few entries had invalid (page not found or ambiguous) Wikipedia links, these could be flagged with {{attention}} or similar for manual cleanup. – Jberkel 00:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
From my PoV this is more trouble than it's worth. If a human user were to regularly make erroneous contributions we would educate them and then block them. DCDuring (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
A carnation is not a papaveroid. Many higher taxonomic entities have such diverse morphologies in their membership that no image is very appropriate and, indeed no vernacular name or comprehensible substantive definition other than very technical ones is available. We'd be better off with a small icon to indicate which kingdom an organism was from than an erroneous, but pretty full-color picture. Maybe the thing to do is to restrict the addition of images to species, where outright error should be impossible. How can I be informed of the additions as they occur? Also how could an entry be marked as having had a specific image rejected as wrong or inferior? I certainly hope that we aren't going to resort to WikiData overriding manual choices. DCDuring (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring: Agreed about restricting it to species only. The script is run manually, before doing the next run I can do some test edits firsts so you can check them. If an image is already present the entry isn't touched at all, it's only meant for entries without images which can be unambiguously linked to Wikidata. – Jberkel 07:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. Let me know when you are ready to go. DCDuring (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Removal of "dangling" Wikipedia links edit

Thanks for identifying these. I am now revisiting these and adding links to WP articles whose title is not the Wiktionary pagename. I usually use the failed search screen to search for articles that mention the Wiktionary headword, either with a taxonomic or vernacular name of an organism as a title. So for Metalejeunea the WP link is w:Lejeuneaceae. DCDuring (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative! edit

 
Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative!

Hi Jberkel, thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative! It really helps to be able to show that many community members support this – so I'd really appreciate it if you could motivate some of your Wikifriends to sign as well :-) Thanks again, --Gnom (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

EWDC discussion edit

Hello! I'm pondering doing EWDC again. See User talk:Equinox/EWDC. Equinox 04:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Return to the user page of "Jberkel/2018".