User talk:TheDaveRoss

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Causing drama, really???[edit]

I'm am not causing any drama, chuck just keeps adding this rediculous close-up shot of a fair-skinned persons eye and saying that it can go for the definition of a white person too, and I wanted to add a picture of something the actual color, white, because none of the pictures are showing the actual color white! That's the point I'm trying to make! Zhyboo (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Protecting user scripts120:01, 31 March 2016
Broken citations018:39, 26 March 2016
Constructed language topic categories418:10, 17 March 2016
Dead links for taxonomic names301:09, 13 March 2016
Derived terms1215:21, 6 March 2016
TheDaveBot edits don't appear as bot edits222:26, 5 March 2016
All is fine021:23, 5 March 2016
Category:Reconstructions to be moved003:09, 5 March 2016
Citation pages602:50, 23 February 2016
A bot400:37, 7 February 2016
Thanks!315:49, 6 February 2016
How do you find templates with unclosed noinclude tags?115:48, 6 February 2016
Big Bend State etc.512:33, 27 January 2016
meanie weenie = DaDavewoss117:50, 18 January 2016
Your edits with a bot flag115:04, 15 January 2016
Module errors in translations315:12, 14 January 2016
Undo217:03, 13 January 2016
citations123:52, 12 January 2016
Chuck Entz009:41, 7 January 2016
cx vs. context509:46, 28 December 2015
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Protecting user scripts

That's completely unnecessary. By default, scripts in one's user space can only be edited by the script's "owner" or by admins.

Yair rand (talk)19:43, 31 March 2016

Thanks for letting me know, I think I might have known that but it didn't cross my mind.

TheDaveRoss20:01, 31 March 2016
 

Broken citations

Edited by another user.
Last edit: 18:39, 26 March 2016

You leave many broken citations. I fixed nextish, and deleted broken ones in clean sweep and in do justice. Please correct them if you like. You need to always check the the final result visually. 73.71.174.75 18:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

73.71.174.7518:24, 26 March 2016

Constructed language topic categories

Edited by author.
Last edit: 17:39, 17 March 2016

I saw that you added a bunch of entries to the English one and I decided to help out, but I just noticed that it failed an RFDO a while back (see Category talk:Constructed languages), the main reason seemingly being that now CAT:Constructed languages contains both those languages as well as those topic categories. Is there a way around this problem? If not, we should redelete these.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds16:20, 17 March 2016

I have no idea what the criteria is for a category's existence. I made it because I was interested in looking at a list of constructed languages and it seemed relevant to me. That RFDO is over 5 years old, I say we make the categories if we think they are useful and have the discussion if others disagree.

TheDaveRoss16:54, 17 March 2016

I agree that they're useful to categorise separately, but you completely ignored the problem that I brought up. @Chuck Entz might know how to solve this?

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds17:39, 17 March 2016

Oh, yes, I mistook what you were saying the problem was. I think that it could be avoided by not using {{topic cat}}, but maybe there is a better way.

TheDaveRoss17:55, 17 March 2016

I would propose adding a prefix to the "by language" topic categories. So the parent of Category:en:Constructed languages would be Category:ALL:Constructed languages or something similar, rather than the current Category:Constructed languages. This would also avoid any future name clashes of this kind.

CodeCat18:10, 17 March 2016
 
 
 
 

Dead links for taxonomic names

I think a rigid algorithm might be fruitful enough to be worth considering:

For entry with dead link

  1. If project link is in Translingual and Translingual section contains {{taxon}} then
    1. If headword is not one word (ie no spaces) then
      1. Link to first word in headword
      2. If link to first word in headword fails then
        1. Link to parameter 3 in {{taxon}}
        2. If link to parameter 3 fails then
          1. Categorize as problem and next
    2. Else link to parameter 3 in {{taxon}}
      1. If link to parameter 3 fails then
        1. Categorize as problem and next

(I realize this isn't the simplest way to do the logic and omits some elses, mostly obvious ones, I hope.)

This should dramatically reduce the number of these that are categorized as problems for manual resolution.

WP does not consistently use taxonomic names for organism entries so there may be many fails. This type cannot be resolved automatically AFAICT. Some taxonomic names are homonyms of others. Species and WP both have varied ways of disambiguating. I don't think these are worth trying to resolve either. automatically. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If there is a dead species or WP link not in a Translingual section and the link is to what looks like a multiword taxonomic name, then trying to link to a sister project article whose headword the first word in the link would be worthwhile. Perhaps the simplest approach would be to see whether there was a species link and then see whether the WP link was to the same headword or to a truncation of it. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Most(?) Translingual entries do not have Hypernyms sections. I think sequentially testing those is not such a good idea as a too-distant point on the tree of life is not worth it.

DCDuring TALK13:44, 7 March 2016

Thanks for documenting that, I have been thinking about starting up a tools project for Wiktionary related stuff and this seems like a good candidate for that (so it would always be watching). I might have time to play around with that in the near future, I will be in touch again if I do to bounce ideas/questions off of you.

TheDaveRoss20:00, 7 March 2016

I have other tools ideas, most importantly, a KWIC display for any corpora we can get access to. We really need modern corpora.

DCDuring TALK21:08, 7 March 2016

I'm starting to use Special:Search/.... at WP and Species for terms they use but have no headword for. See Thallobionta

DCDuring TALK01:09, 13 March 2016
 
 
 

Derived terms

For the record, I do not think short lists of derived terms should be within collapsible sections.

Dan Polansky (talk)22:21, 5 March 2016
Edited by author.
Last edit: 22:25, 5 March 2016

How short is short? Right now I am adding templates when there are four or more entries, if there are fewer than four I am leaving them alone.

TheDaveRoss22:23, 5 March 2016

I don't really know but 10 still seem relatively short, resulting in a list of 5 rows when two columns are used, and these can be non-collapsible.

Dan Polansky (talk)22:25, 5 March 2016

My hope is that, once all sections of related and derived terms are templatized, we could have the quick-add stuff which lives at the bottom of translation sections. Personally I like them to be in the boxes even if there is only one, but I understand that not everyone shares that view.

TheDaveRoss22:26, 5 March 2016

That's overtooling, in my view. Expanding these lists should be very straightforward using wiki markup editing, much more so than expanding the translation tables.

Dan Polansky (talk)22:32, 5 March 2016

Another motivator is that collapsing these lists increases the amount of highly relevant information which is displayed without scrolling. User experience etc.

TheDaveRoss22:52, 5 March 2016
 
 
 
 
 

TheDaveBot edits don't appear as bot edits

Hi,

Bot edits are removed from my watchlist but TheDaveBot's edits appear there. Is User:TheDaveBot editing as a regular user?

Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад)12:15, 5 March 2016

As far as I can tell moves cannot be flagged bot, hence the RC spam. The bot is still a bot, and has the flood flag on as well for good measure.

TheDaveRoss15:08, 5 March 2016
 

All is fine

Just do you know, CodeCat is a massive violator of WT:BOT; see also Wiktionary talk:Votes/2014-08/Debotting MewBot. Their Beer parlour show is just a farce. I have posted to the same effect to Beer parlour but was reverted. Thank you for your renames; they are made per result of a vote.

Dan Polansky (talk)21:23, 5 March 2016

Citation pages

Why do you hate quotation templates? Any future modifications to the citations you are adding will be extremely laborious.

DTLHS (talk)01:29, 23 February 2016

I also have to question the value of citations that aren't marked with a particular sense of the word.

DTLHS (talk)01:31, 23 February 2016
 

The quotation templates are too much in flux to be of much use, as likely as not everything I added in template form would display as a module error by next week. Also, they don't add any value, they are purely for formatting, so they needlessly slow down page generation. If there is a good reason to use them I will switch, but as it stands it is just as easy to run a bot to update formatting if it needs to be changed in the future. As far as marking with a sense, I think there is value, and there is no good way to associate a quote with a sense -- in fact there is no good way to associate anything with a sense, which is a major failing of the current structure.

TheDaveRoss01:54, 23 February 2016

That's a ridiculous thing to say about templates that have been around for years. Do you see any module errors in the thousands of pages that use them? By using plain-text formatting you're creating technical debt for anyone who wants to use or modify what you're doing in the future. This is especially important since you seem to be adding quotations semi-automatically.

As for associating quotes with senses, what's wrong with putting them directly under the definition lines?

DTLHS (talk)02:03, 23 February 2016

The same thing (technical debt) could be said of all content which is added, not sure why this is any different. There are some GP discussion about the things which have been broken by quote templates in the recent past if you like. Re placing quotes under the definition lines, that is not a practice I approve of; I think that there should be a single good usage example for each sense and all other quotations should be in the Citations namespace.

TheDaveRoss02:10, 23 February 2016

If I want to use citation pages in the future, am I to be expected to maintain a database of all the separate formatting practices of every editor that has contributed? Or can I just download mwparserfromhell and parse everything with a single set of rules? And yes this does apply to all content, but especially here where there's so much variation between different editors' formatting preferences, and a simple solution to alleviate it. That's what I'm talking about when I say technical debt.

DTLHS (talk)02:31, 23 February 2016

At this point 99% of the Citations namespace adheres to the formatting I am using, so that will get you most of the way there. The simple solution is also a poor solution, which is why I am not using it. The current format adheres to the suggested format at WT:Quotations, and assuming that most people are using that format. If you would like to propose a new layout which involves templates, I am happy to have that discussion and will abide by its outcome. I will also run the bot to update all of my previous additions should a new format be enforced. Using the current quotations templates, however, adds risk and overhead without adding any value that I can see, as I said above.

TheDaveRoss02:50, 23 February 2016
 
 
 
 
 

Would you consider creating one?

kc_kennylau (talk)00:17, 7 February 2016

What do you mean? I have a bot account User:TheDaveBot and I have some software which I use for semi-automated and automated editing. Is there some specific task you think I should do or is it just for flood prevention?

TheDaveRoss00:19, 7 February 2016

Just flood prevention. Maybe such task would be done by the bot next time. I can also flood-flag your account.

kc_kennylau (talk)00:28, 7 February 2016

I do use a flood flag for some things, I thought that making changes to so many templates was best to do in a way that everyone could see the changes, since templates have such a big impact on so many pages. Sorry about the flooding, but it is all done now.

TheDaveRoss00:32, 7 February 2016

It's alright.

kc_kennylau (talk)00:37, 7 February 2016
 
 
 
 

Thank you for closing all the noinclude tags! Are you also checking includeonly tags? I know there's a fair number of documentation pages that don't close them.

CodeCat17:40, 5 February 2016

The current script is just looking for noincludes, I am hoping to circle back to the includeonlys after these are done. I assume that some of them will require more discernment than these ones do, so I might end up categorizing the ones which are complicated so that experts can finish up the tricky ones.

TheDaveRoss17:43, 5 February 2016

Also came here to say thank you for adding the closing noinclude tags. Your work is much appreciated. (There's also onlyinclude, but I'm not sure that those are ever unclosed.)

WikiTiki8921:51, 5 February 2016

It looks like unclosed onlyincludes are much rarer, I will try and tag those or fix them as well.

TheDaveRoss15:49, 6 February 2016
 
 
 

How do you find templates with unclosed noinclude tags?

Would be glad if you could kindly tell me.

kc_kennylau (talk)03:35, 6 February 2016

I am using a script which pulls the contents of all of the pages in the template namespace and then checks them for balanced tags. I don't know of an easier way to do it, it is either that way or parsing the dump if you don't mind it being a bit stale.

TheDaveRoss15:48, 6 February 2016
 

Hi. I don't think it's a good idea to define things as "a nickname for..."; this is gloss information (e.g. colloquial, informal) and not part of the definition line. Similarly, we wouldn't define spoon as "a name for a piece of cutlery".

Equinox 17:49, 26 January 2016

I disagree, but what would you suggest as an alternative? I think this treatment is less confusing than simply listing the state name with context tags, and the other dictionaries I looked at seem to agree. Also, most of the nicknames are neither colloquial nor informal, most are official nicknames and appear in official contexts.

TheDaveRoss17:54, 26 January 2016

I suppose I'd gloss it with official nickname then, if that's a thing! like putting term of address on something like grandmamma (can't think of a real term-of-address example but did see one the other day). It just seems semantically wrong to define X as "a nickname for..." when that is not the definition of X.

Equinox 18:02, 26 January 2016

I agree that what is listed is not a definition, per se, which is a problem with content like this which is fundamentally encyclopedic. I think what you are saying is to do something like this:

  1. (official nickname) The state of Alaska in the United States.

Which is not any different except to a couple hundred people who are editors here, and I think violates the spirit of {{label}} (or whatever is the right one of those to use now). I don't have strong feelings about it guess.

TheDaveRoss18:32, 26 January 2016

The arcane {{non-gloss definition}} seems like the thing to use here. It's a pain to write out, but I would write either "{{n-g|Nickname for}} the state of Alaska in the United States" or "{{n-g|Nickname for the state of Alaska in the United States}}".

- -sche (discuss)04:20, 27 January 2016

Sounds good, I went with that.

TheDaveRoss12:33, 27 January 2016
 
 
 
 
 

meanie weenie = DaDavewoss

you meanie weenie

Ccecil123 (talk)17:43, 18 January 2016

I can't disagree.

TheDaveRoss17:50, 18 January 2016
 

Your edits with a bot flag

Some edits of yours have a bot flag and thus don't show up in recent changes.

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20160115073849&hidebots=0&namespace=4&associated=1&limit=500

(For example, your edits at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Language and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Headword line 2)

I take it is related to your work of adding Dickens citations using a bot flag? Which is a nice work IMO, but I'd prefer if your normal edits didn't have a bot flag. Is this something that can be fixed in your future edits? Or you could use User:TheDaveBot for that?

--Daniel Carrero (talk)14:54, 15 January 2016

It is a flood flag. I turn it on when I am adding citations since they would flood recent changes otherwise. It is a hassle to switch on and off, but I will try and swap it when making a significant edit such as a vote. Unfortunately setting the bot flag on an edit does not hide the edit from recent changes, as it should, otherwise I could leave the flood flag off and just flag the edits which are flood-y.

TheDaveRoss15:04, 15 January 2016
 

Module errors in translations

To answer the question in your edit comment: the translation adder apparently doesn't know about module errors, so it adds whatever text has been given it by the language-code-conversion routines, even if it's garbage. I'll have to ask at the Grease Pit whether there's something we can do about that

Chuck Entz (talk)14:32, 14 January 2016

I figured as much. I left a message with the person who added the translation to see what language they intended, maybe Georgian?

TheDaveRoss15:04, 14 January 2016

No, German (look at the "alt="). It was redundant to one already there, so I removed it

Chuck Entz (talk)15:08, 14 January 2016

Ah, they added German as well, they must have just tried twice then saved. Thanks for cleaning it up!

TheDaveRoss15:12, 14 January 2016
 
 
 

Hi TheDaveRoss. A change I made to a page was deleted. I apologize if I accidently broke a rule. Is offering a URL with examples of the page subject not a helpful addition? Thanks!

198.232.211.13016:50, 13 January 2016

In general, no. It tends to be promotional of the page rather than instructive regarding the use of the word. If the word is used in an interesting way on the target page then feel free to quote the page, but placing a link to the page is not of much use.

TheDaveRoss17:01, 13 January 2016

Thank you for the reply and the information!

198.232.211.13017:03, 13 January 2016
 
 

In diff, existing content on the page was moved out of place by your edit. This issue doesn't seem to have occurred on other pages where you were the previous editor, e.g. here; I don't know if it's happened on other pages.

- -sche (discuss)23:47, 12 January 2016

Thanks for letting me know, I am assuming it was a double-click mistake on my part since that one should have stood out. I'll double check.

TheDaveRoss23:52, 12 January 2016
 

Chuck Entz

The following edits came with the following text: "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page."

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Information_desk/2016/January&diff=36127008&oldid=36126950 https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Information_desk/2016/January&diff=36141759&oldid=36141670

Calling the rollbacks an error is an understatement. Chuck Entz is determined to turn a simple discussion about the nature of evidence into a conduct dispute, while you - by which I mean TheDaveRoss and SemperBlotto - are determined to let his incivil and counterproductive conduct stand and erase the resulting conduct dispute. I have never attempted to move a German section, I don't know the name "Equinox", I have never told Equinox that he must be new around here, and in this conduct dispute, my conduct has been excellent from even before it began. I am not a troll. You are trying to erase a conduct dispute that Chuck Entz and you deserve to lose. You are even marking it as minor edits. The edits are neither minor nor are they acceptable. The conduct of Chuck Entz and you is not acceptable.

110.55.5.17909:41, 7 January 2016

cx vs. context

I don't think you should be changing cx to contenxt. The last time we polled, more people preferred short names than long names.

Dan Polansky (talk)21:29, 27 December 2015

Template:cx is literally a redirect to Template:context, that is just like saying that a recent poll said people prefer obfuscation. I understand why people might like using cx when they are crating a line, since it is less typing, but I can't imagine why a less descriptive template would be preferred if it was the same amount of work.

TheDaveRoss21:35, 27 December 2015

I for one prefer cx, and not just for typing. The poll is at Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Templates context and label.

Dan Polansky (talk)21:35, 27 December 2015

What other benefit might cx have?

TheDaveRoss21:52, 27 December 2015

cx puts more visual emphasis on the context itself. Like, in cx|colloquial, colloquial is more visually outstanding than in context|colloquial. And it leaves more visual prominence to the definition itself.

On a related note, adding the lang= before the vote on migration to template lb/label is over seems suboptimal: once the vote is over, you will be able to add language and switch to template lb/label in one step.

Dan Polansky (talk)09:45, 28 December 2015
 

Strictly speaking, doing it as a bot violates WT:BOT#Policy but doing it as a human user is fine, as it violates nothing.

Renard Migrant (talk)21:53, 27 December 2015
 
 
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page