This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. These "last obs" dates are actually useful information, but are unrelated to what WP defines should normally be in |date=, so JorisvS and I have (finished) putting them into |type= since that seems to be the most appropriate field, as long as |accessdate= exists for those citations. If you agree, please revert. Thanks.   ~ Tom.Reding ( talk| contribs| dgaf) 05:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, in the context of a citation, using the last observation date is as meaningless as using the first observation date; the entire observing period is used to build the data set. The Epoch is what should be used in the citation date field to indicate when the data was most accurate. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work yall put into this, but I do think this was approached from the wrong angle. — Huntster ( t @ c) 08:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I agree that last obs is as meaningless as using the first obs date, but "2001-01-01 last obs" and "2001-01-01 first obs" are both more meaningful than "2001-01-01" with that qualifier removed, since the nature of that date has nothing to do with what the |date= field is used for.

If you want to find and change out the data to |date=<the epoch date> |type=Epoch, or |type=Epoch <the epoch date>, go for it (!), but I'd prefer not to see CS1 date errors in the meantime :)

If you don't mind, I'll revert it back to |type= for easier catching in the future, by someone else.   ~ Tom.Reding ( talk| contribs| dgaf) 16:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, I've already updated 96P to use the Epoch date, along with updating the data itself. By its very nature, the date field is understood to be the date when the presented data was known to be accurate, so "type=Epoch" is redundant. And I wholeheartedly agree that the CS1 errors needed to be taken care of. — Huntster ( t @ c) 16:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool.   ~ Tom.Reding ( talk| contribs| dgaf) 16:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, so apparently Kheider is fundamentally opposed to use a date field in these citations, saying that the date must be defined and therefore the type field must be used. I'm completely bewildered at this point and don't really know how to discuss this with him without saying something inappropriate (yes, I admit I've become that irritated). Why do these specific citations require this as opposed to literally any other citations? I wonder if I'm not explaining my reasoning well enough. What are your thoughts? — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You're referring to Kheider#last obs I assume? Sounds like he came to same conclusion as us when it comes to where a last obs date should go. But you're interested in what to do with both a last obs date and an epoch, am I right? Unfortunately I don't have any interest in being that über specific about transposing that info from the external NASA database. If the reader is that concerned/curious about the date(s), the link should satisfy their curiosity. I'm no minor-body aficionado, nor do I spend time in that space, so idk what those 'in the field' would prefer (epoch vs. last obs). There's the other option of including both, like |type=yyyy-mm-dd (last obs); epoch yyyy-mm-dd or something similar. That sounds like a discussion between you and Kheider and others though.

If you're interested in what to do with just the epoch, fwiw my gut agrees with Kheider, since others have and will continue to mess up these date/type fields from time to time like we're doing, so it's best to be explicit about each date in the most intuitive way that both a well-meaning editor and a casual reader wouldn't misinterpret, and the most explicit way to do so without making CS1 errors is by putting yyyy-mm-dd into |type= along with the qualifier (epoch sounds best), if only because the parser separates |type= from |date= in the final rendered reference text.

The interest in orbital accuracy comes from being able to extrapolate orbits into the far future (100s of years+). A small change to the known-orbit now can cause huge changes in the future orbital evolution, maybe causing it to become Earth crossing. Each time a satellite gets near apsis it's good to check its orbit against prior calculations, since it could have experienced orbital perturbations since its last approach, if that helps.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk| contribs| dgaf) 15:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, I'm so sorry that I was not specific in my post. I was specifically concerned with https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=96P/Machholz&diff=637099912&oldid=637087279 and our back and forth in the article history. The type field seems like a serious kludge...it is not machine readable as a date, so any non-wiki system that parses those citation fields will effectively have no date. Perhaps I'm just overly sensitive to citation formats. I think my best solution would be to just accept fate and disengage, as I'm one of those Wiki admins who absolutely hates conflict! I do appreciate your input in all of this. — Huntster ( t @ c) 23:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it's ok. I did see that and considered it in my response, along with the other stuff. I don't have any experience with any 3rd party parsers though (i.e. if they work off the wiki page-code or if they work off the rendered output); I'm just aware they exist and try not to intentionally subvert them. But, like everything, that too needs to adapt, and WP is the selection pressure :). Plus, there's always a caveat to each parameter somewhere.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk| contribs| dgaf) 13:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Downgrade to pending changes? -- George Ho ( talk) 10:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

George Ho, done. We'll see if things remain calm. — Huntster ( t @ c) 17:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reverted an edit on the Craig Ferguson article but didn't warn the IP user. I went ahead and left them a template warning, but in the interests of WP:DTTR I decided not to leave a {{ Warn}} template here. The IP user had never received a warning before, so I thought it best to give one. Thanks for all your hard work as a sysop, I know things slip through the cracks sometimes. Have a good day. —     Bill W.    ( Talk)  ( Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 13:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not warn IPs for minor BS things. Given they are almost always drive-by events, any such warnings will rarely be seen by that particular IP editor and is a waste of time. Persistent vandals, sure. — Huntster ( t @ c) 14:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the policy at WP:WARNVAND where it said, "users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism." My mistake. Thanks again for helping make Wikipedia great. —     Bill W.    ( Talk)  ( Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 14:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wtwilson3, don't apologise. I've never seen that particular bit of text before, probably because wording changes all the time and I long ago gave up on trying to keep up with it all. I find it to be a waste of time and instead use best logic when approaching these situations. Sorry for the confusion. — Huntster ( t @ c) 15:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Huntster.

I've noticed from time to time that you reformat citation references written on more than one line into a single line ref. Both, of course, work properly in formatting the presentation layer text that the end-reader sees.

However, the single line (often long) refs make it much more difficult to do the sort of serious content building and editing I do. So hear me out on this.

I come from a background of software development. In software coding, we all learned a long time ago that extra carriage returns (to the extent they are ignored by the compiler) that make code editing easier are a no brainer: much better to have a few additional carriage returns (that, NOTE, show up only when editing the source code), but make the editing less prone to error.

So practically, how does this work in Wikipedia.

Some editors put inline citations in like this: (look at this in an edit window for it to make sense)

^[1]

I'll be honest. I don't care for that all that much (see it in the source code, in an edit window). Seems a bit too much wasted space for the ref for my taste. But having said that, my understanding is that WP policy and practice will not support an editor going around and regularly changing a large number of those to tighter (two line, or single line) refs. Either way, whether WP policy allows or not, I never tighten those up, unless it is perhaps a one-off where I'm working on the ref anyway and it gets tightened up as part of a single specific ref I'm working on.

So I tend to code refs this way (two-line format, with a single extra carriage return):

^[2]

Would you be willing to not go around and mass change these to single-line (no carraige return) refs, so that future editing is more straightforward?

Thanks for considering my thinking. And thanks for all your hard work to keep WP in good shape.

Cheers, N2e ( talk) 23:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

N2e, thanks for the message. The guidelines only say that we shouldn't change from one citation type to another. For me, it is incredibly difficult to parse prose when a citation is broken onto different lines. Your first example is just mind-bendingly painful to look at. For your second example, now that you've explained your background, it makes more sense. How about we just start using list defined references (placing all refs into the "reflist" template at bottom), where splitting citations into separate lines makes zero difference to prose readability in the edit window? — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My first example, although I don't personally use it nor care for it, is widely used by a lot of editors. My guess: if an editor went around mucking with the formating of those into your preferred format, that editor would not receive the support of the community, any more than an editor going around to edit articles with your preferred method of citation into the format of the (widely used) first example I gave.

Now if that is the case, as I suspect it is, then the same logic would apply to changing from my second example into your preferred method, or your method into the form of my second example.

None of that builds content in the encylopedia. It's just formatting the source code differently as preferred by different editors who work on the encyclopedia. And since it is a given that different editors will prefer different methods when coding a citation, it seems an unproductive waste of effort to me, as well as causing grief to other editors. (unless some consensus policy on the "one best way" were to be achieved Wiki-wide; and you and I both know that will not happen.) So for my part, I just don't routinely change citation format of citations; I focus on encyclopedia content, or adding citation metadata, or something more useful. But you seem to do the opposite. So while I won't go around and change all yours back to my preferred format, and tell you that "The guidelines only say that we shouldn't change from one citation type to another." to defend my actions, that doesn't keep me from coming here and politely discussing it with you. N2e ( talk) 02:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

N2e: Uh, I wasn't aware that I was being impolite. I simply suggested an alternate solution that would suit us both...using list defined refs to move them entirely out of the prose. — Huntster ( t @ c) 02:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly not assessing you as impolite. I suspect your motive was excellent: trying to improve the encyclopedia.

Your suggestion of "placing all refs into the "reflist" template at bottom" changes the topic, as it is really just one other method by which various editors have preferences on these matters. I will be happy to discuss your additional (4th) preferred method at the appropriate time. But let's first just discuss the topic I brought up.

What do you think about the smaller subset of three preferred methods we are already discussing from my OP, and whether or not it is a good idea for other editors to just go around making edits that only muck with the format of the source code, and have no effect whatsoever on the finished presentation in the encyclopedia. Given that different preferences exist for different editors, then what do you think about that?

Or if that is a bit abstract, imagine three bot proposals. One for a bot to change any refs using the cite template to format "A", and another to find such refs and change them to format "B", and a third to format "C". All of these bot proposals are "within policy." And let's assume that the final citation, as viewable by Wikipedia readers, would be identical in all three cases. The bots simply go around looking for <ref>{{cite ... }}</ref>, and then change them into the particular preferred format of that particular bot. Should we approve all three bots? And have three bots running around changing each other's formatted cites into some other particular preferred cite format? I suspect that you, as an administrator, would find that to be not a good thing, and would not support such bots. But if not, why should editors do the same thing to other editor's perfectly acceptable cite formats, other than on a very occasional basis incidental to other article editing?

(I view your preference of putting the cites at the bottom of articles as just yet one more editor preference. The 4th in this list (since I'd only put out three in the examples above); I'm sure that there are many others. I imagine some editors will like your fourth format, just as some like the others. And others won't But I'm confident that not all WP editors can agree on it, which is obvious because that is not the "one true cite format" to use by wiki-policy today, and of course, none of the other three would be the "one true format" either. So for now, I'll withhold my view on that one so as to not take the OP discussion item off track, and just try to contain the discussion at whether other editor's ought to go around mucking with source code cite formating that has nothing to do with final presentation in the encyclopedia. But I promise I will discuss that with you if you still want to after the main discussion is complete.) N2e ( talk) 05:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Huntster. Do you have a view on the substantive discussion I'm trying to have with you? N2e ( talk) 22:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Huntster, it seems to me that in the discussion above that we were talking—when you were responding—past each other, on two different subjects. It has now been a week, and you've not responded at all, so I don't really know where you are on the issue. Perhaps you are busy, or thinking about the matter, or haven't seen my previous notes on 9-10 December, or something else entirely...

So let me try again: I would still like to dialogue a bit with you on the specific topic I brought up. As I understand Wikipedia rulz, you of course, have no requirement to discuss it with me on your Talk page. But this is seeming a bit odd. You and I have discussed a large number of article improvement topics over several years, always congenially, and it has always gone well, and you've certainly never avoided a discussion on matters about the encyclopedia.

I would very much appreciate an explicit response to me, even if it is that you don't care to discuss the matter further. I think it is important to attempt to talk it through and gain understanding before going to other methodologies for attempting to handle it.

So assuming that you might have missed previous requests, I'll make another attempt at it here. Could we just talk about the question of whether or not it is a good idea for other editors to make edits that only modify the format of the source code in an article, and have no effect whatsoever on the finished presentation in the encyclopedia in an environment where multiple approaches in source code are supported, and different editors clearly prefer using multiple different approaches. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict, honestly) N2e, sorry for the delay, RL stuff got me sidetracked. My only concern with references is a consistent format that makes it easier for editors to parse when reading wikicode. I really don't know how else to put it. I likely could count on one hand the number of people who have expressed concern with citation formatting in the past many years, and in every case I gladly invite them to revert if they feel strongly about it, per WP:BRD. I'm also not wholesale converting between different citation formats. In the end, I don't know what to say other than I'll try to avoid editing your articles (which is difficult since spaceflight is my passion). I work on this site because I have fun...it is a release from a very demanding job. I don't desire conflict and will go out of my way to avoid it. I'd rather leave than deal with stress in a hobby. Sorry if this is not the response you're looking for, but believe me when I say I wish to continue positive relations with you. — Huntster ( t @ c) 15:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That's cool. Sounds like we have the exact same objective for references: "a consistent format that makes it easier for editors to parse when reading wikicode", but might just have a bit different idea on what makes it most readable, as would, no doubt, a number of other editors who might differ with either of our views.

In any case, I think the discussion has been helpful. If you'll just try to avoid changing the format on a bunch of refs I've left in articles (or any editors, maybe), I'm cool with that. Of course, I would expect that both of us would, from time to time, fix or improve an existing reference (additional or updated metadata, etc.), and that at that time, incidental to the improvement of the ref, we might tend to leave the ref in the wikicode format that we personally prefer. That is to be expected. But that should not be a bunch of refs in a single article.

Re conflict. I agree. The drama is not worth it. That is why I was just endeavoring to have an open discussion with you on the matter. And why I persisted when you got busy and didn't write back.

As I've said to you before, I very much appreciate your unique contributions to Wikipedia, and the many skills and expertises you bring to the endeavor! I see nothing at all in this discussion that has changed that! Thanks for your time. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If possible - May need help to correct an image file-name => FROM the present file-name - " File:PIA19088-MarsCuriosityRover-MethaneSource-20121216.png" - TO the corrected file-name - " File:PIA19088-MarsCuriosityRover-MethaneSource-20141216.png" - Thanks in any regards - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 00:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Drbogdan, it's been moved. — Huntster ( t @ c) 02:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@ Huntster: - Thank you *very* much for your help - it's greatly appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 04:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)