This is an archive of past discussions with User:Reidgreg. 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 there. I thought I had already done this, but apparently not. I wanted to thank you for your expansion of Made in Canada, and particularly for the addition of the history section. It's much appreciated! Mindmatrix19:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mindmatrix: You're welcome! I'm sure you sent me a thanks notification. I was looking for an alternate title and got interested the more I read about the topic. Thanks for starting the article!
I tried to figure out how it works under NAFTA/USMCA, but it's tricky. They have one set of rules for country of origin tariff exemption, and another set of rules for country of origin marketing (labelling). Here's some of what I found:
Extended content
For tariff-exemption purposes, the USMCA (USMCA, formerly NAFTA) considers a good to qualify as Canadian in origin if it: (a) is wholly made in Canada, or (b) is made in Canada with some non-Canadian parts satisfying product-specific rules, or (c) is made in Canada with parts from the United States or Mexico (which are themselves tariff-exempt).
USMCA changed the rules-of-origin. It raised the qualifying de minimis requirement from 7% to 10% of content originating from outside the pact countries.
Under the USMCA, which came into effect 1 July 2020, definitions for duty preference claims and origin marketing were separated, each having their own calculation methods (which varied by product type). This created situations where goods would need one label for duty-free import which would then have to be replaced before the product could be sold.
Under NAFTA, goods imported for sale in the United States required country-of-origin labelling, without which they could be subject to a marking duty of 10% of their customs value.
Oh, BTW, I'm cool with this becoming primary (would have liked to hear more than one other opinion in the move discussion though). – Reidgreg (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Seems I owe you yet another thank you, this time for addressing the issues at Template:Did you know nominations/Made in Canada (and writing the intro to the article, of course). My internet service was down yesterday, so I accomplished nothing that required an internet connection.
I also added the links above to my bookmarks to inspect for potential material to add to the article (I have a bunch of others). I have no idea when I'll get around to doing so, though. Mindmatrix14:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bonewah: You're welcome! I know how easy it is to become entrenched in a position and have used 3O myself a few times. Looking at the different positions and the policies that come into play really helps a lot when I find myself in a dispute. Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Ce
Hello. If you find some time, could you take a look at this section (especially the first two sentences of the third paragraph), please? I mean especially correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation, awkward wording, citation format etc. Thanks a lot! Regards, --89.66.254.10 (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. That sentence appears to have been taken from the lead of Last universal common ancestor, where it had been preceded by a paragraph introducing the concept. I restructured the sentence in a way that helps self-define the term, and did a little MOS cleanup. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I just read this. I didn't respond immediately because these discussions wear me down and I took a little break. After reviewing this, I'm pretty sure this list "would be far too long to be of value" per WP:SALAT if somebody actually tried to complete it. There doesn't seem to be much interest in doing that though, let alone for maintaining and referencing it. Feel free to add the option to delete in the RfC as well if you want, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in that discussion either. It might be a bit much to have an AfD and an RfC at the same time, or to discuss deletion in a process that can't lead to deletion, but if the stalemate continues after the RfC I'll just go to AfD. Mottezen (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mottezen: sorry, I should have pinged you, my bad. Yeah, I don't take part in a whole lot of these discussions because they can go on for so long, and there can be a lot of reading and re-reading. Give the RfC some time. Meanwhile, if you're feeling stressed, have a look at WP:LAME or one of the other humour pages. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Made in Canada
On 1 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Made in Canada, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a journalist lived for a year using only goods made in Canada? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Made in Canada. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Made in Canada), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi. Since you are a very experienced Wikipedia user, could you have a look at the article I co-created, please? I mean especially checking grammar, wording, spelling, and punctuation. It has already been reviewed, but perhaps a fresh pair of eyes might still be useful. You copyeditors are doing a really good job, I greatly appreciate it. If you find some time, I will be very grateful. Thank you. --Pinoczet (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pinoczet: I have not been very active the past few months. I didn't spot any spelling or punctuation problems. Some general advice:
There shouldn't be anything in the lead which isn't also in the body of the article. So consider adding to the body some things which are presently only in the lead (like Kalinenko's full name).
There is no indication of when the experiments happened in the present version of the article.
The paragraphs (one each) in Description and Scientific reviews are a bit long, and might be broken up.
There's a em dash in matter —water. It has a space before it which should be removed (see MOS:DASH). Though I think I might have used a colon instead.
I'd like to see some more detail on some things, like whether Kalinenko was associated with any research institution, where the review study was carried out, whether the bio-like structures merely resembled life forms in shape or if they actually moved, grew, and responded to their environment as claimed, and in general more about attempts to reproduce his experiments.
@Jonesey95 and Miniapolis: You're both welcome! Hopefully a one-time thing as the new coords get up to speed. I was three months behind schedule to give out awards for WP:CAN10K, and finally got that done last week. Between that and this drive, I've now given out over 700 barnstars. Oh, speaking of grinding to a halt, anything for the annual report? (link) I believe Baffle gab and myself finished with what we could do, and its ready for finishing touches by active coordinators. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I may have given the wrong impression that I was going to do the barnstars, when I opened the thread and asked for the script. I would probably have gone ahead with a manual workup (after all, I manually audited the item word counts against totals, which took some time). However, I haven't even started looking at the script and just assumed that someone more senior would get to them. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
It really ought to be "here's an open task" and the next person who has time, confidence and inclination to perform the task should volunteer. Kindof a tag-team without tagging anyone in particular. Many hands makes light work, and a single person shouldn't have to put too much time in. I don't mind helping a bit when I have the time and notice a need. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Reidgreg, that's a really good idea because what we're doing now isn't working; what we want to do in terms of record-keeping may be out of whack with what we can actually do. I'll link to this discussion later on WT:GOCE/COORD (have to go out now), and will check out the annual report. Miniapolis17:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The way we've been doing it is that one person creates the barnstar page, and another person distributes the barnstars and leaderboard awards; both take about the same length of time, and with several coordinators and a lead there's no reason why one person should have to do it all. That tends to lead to early retirement Miniapolis14:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I've always found this to be a bit rude. Fourteen of these drafts were deleted on March 20, the same day as the above notice. I understand this is to save administrator workload and that I don't have any special privileges, but speedy and semi-automated deletion without discussion is rather irksome. Also, I contest the six month figure, I'm pretty sure these drafts were all edited within the last three months (being semi-active, I checked a couple weeks ago) though the last edits may not have been from myself, other editors have collaborated on these with a centralized discussion page at User talk:Reidgreg/Canadian Comedy Awards. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, the drafts are being restored. But this took up a bit of time and concern, time that could have been put to productive editing, and all of the messaging and logs may take up more server space than would have been saved if the drafts stayed deleted. It's rather wasteful, overall. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I've restored all of theses as per your request. Personally, I've found it beneficial to make drafts in my userspace where they can sit for years without any worries of being tagged. Best wishes, Eddie891TalkWork12:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Eddie891: much thanks! Some other editors were helping with these so I didn't want to claim ownership of them in my userspace, but I'll probably do that with the next articles I start. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Miniapolis: Thanks! That too-long article really pushed me over, back to a Caretaker's Star after a two-drive absence. BTW, I believe we used to only give the 10k star on drives for the rare occurrence of an editor completing a 10k copy edit without placing on the long-article leaderboard. Otherwise you're giving them a barnstar and a leaderboard award for the same thing. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Jonesey95 for a ruling . You may be right. I've sidestepped the issue in the past by ignoring any additional 10Ks in the awards column (yours and Lfstevens' were the first I've given), and I never checked to see if anyone else had done a 10K. The table was compiled without running the script (I was about to, but saw that Dhtwiki had already begun the table by hand), and I had to do some translation to {{GOCE award}}. All the best, Miniapolis23:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Your honesty is appreciated, Reidgreg. I have removed the 10K star after re-reading the conditions under which it is supposed to be awarded. It's so rare that I often forget about it. I think when we had a multi-thousand-article backlog in the very early days of the LOCE/GOCE, 10K articles that did not make the leaderboard may have been more common. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The 10K star is perhaps exclusively awarded during Blitzes (although not necessarily the intent), when there is no leaderboard (I received my lone award for copy editing a long article during the June 2018 blitz). What are the translations necessary to make for viable input to the "GOCE award" template? When I made my table, I merely copied the January drive table and rearranged entries to the new signup order, while deleting the entries of non-continuing editors and adding blank entries for signups who hadn't participated in January. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick note for you about citation templates to save you a bit of work in the future, pursuant to your expansion of Hey Lady! — I'll admit that the template documentation doesn't do a very good job of making this clear, because you'll find out only by reading the specific description of access-date= well after having passed a dozen usage examples which were already contradicting what the description actually says, but access-date= is actually meant to be used only when the source doesn't have any publication date locatable at all, and it actually isn't necessary to add access-date= to any citation that already has a date in the date= field. In other words, it's only necessary to add "access-date=today" to a citation template if you're unable to find the actual publication date of the source material at all, and not necessary for a citation template to have both date= and access-date= filled out — a citation template needs one field or the other, not both. But thanks for the expansion job nonetheless — I still wish I had more people actually helping me with Canadian Screen Awards stuff, so that I could spend more time writing genuinely long, detailed articles because I didn't have to worry about 3,598 new redlinks all at once, but I've long resigned myself to the fact that I'm possibly the person on earth who isn't directly employed in Canadian media yet actually still gives a flying fig about them. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Access dates are useful because web pages often change and eventually die. They can be used to determine which version of an archived page to link to after the page has gone away, for example, if archived pages with multiple date stamps are available. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's not what the rules about access-date explicitly say, which is that an access-date is explicitly necessary only where a publication date is completely unknown. For example, if a link to a newspaper article dies outright, then the publication date is what's going to help you recover the article from newspapers.com or ProQuest or the publication's own archives, while the date on which any Wikipedia editor personally added the link to our article will do absolutely nothing to help locate the source again. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm still procrastinating over the Canadian Comedy Awards drafts, with a couple in the series not quite up to GNG, and now it looks like there are blank years from COVID.
I see that Template:Citation/doc § URL agrees with Bearcat that |date= and |access-date= are generally not both to be used. (It specifically states that access-date is Not required for linked documents that do not change.) I have generally tried to fill every citation parameter that I can. Like Jonesey, I felt that access-date helped convey the date of verification of the statement and perhaps with the technicalities of semi-automatic archiving (and which snapshot to use). I suppose that access-date might also help editors back-trace when material was added to a heavily-edited article. I know that when you link with |id= to an archival source like ProQuest or Newspapers.com that the access-date parameter is ignored (or maybe it gives an error in preview). However, I have seen some published newspaper sources in which the online version is modified after the original publication date. (Usually with a note like, A previous version of this article stated [x]. This has been corrected to [y].) So I think access-date could be useful there. It's an exception to the rule but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Hopefully it doesn't make the References section look too cluttered. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA declaration; the following was copied from a talk page by Reidgreg (originally posted 7 May 2021, diff).
Hello! BattyBot recently made this edit, rearranging talk page banners. I have one note: {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}} represents a review process and belongs with the article history banners rather than with the WikiProject banners. I know the name makes this confusing; I usually use the alias {{GOCE}}) for the banner. Alternatively, if an article has a lot of history, the data from the GOCE banner can be entered into {{Article history}}, which accepts GOCE in its parameters.
Oh, I was once GOCE lead coordinator but am not presently on that team. I can probably answer any questions but if you need to talk with the present leadership, their forum is at WT:GOCE/COORD. Thanks for your attention on this, and good work with the bot! – Reidgreg (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Miniapolis: Thanks for awarding the barnstars! I'm still not in a place where I feel like I can be counted upon to keep apprised of talk pages and to help put out fires when they spark up, so I'm not going to nominate myself for coordinator this time.
Meaningless milestone: This drive puts me at just over 2 million words (without bonuses) copy edited on drives and blitzes. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I understand about the coordinator thang. Running the guild has become increasingly complicated, and I'd love to get rid of the blitzes; the people who like them don't put them on. Congrats on the word count, and I'm impressed with the bookkeeping . All the best, Miniapolis13:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Canadian Idiot
Good morning:
Just a quick note to let you know I finished a copy edit on "Canadian Idiot". I wanted to make sure it was ready for July 1st.
One suggestion: why not add Weird Al's portrait to the article? It would fit on the left side of the Composition section without disrupting the layout.
@Twofingered Typist: Thanks! I was hoping to use a picture of him performing the song if I could get a RSS to justify a fair use rationale, but haven't managed it yet, and hadn't considered an alternative. Will check for free pictures. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: The pic you found rounds the article off nicely! Cheers. TfT
Thanks for your help on Parliament Hill's GAN and DYK.
The DYK passed and is on WP:DYKNA. Given that this should be posted around Canada Day, should I make a new section under Special occasion holding area for July 2nd to put it in, or should I put it under either 1st or 3rd July. I don't really want to put it on 3 July, as Yoninah hooks will be placed there, but I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this.
@Aknell4: I'd say to put it on 1 July and let the promoters (the editors who assemble hooks into sets) distribute them for balance. The last I heard was that it was probably okay to run with 1 or 2 Canada-related hooks per set, which would distribute the 6 hooks over 2 days (give or take). I looked at the queue and there was one set with two New York City hooks, so that seems to be acceptable. Wherever you decide to place it, there will likely be a discussion when the 1 July hooks start moving into the prep area (WP:DYKQ), which will happen around 26 June. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
On 1 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Canadian Idiot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the song "Canadian Idiot" satirizes American xenophobia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Canadian Idiot. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Canadian Idiot), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 2 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Parliament Hill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the site of Parliament Hill(pictured) was previously called Barrack Hill and had been intended for development as a major military base? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Parliament Hill. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Parliament Hill), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
@Fishhead2100: I was thinking I ought to finally publish the rest of those drafts on the Canadian Comedy Awards, year by year (linked here). After reviewing the DYK rules, I'm convinced that they won't collectively qualify (after discounting the overlap in the prose, they aren't all long enough, and some are high on primary sources). If you'd like to do a DYK for some of the better ones and can see the nomination(s) through, I've got plenty of DYK credits that you can use. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I looked at a couple of the other drafts and they are fine. What about the most awards and most nominations tables? Is that something needs to be kept? Award articles may not be heavily sourced, but as long as there a sufficient amount of sources, there should be no problems. The category system is something I like. The template is good to have. I've never done a DYK before. I've never bothered looking at how to do one. The way you have the sources is not incorrect. I personally put them through out the article. Finally, we can slowly start moving the articles into mainspace if they are ready. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!03:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: Thanks for replying, I'm glad you're still interested in this. I'm not against the most win tables but I felt they were problematic to source and maintain (they're pretty good about crediting everyone who wins for Best TV Writer but they don't do that for Best Improv Troupe and it can be difficult to verify who was in a troupe for a particular year or for a particular production). There was a most awards section which I pulled from the main article and preserved at Talk:Canadian_Comedy_Awards#Lists_of_most_wins. For the drafts, I tried to mention in the lead the nomination leaders for live/tv/film and most wins for each year. I guess that was my compromise, to show the significant leaders for that year while trying not to have so much detail that someone deletes it as trivia. I'll check over the drafts some more and remove the notices I placed at the top. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I can't remember which award article I originally saw it in, but there are other award articles that do this sort of thing with total wins and nominations. I randomly checked 34th Primetime Emmy Awards. They have a total nominations and wins based on whatever. It wasn't sourced. In fact, there is only one source in the article. It will be fine unsourced here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!04:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I feel it's alright to use the awards table itself for that, if it's straightforward (simply counting them). If I go the DYK route, they're a little more concerned about sourcing for (1) verifiability and (2) to establish notability. I think maybe five of these aren't sourced well enough for notability as a stand-alone article, so maybe better to not do DYK and avoid that scrutiny, at least for those five. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
In the template of all the award stuff, I fixed the ceremony years. It was incorrect. Discontinued categories are missing from the template. I seen one that was awarded once. It would be redundant to have an article for it. I added missing venues where I could. A few are missing. Put — in place of yes, no, and N/A in the ceremonies table. Better that way. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!20:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: Are those London venues verifiable? (You didn't add sources/citations.) For the Template {{Canadian Comedy Awards}}, the footnote at the bottom explains that the year is the year of eligibility for works, not the actual year of the ceremony. That is a bit confusing. I based it on {{Academy Awards}}, as with much of this. If you like showing the year of the ceremony, I'm cool with that, and it probably makes more sense; we just have to change the footnote to match. The mdash on the table, while I agree it looks better, is a bit ambiguous. For the festivals, we know that there definitely were or definitely weren't festivals for some of those years (but may not have the dates). I think we also know that it definitely wasn't televised some years (though some may have been streamed). For the festivals, how about retaining the hyphens but adding a footnote for those two years in London that the festival was held but the dates are unclear? I think it works for the blank Artist of the Year cells, before that award was given. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The articles can explain the time frame. The year of the ceremony held is how it goes. The problem with these awards is that it's harder to find sources. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!00:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I've held onto these for a couple years hoping to find more sources but haven't had much luck. With the future of the awards uncertain, it seems like it's time to publish with what we've got. I worked on the footnotes for the list and added some citation needed templates. – Reidgreg (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: All published. I think I'm going to forego the DYKs. I don't think I'll be able to see the nomination through or respond to the extra scrutiny it would bring. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Reidgreg. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This was for an error in a mass mailing; there proved to be an unpaired html tag which affected the formatting of subsequent talk page messages. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
If you want to discuss an article or other page with me, please provide a link to it
Please do not post talkback templates on my page or copy back my own comments. If I left you a message I will have watchlisted your page so talk to me there.
@Spinningspark: My apologies about that, I entirely failed to notice it. Feel free to WP:TROUT me (for this and matters mentioned on the article talk page). I AGF that you have best interests with that GA. I just didn't want it to get to an edit war with the reverting (especially when there were other editors involved), you hadn't responded to my ping opening discussion, and talkback is standard practice for a failure to discuss situation. Feel free to remove the ugly talkback notice if you haven't already done so, and thanks for replying on the article talk page. Will continue there. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I had seen your ping, but sorry, issues with sds are low priority for me and I'm not going to bounce them to the top of the list just because someone sets off my yellow new message bar. SpinningSpark13:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Reidgreg I hope you're doing well. I came across your edit on Hero. A humble thanks that you cropped the plot so well, following the relevant policy. Thanks, stay safe.--C1K98V(💬✒️📂)07:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@C1K98V: You're welcome, and thanks for catching my wikicode error in the article! I do a lot of plot summarizing with the Guild of Copy Editors and some have called it my specialty. I've been doing plot summaries as a hobby for more than 30 years, at one page, one paragraph or one sentence, so I guess that adds up to something like a skill. This one was a doozy, taking 12,000 words down to under 500, for a show I've never seen, and I'm reasonably happy with the result and feel that the article is better off for it. Hopefully nobody will complain that I "gutted" their work. Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Reidgreg, I hope you're doing well. The meaning of the series states "The Stubborn Heart Doesn't Agree", It's a new series, and I added the title poster in it. But here also the plot seems to be excessive as it's just a beginning of the series. Can you consider working on it. Thanks, stay safe.--C1K98V(💬✒️📂)03:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@C1K98V: I did copyedit and cleanup, and reduced the plot 1400 → 300 words, which seems about right. Though it may have to be periodically trimmed if it continues to accumulate while more episodes are broadcast. If you want, you can just tag these sort of articles with {{copy edit}} or {{long plot}} to flag them for attention. The copy edit backlog is about five months, which isn't bad if it's not urgent. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@C1K98V: Well, I've had a lot of practice. In my younger days I was a Trekkie (I'm published in a series of massive multi-author works of Star Trek commentary), and I could discuss just about any of the most trivial aspects of the franchise with folks on the Internet. That meant having to summarize the episodes at different levels of detail, with the focus on different subjects -- summarizing a season for just one character, or for a particular alien species, or for instances of the use of the term "quadrant". Pretty crazy, right? But back then just about everyone on the internet was a Trekkie and it was easy to get drawn into really trivial discussions.
A few tips if you want to cut plots down: Check the character/cast list and focus on the main characters. If a character is only mentioned by name once, they probably aren't important enough to be mentioned at all. Similarly with storylines; if a plot thread doesn't affect the overall plot arc of the season, it can probably be cut. With this one as an example, I pretty much focused on the main characters and cut out any externalities and details that didn't really affect things. Like at the beginning, it isn't necessary to know that Karan was chasing a pickpocket when Monami assumed he was a bully/thug/gangster. All the details about Sid and Mrs Batra weren't really important, just mention that she sees him as a surrogate for her son and later gets him the job at the canteen. It helps to have a thesaurus handy to find the right word that can replace several others. Copy editing techniques can also be used to keep the word count down.
I think I did that summary in a single pass... but then the show hasn't been on that long so there really wasn't an enormous amount of plot, just a lot of words. And that isn't necessarily a bad working stage for an article; I find it's usually best to first go broad and get all the details, then trim it down afterwards. If you want to do this sort of editing, there are currently over six thousand articles in Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention, so plenty to do! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Canadian Police and Peace Officers' Memorial
FYI, I was off for a few days from 1 October, when Google Chrome did some kind of hurried update to address an undisclosed vulnerability. That made it impossible for certain platforms to access Wikipedia and a number of other websites. I've completed a long-overdue OS upgrade and hope that this will be stable enough for at least another year (until the next "security upgrade" locks me out). – Reidgreg (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Timewasters
On 9 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Timewasters, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that racially themed time-travel comedy Timewasters was developed under the working title Black to the Future? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Timewasters. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Timewasters), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thank you, also for creating the missing Main page history pages! - On Saturday, DYK #1700, and I uploaded images, mostly blue and green, for hope. Missing the "perennial" gang. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I felt a bit responsible for not doing something sooner – I happened to noitice as I had DYKs which bookended the period of missing archives – and it was one of those things where the sooner you do it, the easier the task (and the more accurate the results, I hope). Just glad that DYK didn't update twice a day then. Is 1700 the set number? There must be more individual DYK hooks. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I am just wondering why your recent edit to the short description of Narungga language, adding the word "extinct" and overriding the Wikidata description... according to the body of the article, it is currently being taught, after a revival program, and recent censuses show varying numbers, according to AIATSIS... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Laterthanyouthink: Why indeed? That'd be a mistake, thanks for catching it! How about Revived Australian Aboriginal language or Revived Thura-Yura language of Australia? (They're at or under 40 characters.) – Reidgreg (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Reidgreg, No worries, it happens, and thanks for the add nonetheless. I think use Aboriginal Australian language - more understandable to more people, and used for a number of other languages already. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
On 7 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Demon (comics), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the original release of Jason Shiga's comic Demon included a four-page issue, a sixty-page issue, and an issue in which all the panels were black? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Demon (comics). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Demon (comics)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Would you please email me the new barnstar script? (You'll probably have to send it as a .txt file.) Thanks in advance and all the best, Miniapolis03:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) My version of the script, which I remember monkeying with in 2016 or so, is date-stamped October 2017, if that helps. I also have pretty good instructions. I no longer have a Windows computer to run it on, however. Let me know if you want that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95 and Miniapolis: Yes, that helped, I found it saved 10 Oct 2017. In the main loop subroutine GetTotals it uses InStrRev rather than InStr just before incrementing nArticleCount. I sent it in the body of an email to Miniapolis – couldn't find your email address to send it as an attachment. Maybe Jonesey can send it to you as well? Should test it a couple times to make sure it works.
I have my copy of the script that Miniapolis sent me at User:Dhtwiki/sandbox/GOCE barnstar scripts, if anyone wants to consult that or have a copy for themselves (I asked if that was OK to keep it there). If there is a new script, can't it be posted here, rather than emailed, which can be rather complicated, depending on how it is stored (it did take some doing on my part to convert Mini's email to what I have on my page)? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC) (edited 19:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC))
Dhtwiki, I emailed you the new script at the address I have for you. If your email address has changed, email me and I'll send it again. All the best, Miniapolis02:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
That looks like the older script with some additional tinkering. I'm unfamiliar with the Python code at the end.
Oh, I remembered another (tiny) bug. If a wordcount was exactly 5000, 10000, 15000, etc., it wouldn't count the full 5k value. I believe this can be fixed if the loop Do While nTempWordCount > 5000 is changed to a greater than or equal to. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I received the new script from Miniapolis. The Python script under my copy of the script is a machine translation I attempted, in order to have something that will run natively on my iMac. I haven't attempted to run it, so I don't know how well it works. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
On 21 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chicks with Sticks, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ice hockey film Chicks with Sticks received its title and funding following the success of Men with Brooms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chicks with Sticks. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chicks with Sticks), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thanks for creating the barnstar page; I removed Tdslk from the table because he didn't participate this time around. Happy holidays and all the best, Miniapolis19:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Resolved
