User talk:Matthiaspaul/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit war at OrCAD

You really should refrain from edit warring as you are at OrCAD. Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no edit-war going on, just two editors trying to remove a vital part of the article, and two other users rightfully restablishing the previous state. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Kauffman (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kauffman (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Kauffman (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ GB fan 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Result was to keep and adjust the redirect. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

TASKING

I would suggest you use Template:Under construction while you are improving the article as your summary obviously notable is likely to be tested at AfD unless that is in place. Independent references for some claims may be needed. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No need for that, the sources are IMO good enough for WP:GNG etc. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking for references to S/DOS

Hi! In PTS-DOS article you mentioned a « Source DOS » named S/DOS 1.0 and you said it was « open source », do you have any reference to that? I found a FreeDOS document mentioning the Source-DOS and saying the source was distributed but it says nothing about the « open source » nature of it. I find this story very interesting and I'm looking into more information on that topic. :-) -- Illwieckz (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

S/DOS 1.0 could be found on the red Paragon CD-ROM containing the PTS-DOS 6.51CD binaries. It is pictured in the article. S/DOS was open-source, but nevertheless a commercial product. You had to buy it to use or modify it, and it was only for personal use.

S/DOS was basically a stripped down version of PTS-DOS with some components missing. It was written in assembler and had rather terse comments. Studying the sources it could be seen that it was lacking a lot of polishing and omitted to address many special cases implemented in other DOSes, and therefore it would not work well with badly behaving programs or on less compatible machines. I also saw quite a few actual bugs in the source code, and it was not maintaining the layered model very well (f.e. some BIOS calls in tools instead of DOS calls). Due to this, I would not recommend it as an educational tool. On the plus side, however, it was very memory efficient, and it also had some nice unique features.

(BTW. That old FreeDOS document you mentioned is not accurate in some of the details.)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

E series

Matthias, since you reverted my hyphen removal move at E-series of preferred numbers, I did some more looking for sources, to see whether authorities would support this odd hyphen over normal English punctuation conventions. I found one standard that suggests I had it right: IEC 60063. And no shortage of other uses without the odd comma: [1], [2], [3]. The hyphen would make sense in things like "E-series numbers" or "E-series preferred numbers" where the compound noun "E series" is being used as a modifier, but not otherwise (though many sources do get this wrong, I agree). What's your thinking on why it was "proper" with the hyphen? Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dick, this appears to be a difficult one. I find lots of sources using it either way, including "Nikon F-Mount" ([4]). While there are cases where a hyphen would have to be avoided and cases where it would have to be used, there also appears to be a middle-ground where there is no clear right or wrong and it is down to one's preferences (or perhaps traditional vs. modern English, I don't know).

"E-series" vs. "E series" seems to be one such example: To me, omitting the hyphen here looks disturbingly wrong (like a bold typo), and it takes some while until the stray "E" gets mentally connected to "series" to form a compound noun - totally destroying the flow. (But not so for "book series", where I would be with you to avoid the hyphen unless it's used as a modifier.) Thinking about why that is, my gut feeling tells me it must be either because "E-series" is a rather unusual (compound) noun or because "E" is so short. Can "E" even be considered a word? Checking f.e. this guideline ([5]), taking "E" as a word, the usage of a hyphen appears to be covered by Rule 2b ("When writing out new, original, or unusual compound nouns, writers should hyphenate whenever doing so avoids confusion.") However, considering "E" to be some kind of prefix, abbreviation, truncation, digit or letter, further down Rule 1 ("Hyphenate prefixes when they come before proper nouns or proper adjectives") or Rule 6 ("Writers often hyphenate prefixes when they feel a word might be distracting or confusing without the hyphen") seem to apply. On the other hand, "E series" being used in the standard is certainly a good argument as well, but again, it appears to be down to the writer's choice.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure why it looks so wrong to you to omit the hyphen; maybe because it's so unlike would be done in German? This is pretty standard English, and also the way it was done in the defining sources. There's no normal role for such a hyphen when the compound is not used as a modifier. Same with the F mount; most books get this right. For E series, it's not difficult; the defining source follows the usual English grammar rules, and so do some of the sources; the fact that some also throw in a spurious hyphen should not confuse us. Dicklyon (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're convinced, please move it back. If you're not, let me know and I'll start an RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the corresponding standard uses the variant without the hyphen convinces me to choose this one for our purposes as well.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Re:Codie awards

Many thanks! It's been a long time since I last got one of these. The Codie/SIIA is an important subject and I'm just glad it's covered to some degree on Wikipedia. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You deserved it. :-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

PC Magazin listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PC Magazin. Since you had some involvement with the PC Magazin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed to delete the redirect in order to avoid confusion. The German PC Magazin is unrelated to the English PC Magazine.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Input requested regarding HP Saturn register diagram

Hello :) I've updated the HP Saturn CPU register diagram on the HP Saturn CPU page. I initially tried to get the look that I wanted using wiki markup, but I gave up on that. I then created an SVG diagram with a PNG thumbnail. I had to delete your register diagram as I couldn't properly comment it out. If you have any suggestions on what you want included in the new diagram, then I'm all ears :) The SVG file is on the Wikimedia Commons so you can edit it yourself if you prefer :) Jdbtwo (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion took place on the artice's talk page.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

just curious...

hi, thanks for your work on sources and formatting at Greta Thunberg. Just curious, why do you think we should use one date format in the body and another in references? I don't care which we use, but going back and forth is difficult. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, references and tables are much easier to read when they use an all numerical date format with fixed length and which is non-ambiguous internationally. They are also often shared and compared internationally. That's why many editors prefer the use of the ymd format there, which doesn't add any unnecessary clutter and yet is inherently non-ambiguous.

In the article body, however, we normally use long date formats, and since the ISO 8601 format isn't as commonly used there as the other formats (although this usage is steadily increasing (outside of WP) and it is meanwhile the official date format in many countries), our MOS still asks us to use either dmy or mdy there. Since the mdy format is used only in the USA (and isn't the most logical format, anyway), the preferred date format for the prose in an article without strong US ties or, as in this case, even an international scope, is the dmy format.

The cs1/cs2 citation framework introduced auto-date formating some months ago. This is good for consistency (and in the future hopefully also for user-configurability of date format preferences), however, some tools and bots still need to be updated to adhere to the cs1-dates parameter of the "Use xyz dates" template, otherwise they sometimes insert dates in the wrong date format, which paradoxically can create new inconsistency on source code level (unless removed). Due to the auto-date formating this is cosmetically only, but the idea is, of course, for them to insert the date in the proper format as well in the future so that we will finally have a solution with the necessary level of flexibility and consistency combined with stability. I assume, however, that the transitional phase will continue for some while.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for paying careful attention to these intricacies so lazy eds like myself can stumble along without messing things up too badly even though our eyes cross when we hear this said out loud! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Mathematical functions

Hi,

Concerning your edit Special:Diff/912554909, I think that "eˣ-1" should be replaced by "eˣ−1", i.e. with a true minus character, like in −1.

Moreover, shouldn't "sin (trigonometry)" be "sin (mathematical function)" like for sinh? Ditto for cos, tan, arcsin, arccos and arctan. I think these are more general than the domain of trigonometry, in particular when considering their similarity with the hyperbolic variant with complex arguments. Or perhaps "sin function", etc., like one has gamma function and lots of other examples in the "Special functions" category.

Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vincent, good suggestion! I already implemented the first part of it.

For the second part, that would involve creating a bunch of redundant redirects given that the (trigonometry) redirects already exist (and IMO shouldn't be deleted). Could still be done for consistency.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Anuna De Wever

Just to let you know I've posted a notice about the persistent contentious IP edits at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Persistent_vandalism_at_Anuna_De_Wever. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. What's actually needed is semi-page protection of the page as already requested hours ago at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Anuna_De_Wever. They just seem not to be particularly fast today... ;-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hambach

Hola thanks for adding refs to the Hambach_Forest#Large_demonstration_(October_2018) section. To be honest I'm still not impressed by the list, but if its referenced I don't have a problem with it. I was wondering, do you have references for the Hambach_Forest#Arrests_of_activists_(spring_of_2018) section? Right now it has nothing, I had a look around but I didn't find much. Maybe it's original research or maybe the sources exist, possibly in german only. Anyway sorry we met like this, but like you I'm eager to make this article better!  Mujinga (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hiya thanks for adding some refs to that section. MOS is lagging here in my opinion, since I haven't been able to find guidance but I would suggest when adding foreign language links to add a relevant quote where relevant, making it easier for other editors to verify. I did this for example on We Are Here (collective). I started adding translated quotes then realised it's better in the age of machine translation to put the original text. The article is improving, maybe in time it can be submitted for Good Article status, that would be great.

On a sidenote, I saw you removed Ende Gelände 2019 which I find weird since per MOS:SEEALSO: One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics Mujinga (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I sometimes add quotes to citations, in particular if the source I cite is very rare or the exact wording is important to be preserved for generations to come, but I don't have the time to do it all the time. Also, more important than quotes is to make sure that online references are properly archived to prevent link rot. In either case, |quote= is meant for the original language - strictly speaking, a translation is not a quote any more. I asked several times for a |trans-quote= parameter, but until this materializes, a translation can be appended to |quote= in [square brackets] following the original quote.

Regarding the See also link removal, this was because the group, who occupied an excavator at the Hambach open-pit mine on 24 June 2019, wasn't related to Ende Gelände, so a link would be misleading. There are links to Ende Gelände 2017 and 2018 because they were targeting the Hambach mine directly. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's the thing, it doesn't seem important when one speaks both languages (with Hambach in your case, English and German, with We Are Here in my case Dutch and English) but I think if you don't then it sets up a block, like I'm not going to trawl through German languages references unless i really have to and as machine translation continues to improve i think the method of referencing should change to make it as easy as possible for citations to be verified. I do agree archiving is very important, I'm very happy with my Firefox plugin that makes it very easy to add wayback machine links. That's interesting about trans-quote, I guess the prob would be that the translation can always be disputed. Anyway thanks for your answer I find it interesting to discuss this and might eventually get round to suggesting an update of the MoS to reflect things. Mujinga (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you're too busy harassing other editors... origins of your formatting "holy war"

All began with this edit here by a single user, User:TreyHarris, on 18:04, 21 January 2006‎. Since I did all that work for you, why don't you finish the task by showing me the lengthy discussions leading to WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE? Good luck with your future crus... er, endeavours! Bumm13 (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please remove that bar from your eyes. I might be the messenger ([6][7][8]), but I'm not your enemy. Your edits are violating our established guidelines WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE for years. As this is causing damage to the project, it needs to be stopped. Simple as that. The discussion takes place at your talk page: User_talk:Bumm13#"Formatting_fix"

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

For the records, the editor decided to archive the discussion 80 minutes after the last post ([9][10]). Let's hope he will now finally adjust his behaviour, so that everyone can continue to build an encyclopedia.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m not terribly active anymore so I missed the invocation of my name at the time. I’ve only read through the comments currently on this talk page between the two of you, so if there’s stuff going on elsewhere I’m not aware of it.

My edit “creating” this guideline was 13 years ago, so I may not have perfect recall, but I do know that before adding it, it was discussed on IRC at some length; at that time, the #wikipedia IRC channel was very active and generally considered a good place to bounce ideas off of folks if you were on the fence about Being Bold. But it definitely was not the case then that such a small addition to policy went through the kind of process it would today.

This edit was made at a time when the biggest issue driving editors was cleanup. Wikipedia had become large enough to be a viable reference supplanting other traditional reference works, but reliability was a real problem. Mechanisms like patrolling were added and policies like for citations were changed. And the overall mix of edits was quickly changing as a result.

Prior to this, most edits in the article namespace were additions of factual (or fact-like) material, followed by copyediting edits, followed by rewordings, followed by administrative edits (categorizing, template management, etc.). But this all changed when citations became something that, as a community, we decided needed to be included by default with new factual edits, rather than just “when the fact may be surprising or questioned” or “when someone’s added a ‘citation needed’”.

And the resultant mix of edits were greatly changed: now copyedits—especially cleanup, categorization, and citations—became the lion’s share of edits. There were two important ramifications of this:

1. There was a flood of editors wanting to “pitch in” on this cleanup initiative, and many took on particular repetitive tasks they enjoyed doing: fixing spelling mistakes, checking that citations were formatted correctly, adding citations to existing material, etc. And since many concentrated on particular kinds of edits across all of Wikipedia, rather than particular subject areas, watchlists weren’t as helpful for monitoring them.
2. The patrollers now had to deal with this new flurry of small edits.

Since we were still working out the cultural norms of this relatively new patrolling mechanism, there was a desire to identify places where these busy-beaver editors were just generating work for the people coming after them, without much value in actual cleanup.

This was especially important for edits that could be automated; bots needed permission (at that time, maybe only when they exceeded certain edit velocities? I don’t recall) but their source code wasn’t scrutinized, so some sometimes made undesirable edits that weren’t caught by reading their authors’ descriptions of them or viewing the results of a small sample of edits.

All that is to explain the motivation here: In looking to reduce the number of edits that increased work without much actual encyclopedia cleanup value, almost the very lowest of the low-hanging fruit were edits to “fix” redirect links. (Probably only edits standardizing the number of spaces following each sentence in an article were more useless.) They polluted watchlists, patrol lists, and every other cross-article edit list.

Editors needed no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter of the article to “fix” a redirect link. But for editors following behind, if they were unfamiliar with the article’s subject matter, they could be difficult to quickly understand. An edit that was described as just fix link and whose delta was [[plane change]] → [[orbital inclination change|plane change]] could be published with almost no effort, but might need a minute or two investigation to figure out if it were a good edit or not—if you didn’t know that the one was a redirect to the other.

That was the context of this policy addition: in the face of a new and increasingly high volume of cleanup edits, point out that this particular type of edit that was being done wholesale was just creating work for almost no gain.

I hope this historical context is helpful. TreyHarris (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

(p.s. I suppose, to be fair, I should tag User:Bumm13 back since being mentioned is what led me here. TreyHarris (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC))

And also because it is him who violates WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE for years, as has been pointed out in many old threads by me and other editors over the years. That he opened a smear thread on my page while his problematic behaviour was discussed on his talk page was just an attempt to draw the attention elsewhere.

Although I don't think it will satisfy Bumm13 (because he thinks he can ignore our guidelines anyway), thanks for providing a little "historical" perspective to the origins of this meanwhile long-established guideline. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of .sch (file extension)

The article .sch (file extension) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is a list of indiscriminate items; it lists six unrelated apps, all of which use the same three letters for their otherwise unrelated file formats.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Scientists for Future for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scientists for Future is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientists for Future until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A1Cafel (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Anderson Earle Goldschmidt Powers algorithm" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anderson Earle Goldschmidt Powers algorithm. Since you had some involvement with the Anderson Earle Goldschmidt Powers algorithm redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. D.Lazard (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Matthiaspaul,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 873 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Caldera International has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Matthiaspaul. Caldera International, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

PDP-10

The PDP-10 had binary floating point, not radix 8 as your edit claims. Also, I don't believe "octal floating-point" is a standard name for "base 8 floating point". See [11], for example. I see that the book Handbook of Floating-Point Arithmetic claims it used radix 8, but that is not correct. I hope that others have not been repeating this error. --Macrakis (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stavros, if the PDP-10 really didn't support an octal floating point mode, it is a pity that the authors didn't fix it in the (above linked) new edition of the book which was published just a couple of weeks ago. I only had the previous edition to look at, and it already listed the DEC PDP-10 as well as the Burroughs 570 and 6700. Savard lists the Atlas and Burroughs B5500.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I sent mail to the author. --Macrakis (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Turns out, Burroughs 570 was a typo in the source as well. The machine was actually called Burroughs B5700 (ca. 1971). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Inverse Jacobi elliptic functions has been nominated for discussion

Category:Inverse Jacobi elliptic functions, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Hay-milk" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hay-milk. Since you had some involvement with the Hay-milk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Caldera International

On 4 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Caldera International, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that software company Caldera International tried to combine Unix with Linux for business customers, but did not succeed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caldera International. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Caldera International), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

2016–17 Tour de Ski

There has been a request at WP:RMTR for 2016–17. You had moved it the other way back in February. Should this be opened up for a full move discussion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I removed your contested technical request as I had already carried it out (I forgot to remove it accidentally). Please file a WP:RM should you wish to move the page back. Cheers! --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"4680" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 4680. Since you had some involvement with the 4680 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited X (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Universal hyperbolic geometry" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Universal hyperbolic geometry. Since you had some involvement with the Universal hyperbolic geometry redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rebasing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Microsoft Exchange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"0-series (manufacturing)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 0-series (manufacturing). Since you had some involvement with the 0-series (manufacturing) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 0 series for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 0 series is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0 series until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Doug Mehus T·C 21:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"Freedom unit" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Freedom unit. Since you had some involvement with the Freedom unit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Doug Mehus T·C 22:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(identifier) redirects

You have been trying for years to make those happen. Please stop, you do not have consensus for this, nor are ISBNs or PMIDs special identifiers that need disambiguation when done through identifier templates, linking to different locations than CS1|2 templates. They are designed to match CS1|2 outputs.

If you want to change this functionality, get consensus for it through an RFC at Help talk:CS1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there is no formal consensus for direct links as well, it just happens to be the status-quo on older templates - quite naturally, as Wikipedia gets improved step by step, and it is normal to first address the core functionality to get anything out of the door at all and later think about further improvements. Some templates created by me already use(d) the (identifier) links right from the start - and there was certainly never a consensus to change them to anything else, like you did... So...

Either way, the discussion you ask for already exists at: Help talk:Citation Style 1#Suggestion to add support for SBN parameter. Let's try to find the best possible solution for the majority of users.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"D70F01.EXE" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect D70F01.EXE. Since you had some involvement with the D70F01.EXE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Alle Rechte vorbehalten" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Since you had some involvement with the Alle Rechte vorbehalten redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

".acc" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect .acc should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#.acc until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

ARDS

Just worked for an hour on that info and references for the opening paragraph of ARDS in COVID-19. Why did you blast it? Ian Furst (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC) disregard. thank you. Ian Furst (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian, not sure what was happening there, I certainly did not delete that (but it somehow got deleted with my edit). I was getting a "Wikimedia maintenance error message" when I tried to save my edit. Anyway, fixed. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"AUTOEXEC.BAS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AUTOEXEC.BAS. Since you had some involvement with the AUTOEXEC.BAS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

4-digit years per MOS

I notice that you have been making a number of edits to the coronavirus series of articles using the edit summary "4-digit years per MOS". I would ask you please exercise care and be sure that your understanding of WP:MOSNUM is correct. Whilst it is indeed correct that years should be stated in 4 digits, year ranges can and are usually stated in 4+2 format (i.e. "2019–20") except at the turn of a century (i.e. "1997–2002"). By replacing "2019–20" with "2019–2020" within those article links, you substituted correctly-formatted and correctly-linked articles with article redirects, as you see here. In many cases, you also inserted the parameter |cs1-dates=y, which was inappropriate because it is a violation of WP:RETAIN: almost all of those articles displayed date formats which were either dmy or mdy at the outset (referred to as our "first main contributor rule". It is therefore inappropriate that this be changed by inserting the parameter. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

No, you need the full years in year ranges, see MOS:DATERANGE. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ohconfucius, abbreviated years are allowed in year ranges under some limited circumstances, but, as Vincent pointed out already, the preferred and usual format is to use non-abbreviated years per RFC and MOS:YEARRANGE. In addition to this, we have a general rule to avoid abbreviations unless they can't be avoided (or are actually useful). While in this specific case (consecutive years outside the range 1..12) the abbreviation does not technically cause confusion, it still makes it more difficult for many people to decipher the date because the format is generally understood to mean "yyyy-mm" rather than "yyyy-yy" in Far East and Eastern Europe as well as in all locales where ISO 8601 has been adopted (almost all countries worldwide) or is even mandantory (some Western and Middle European countries). And since the formal adoption of the Extended Date/Time Format (EDTF) in 2019, many forms outside the 1..12 range have become ambiguous as well, so this is a growing problem rather than only a small inconvenience. In order to avoid this potential ambiguity there is community consensus to try not to use this form (as "yyyy-mm" as well as "yyyy-yy") where it is not necessary. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no need to save space here by using abbreviated years in the first place. So, while my edit was not absolutely necessary in this specific case, it was nevertheless an improvement to the quality of the article and fully endorsed by our MOS.

Further, the fact that some of the non-abbreviated year ranges were routed through redirects is not a problem at all and should not have been "fixed" by you (as you did in this edit [12]). As pointed out above, they were not "unnecessary redirects". Please read WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE for some background. Basically, your edit camouflaged the fact that the target article(s) should be renamed to contain non-abbreviated years as well.

Regarding the |cs1-dates=y parameter, WP:RETAIN does not apply here at all, but you probably meant MOS:DATEVAR or MOS:RETAIN. You might have overlooked it, but the articles already used the numerical ymd format in lists and tables (and to some good extent also in the citations), therefore it was only consequential to also use it in citations for reasons of consistency (another goal we are trying to achieve in general). (Another possible solution would have been to switch to the dmy format also in the tables but this is undesirable for space and readability reasons, and also because potentially the tables are transcluded into multiple articles possibly using different date formats, so using ymd is a good middle ground.) I consider this to be quite a good reason to indicate this usage through the |cs1-dates=y parameter, and MOS:DATEVAR's "change reduces ambiguity" endores this for as long as no consistent format is used.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Virgin soil

On second thoughts, your point that there was no pre existing immunity is good. Not in the lead though, someone else would have reversed it sooner or later. Perhaps a sentence or two, expanding concept, in the Epidemiology section. Please find a citation as well as the wikilink. Happy Easter! Robertpedley (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"RISM (identifier)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect RISM (identifier). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#RISM (identifier) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"Third (angle)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Third (angle). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#Third (angle) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. SpinningSpark 17:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Edward J. McCluskey?

Hi! You don't happen to know whether the picture File:McCluskey J (I198201).jpg (allegedly from the Polish computer science journal pl:Informatyka (czasopismo)) shows Edward J. McCluskey? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jochen, unfortunately the quality of the picture is so low that there isn't much to see on it. Perhaps the way he combed his hair? There is some remote resemblance, but it could also be a lot of other people. If you consider including the picture into his article, perhaps we should wait until a better portrait shows up.

• https://news.stanford.edu/2016/02/25/ed-mccluskey-obit-022516/
• https://www.thocp.net/biographies/mccluskey_edward.htm
• https://www.ieee.org/about/awards/bios/vonneumann-recipients.html#
• https://alchetron.com/Edward-J-McCluskey
• https://ieeetv.ieee.org/mobile/video/2012-ieee-honors-john-von-neumann-medal (see [0:49] and [0:57] into the video for portraits of him as a young engineer)

Greetings,

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Fundstelle

Lieber Matthiaspaul, wie nett, einen Deutschen hier zu treffen. Ich finde es doch recht kompliziert, meine diesbezüglichen Fragen auf Englisch zu formulieren. Also... vor einiger Zeit hatte ich gefragt, wie man aus einem Sammelwerk zitiert in Englisch. Ich schreib hier mal, wie ich es in Deutsch mache, und wie mir gesagt wurde, es in Englisch zu machen:

• Deutsch <ref>{{Literatur |Autor=René Hirner |Titel=Fluten. Kunstmuseum Heidenheim 1998 |Hrsg=René Hirner; Richard Gassen |Sammelwerk=Achim Zeman: Kunstmuseum Heidenheim/Wilhelm-Hack-Museum Ludwigshafen, Ausstellungskatalog |Verlag=Kunstmuseum Heidenheim/Wilhelm-Hack-Museum Ludwigshafen |Ort=Heidenheim; Ludwigshafen |Datum=1999 |ISBN=9783931182618|Seiten=5-8 |Fundstelle=S.8}}</ref>
• Englisch <ref>{{cite book |last=Hirner |first=René |editor1-last=Hirner |editor1-first=René |editor2-last=Gassen |editor2-first=Richard |title=Achim Zeman: Art Museum Heidenheim/Wilhelm-Hack-Museum Ludwigshafen, Ausstellungskatalog |trans-title=Achim Zeman: Art Museum Heidenheim/Wilhelm-Hack-Museum Ludwigshafen, exhibition catalog |publisher=Kunstmuseum Heidenheim/Wilhelm-Hack-Museum Ludwigshafen |place=Ludwigshafen |year=1999 |chapter=Fluten. Kunstmuseum Heidenheim 1998 |trans-chapter=Flood. Art museum Heidenheim 1998 |ISBN=9783931182618 |page=14}}</ref>
• Mir wurde damals gesagt, dass man nur die Seitenzahl des Zitats - also die "Fundstelle" in Englisch angibt. Jetzt bei der Diskussion im Teahouse meinte jemand, ich könnte zweimal Seiten angeben, aber das funktioniert mit der Vorlage "cite book" eben gerade nicht. Da kommt immer "du hast zweimal Seitenzahln angeben, das ist ein Fehler" - sinngemäß formuliert. Könntest du mir erklären, wie man es doch hinbekommt? Ich habe in der Diskussion im Teahouse das hier überhaupt nicht verstanden "{{Sfn}} or {{rp}} - dann bräuchte man zwei Vorlagen in einer??? Ich finde es so unglaublich kompliziert, in jeder Sprache die richtige Formatierung hinzubekommen, für mich ist das sehr anstrengend zu verstehen. Wäre daher für Input sehr dankbar! --Gyanda (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hallo Gyanda, das funktioniert momentan noch mit keiner englischen Zitiervorlage. In der Regel verhält es sich andersherum, aber es gibt tatsächlich Dinge, wo die deutsche Vorlage Literatur den englischen Vorlagen etwas voraus hat - und da es leider sehr viele prinzipielle Neinsager unter den Nutzern gibt, ist es schwer, mögliche Verbesserungsideen aus den anderssprachigen Wikipedien zu übernehmen. Das braucht meist etliche Anläufe und mitunter Jahre, bis sich die ein oder andere Funktion mal durchsetzt. Momentan ist das Thema Seitenzahlangaben mal wieder heiß diskutiert, und wir versuchen gerade, eine geeignete Notation zu finden und Unterstützung dafür auch in Form neuer Parameter in die CS1-/CS2-Zitiervorlagen einzubauen. Vielleicht hast Du ja Lust, Dich zu beteiligen und zur Durchsetzung dieser Funktion etwas beizutragen:

• Help talk:Citation Style 1#citing different pages of the same book
• Help talk:Citation Style 1#number of pages
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86#Question about page parameter in Template:Cite journal
• Help talk:Citation Style 1#Proposal: page-range
• Help talk:Citation Style 1#Use of Pages in Cite Journal
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1060#Question on Formatting

(Help:Citation Style 1 ist die Hilfeseite für die am häufigsten verwendeten Zitiervorlagen vom Typ CS1 und Help talk:Citation Style 1 das am besten geeignete Forum für Fragen dazu.)

Wenn Du beide Seitenangaben schon jetzt unterbringen willst, ohne daß es dafür schon neue Parameter gibt, würde ich empfehlen, das wie folgt zu machen: |pages=5–8 [8], |pages=50–98 [60, 66–67, 84] oder bei einem besonders zerklüfteten Magazinartikel vielleicht |pages=50–52, 54, 57, 60–64, 67 [51, 61–62], also den Seitenbereich des Kapitels/Artikels anzugeben, gefolgt von der Liste der individuellen Fundstellen in eckigen Klammern (das scheint die Notation zu sein, die die meisten an der Diskussion Beteiligten wohl unterstützen).

Was Zitiervorlagen wie {{rp}} oder {{sfn}} angeht, das kann man so machen (und einige Leute bevorzugen das auch), aber die Mehrzahl der Anwender findet das unübersichtlich und übertrieben, wenn es nur ein paar Fundstellen gibt, die man individuell ausweisen muß. In den meisten Fällen reicht es, diese, wie in den obigen Beispielen gezeigt, zusammenzufassen.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Danke für deine ausführliche Antwort, Matthiaspaul. Ich habe in dem einen Thread nachgelesen und finde bisher dieses at= am besten, wenn es funktioniert. Ich bin auch froh darüber, dass die deutsche Wikipedia das mit der Fundstelle hat. Ich finde, es ist schon eine wichtige Information, ob ein Artikel, der ein Thema behandelt, 20 oder 50 oder nur 2 Seiten hat, von daher probier ich demnächst mal das mit dem at. Ich finde auch, dass unser Unterforum bei Fragen zur Relevanz enorm hilfreich ist, und dass es sehr schade ist, dass es das hier nicht gibt. Ich mag natürlich keinen Artikel schreiben, der sofort wieder gelöscht wird, daher frage ich, wenn ich mir unsicher bin, gern in dem Unterforum. Nochmals herzlichen Dank! LG, --Gyanda (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Gray code

Matthias, I didn't mean to step on your toes when I reverted your unsourced addition, which is why I invited you to bring it back with a source (this is not hard, doesn't require a revert first -- just edit your version to add the source). Anyway, that's done. Re the Varec thing, thanks for finding those sources. It looks to me like they used an ordinary Gray code, except for skipping some states when encoding tenths and twelfths. They call it a reflected binary Gray code. Has anyone called it a Varec code? Would we be better off omitting this odd piece of equipment? Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I was mostly complaining about attitude, that's why I wanted to trigger your alarm.

Regarding Varec code, years back I have seen it being called "Varec code", "Varec gauge code", "Varec pulse code" and similar, in particular in documents much older (1960s?, possibly even 1950s?) than the two I added yesterday. While the first two code variants resemble a reflected O'Brien code I with a cycle length of 20, the third installment is unique enough in using different cycle lengths (20, 24, 32) for different digits. As this is not a (reflected) BCD code, the Varec code should be mentioned in the first group of codes.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Libaw-Craig code

As far as I can tell, the Libaw-Craig code is a 5-bit decimal code. Do some of your sources describe it as more general than that? Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I have seen it being mentioned in the context of 4-bit codes as well, but "as is" it's always discussed as a 5-bit pentadic code.

I was tempted to extend the table in the ring counter article from 4 bit to 5 bit, so that it suits both codes, but left it as it was because the flip flop chain examples would have to be changed as well then. As Johnson code appears to be defined as a function of bit-width, do you think it would be worth adding tables for other bit-widths than 4 to the article?

There is enough notable stuff about the Libaw–Craig code, so it will probably have its own article at some point in the future. Right now, I was just building up some infrastructure for this.

1-2-1 code probably needs to be mentioned as well in this context.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:DEC printers

A tag has been placed on Category:DEC printers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Corona crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Corona crisis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Corona crisis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Scope of page cleanup

Hi! First let me say that I really like the work you do. Every time I see one of your edits I am impressed with the quality.

Re: [13], It appears that I either need you to convince you to accept the changes WP:AutoEd makes or I need to convince Plastikspork -- the maintainer of AutoEd -- to stop making those changes. I am not willing to repeatedly manually undo AutoEd edits that I agree with. There are a large number of AutoEd users. If one of the changes AutoEd makes is wrong, we need to fix that. If they aren't wrong you need to stop reverting them.

If we cannot reach an agreement on this I can post an RfC, but I don't think that is necessary. You, I, and Plastikspork are all long-term good-faith contributors and we should be able to agree on what to do here.

BTW, I believe that Wikipedia:AutoEd/wikilinks.js is where the magic happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I have disabled that line in the script for now. I believe that one was inherited from Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Formatter, or maybe just inspired by it. We could make it less aggressive so that it changes [[word (computer architecture)|wo]]rds to [[word (computer architecture)|word]]s but leaves [[word (computer architecture)|word]]s alone. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, both of you. That sounds like a considerable improvement already, Plastikspork.

Does your suggestion only take parenthetical disambiguations into account, or would it also work for things like [[round-off error|round-off]]s or [[round-off error|error]]s?

And, I guess, if the affix is "s", "d" or "ing" it should always be left untouched (not sure if it would be safe enough to split it off the (right side of a) link, but if it has been split off by someone already, it should be left alone - they probably knew what they were doing).

Greetings,

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ALUSidebar Dispute Invitation

@Matthiaspaul: Hi! I've noticed that you were involved to such technical and related to the computing articles as Karnaugh map, Brent–Kung adder, Kogge–Stone adder, Bit slicing etc. so would you like to take a part in the ALUSidebar dispute? In short, I've create the sidebar to bring bunch of ALU related stuff into one place, but later another party came to rename it and started to remove "unnecesary" things wreaking a havoc. Help to make consensus is pretty much welcomed. Thanks! AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate ref names error

Hi! Your edit here introduced such error. (Search for 'error:' in the revisions before and after your edit.) Can you please fix it? --Palosirkka (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. I merged the two Bergmann references because they were redundant except for the page ranges. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I wish the software would merge identical refs automatically saving us meat bags the trouble. :) --Palosirkka (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Noise reduction in radio broadcasting" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Noise reduction in radio broadcasting. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Noise reduction in radio broadcasting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The article on Microsoft DOS HMA, is literally error free. Thanks, I need it as a source for editing the Extended memory and expanded memory pages, Which contain misinformation, uninformed generalizations, and are just plain wrong. I am the editor of the real mode page on MITs Computer history wiki: 170.75.140.124 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

""6 and 2" encoding" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "6 and 2" encoding. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 14#"6 and 2" encoding until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hyphenated parameters

I've seen you recently make a few edits like this one. What is the point of fading out the non-hyphenated variant? My thinking is, it's good that we have synonyms and the editors don't have to memorize precise parameter names; obliging them to do so is a small step towards a less editor-friendly encyclopedia. Am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I see your point, but you don't need to be worried in any way; we'll take care of this.

The main reason for fading out some parameter aliases is to achieve more consistency in the user interface and documentation to help users to see the overarching concepts of the interface and naming / syntax conventions and thereby make it easier for users to memorize the parameters. It actually confuses readers to see some parameters formatted in multiple ways even in the same article and template, whilst a few legacy parameters exist only in non-hyphenated form and all newer parameters only in a hyphenated form. Less important, this also allows to clean up the code a bit to have a better base for some performance optimizations and for actually new features in the future, improving the functionality and convenience.

We've had an RfC in 2014 to no longer introduce any new non-hyphenated parameter variants. So, the basic rule for all users of CS1/CS2-related templates since then is to use only hyphenated parameters, the other variants only exist for legacy support.

When we see that some legacy non-hyphenated parameter variants are not actually used (at all or anymore) there's no point to continue to support them, so we deprecate them. In some cases, the parameter interface gets redesigned in other ways like merging the functionality of several parameters into one. In such situations, the new interface will only support hyphenated parameter variants. In other cases, non-hyphenated parameters only have a few dozen uses at all, so that it is easy enough to change them to their hyphenated variants manually.

In this particular case, the actual target of my editing were the rarely used |displayeditors= and |editormask= parameter aliases, but while editing an article anyway, I, of course, took the chance to also switch a few other parameters of the same class to their hyphenated variants (even though they won't be deprecated any time soon because their number of use is still too large for manual editing).

Either way, even if support for a parameter will be eventually removed, our citation templates integrate a "suggestion system" so that if a user would continue to enter the non-hyphenated parameter, s/he will receive a message telling the new parameter name, so that s/he doesn't get lost and the transition will be a smooth process.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking your time to explain this to me in such length. It didn't occur to me that existence of synonyms can actually lead to confusion, but now that you've explained it, it makes sense. But if that's the case, I'd suggest mentioning this in the documentation of templates such as {{cite journal}}. That would have resolved this question for me and it would also inhibit the addition of new instances of non-hyphenated parameters.--R8R (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Right now it's still preparatory work, but, of course, this will be documented in the CS1 documentation, eventually.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No-cat

Regarding this edit to an archive page: roughly how many archived FAC pages have a no-cat parameter? If there are 5 pages, it's not an issue at all. If there are 500, then the pages shouldn't be edited. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dank, regarding the |no-cat= parameter alias of the CS1/CS2 citation templates the usage number were not more than three dozens, and they are done.

In general, as much as I hate to do it, editing some archived pages is unavoidable in this case, because otherwise the templates on these pages would no longer suppress categorization, that is, these archive pages would suddenly start to show up in the category system although the original use of the parameter was exactly to avoid this. ;-) So, just leaving these pages untouched (as is our normal procedure when we enhance the templates) is not an option here.

Oddly enough, this feature has many parameter aliases (way too many for such a rarely needed feature) and some of these names overlap with parameter names of other templates which are in frequent use. Thereby it is impossible to find out the exact total usage numbers this way. Also, Cirrus search for at least one of these parameter aliases times out. Since the very function of this parameter is to disable categorization we also have no tracking category for this. This is kind of a maintenance nightmare. Also, the canonical parameter name (|template-doc-demo=) does not fit into the parameter naming conventions of the citation templates at all, therefore this needs to be cleaned up.

The plan is to reduce the number of aliases and rename the canonical parameter name to something sensible and unique so that it becomes searchable (otherwise we'd need a tracking category for a parameter designed to disable categorization).

Due to these dependencies, this will be a slow process probably taking two more update rounds until it is finished.

See also: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#no-cat_parameter_cleanup

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have all of the FAC pages watchlisted that have been promoted since Jan 1, 2016 (I think), and I only noticed one edit, so if you're done with that round, then there's no problem at all (with FAC archive pages). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Hades DeskTop" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hades DeskTop. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Hades DeskTop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"Hades cliXX" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hades cliXX. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Hades cliXX until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"Hades (imprint)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hades (imprint). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Hades (imprint) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"NFT Ventures" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect NFT Ventures. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 6#NFT Ventures until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Mac OS

Category:Backup software for Mac OS is up for renaming, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 28#Category:Mac OS software. – Fayenatic London 15:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The "nbk" attribute for "cite book"

Hello, can you please consider the Request for the "nbk" (NCBI bookshelf) attribute for "cite book"? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"Druck (key)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Druck (key). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 14#Druck (key) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from citation identifiers has been nominated for merging

Category:Redirects from citation identifiers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Lemniscatic elliptic functions has been nominated for merging

Category:Lemniscatic elliptic functions has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Datenknoten (CCC)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Datenknoten (CCC). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 8#Datenknoten (CCC) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Datenpirat (CCC)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Datenpirat (CCC). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 8#Datenpirat (CCC) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

CVE (identifier)

• CVE (identifier)CVE (identifier)
• CVE-2018-3665CVE-2018-3665

So, you marked CVE (identifier) as {{R to related topic}} to allow for easier reverse lookup, but now that {{R from CVE}} exists, is that needed anymore? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi MJL. Yes, keeping {{R from identifier}} in the CVE (identifier)CVE (identifier) redirect is important so it shows up in Category:Redirects from identifiers. However, {{R to related topic}} is no longer important with {{R from CVE}} certainly being a better rcat to describe the relation. I have updated CVE (identifier)CVE (identifier) accordingly.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Altium Designer

Quick question as I am still learning. I moved all the references from a list at the bottom to the body of the article but I see you moved them back. Is this a preference thing or manual of style. I have no issue either way but want to make sure I am not messing up anything when doing any edits. Thanks in advance. --RTotzke (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, our MOS allows both styles, and CITEVAR and BRD apply, but list-defined references are preferred by many experienced editors at least for substantial articles which have reached some level of stability and/or maturity. List-defined references have several advantages; they avoid the clutter in the article body and thereby make it much more easy to wordsmith the prose in the source code editor (where otherwise you often almost can't see the prose with bulkloads of references interspersed) and to consistently improve references without searching for them in the source code or having to block the whole article while working on references. Most articles start out with inline references since references are just dropped into the article where needed, and often they are changed to list-style at some later point in time (unless active editors of the article object).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So if I understand correctly, using inline isn't really an issue but if I see references that are list-defined I should leave them be. Thanks again for the advice. --RTotzke (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

"Bolt (screw)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bolt (screw). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Bolt (screw) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Help:Citation Style 1/test problems

Hello, Matthiaspaul,

I noticed that you were the last editor to this page. Something has happened that has caused the page to now have the category Category:CS1 errors: extra text: issue. I try to resolve red link categories which is usually done by either a) reverting an edit that caused this error, b) putting the page into the correct category, c) changing some code that causes the red link category to appear or d) create a new category. In this case, I can't figure out what the problem is or what the solution should be. I can't seem to remove this category so I'm hoping some editor familiar with the whole CS1 error situation could find a way to handle a mistaken red link category. Thank you in advance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liz.

We recently added extra text warnings to the |issue=, |number= and |volume= parameters. The example at Help:Citation Style 1/test problems contained dummy placeholders like |issue=Issue (instead of an actual issue number), so it triggered the error message and categorization. In cases like this the categorization can be suppressed using the |no-tracking=yes parameter. See also: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Help:Citation_Style_1/test_problems

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding redirect at GND (identifier)

Hi, I notice that GND (identifier) redirects to Integrated Authority File#GND, where a GND anchor is placed at the top of Integrated Authority File, and no such section exists. I am wondering what is the reason/benefit of doing this, rather than linking directly to Integrated Authority File. Thanks, ChromeGames923 (talk · contribs) 01:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the reason for linking (groups of related) redirects to specific anchors rather than actual section headers is to keep subtopics distinguishable on a logical rather than a physical level, that is, the organization of the contents and the presentation structure (including section headers) can change without having to check incoming links (in particular from redirects) to still point to the correct locations in the article for as long as the anchors get moved alongside the corresponding contents. In some cases, if there are logically distinguishable subtopics discussed in a single section in the article, there can be even multiple anchors at the same location, and if one of the subtopics woul be moved elsewhere in the future only the corresponding anchor would have to be moved to the new place as well. In rare cases, a subtopic does not have a specific place in an article yet, but it can be anticipated that it should or will have one somewhen in the future. In these cases, anchors for them can be "parked" at the top of the article. For the browser (and reader) this is (almost) as if the anchor would not exist at all (so it does not harm), but it is obvious for editors working on the article that there are already incoming redirects on a specific subtopic and, if they add contents related to the subtopic, that they should move the "parked" anchor to this location.

All in all, it decouples the development of an article from the development of the infrastructure around it. And it helps reverse lookup.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"MSDOSSYS.STS" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MSDOSSYS.STS. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#MSDOSSYS.STS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crash48 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"MKSA system" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MKSA system. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#MKSA system until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sorry for a belated notification. --Lukflug (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

"B.1.429" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect B.1.429. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 19#B.1.429 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Integrated Authority File, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Renat 14:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

improved refs to Missouri Route 16

So I take a look at your edit to Missouri Route 16 and see that you've changed the "accessdate" parameter to "access-date" (and similar changes to "archiveurl" and "archivedate"). That is certainly an improvement of sorts, though it has exactly zero impact on what the readers see.

So then I look through the references, and click on one, lo and behold, I get a 404! Somewhere along the way, Missouri DOT seems to have changed things around. In short (in my arguably contemptuous way), you have made changes to a totally broken set of citations while making absolutely no improvement. Sigh. Fabrickator (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fabrickator, fortunately it's not as bad as you put it. WP:RS remain valid citations even if the links break for as long as the info is verifiable by someone somewhere. Of course, it is more convenient, if the info is available online, but that's not a requirement - these maps are certainly still available in paper format at MoDOT (if not available online somewhere else).

When I add references to an article I almost always create archive snapshots and provide the archive links as well in order to prevent link rot as much as possible. Unfortunately, many other editors do not.

In this case we are lucky that the broken links have been archived anyway, so they could all be retrieved from the archive now (by me). However, fixing dead links was not my intention when I edited the article and I unfortunately don't have the time to do it for all the other Missouri articles where the links are most probably broken as well. I wonder why they haven't been fixed by a bot by now, after all, they all seem to be dead since 2017.

Anyway, the original reason why I edited the page was to remove the article from Category:CS1:_abbreviated_year_range per MOS:YEARRANGE (support for abbreviated year ranges in citations will likely go away in the future, because the format is too easy to be confused with YYYY-MM and it is only used in a few citations). While being there, I also updated the discouraged parameter |year= to the modern |date= for consistency and easier future maintenance. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I knew it had become encouraged to use hyphenated forms of certain parameters, but hadn't been aware that other parameter names (such as "year") were discouraged. (I know I have my own habits of whether to use "work=" or a more specific parameter like "website=". I think every editor must develop their own model of what's the preferred form of wiki markup.) Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Fabrickator (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Dates and issues

As I think it might (reasonably) be considered disruptive to pursue the issue at the cs1 talk page and append this to your well-argued comment, I'm leaving it here for you to consider or ignore as you feel best.

I had no reason to keep a note of where it was that I saw them but I have certainly seen many cases where the title page of a periodical had something like 'Winter 20/21" and, buried inside, ©2020; or "Trinity Term", again with a precise copyright date. So surely it must be some kind of OR to declare that something that is clearly intended to be the issue, may be taken as the date? It seems to me that the date is specifically and exclusively that given in the copyright assertion? And otherwise editors should infer the minimum necessary to disambiguate and no more.

My argument is not that it is too difficult to code, but rather that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to do it at all. But I recognize that this is not a shared view and I accept consensus, admittedly with bad grace.

As I said, consider the comment if you find it useful, discard if not. No need to reply. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Template r

Kindly look how it render now in this article Sinibaldo Doria. Please help me to see what I made wrong.A ntv (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Solved, thanksA ntv (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"Catalan.wikipedia.com" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Catalan.wikipedia.com. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 12#Catalan.wikipedia.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"High-density" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect High-density. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 22#High-density until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Interview request

Hey Matthias! My name is Ryan and in my free time, I have been researching the history of DOS, notably 86-DOS. From a few FreeDOS pages I've found that were authored by you, I believe you have some knowledge (or even files/OS versions) that I don't have, notably from oral interviews. Are you able to contact me at the following email for some questions? Thank you for your time! (email: s101885 AT outlook DOT com) - RhinozzGamezz (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"K-C-S format"?

Since you created the redirect, maybe you know what "K-C-S" stands for? I'm guessing the K is Kahan, but I don't know about the rest, and the IEEE 754-1985 article doesn't say (or if it does, I missed it). —scs (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost, Kahan-Coonen-Stone format refers to one of the draft proposals (by William Kahan, Jerome Coonen and Harold Stone in 1977) which led to the later IEEE 754-1985 standard. It was often abbreviated as K-C-S or KCS.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've tweaked the wlink at Subnormal number, which is what had me asking. I'll try to add some mention of the names Coonen and Stone to the IEEE_754-1985#History section. —scs (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be an improvement.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Finally done. —scs (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chset-color-ext-punct-var

Template:Chset-color-ext-punct-var has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Prabook at Lothar Berg

Hi Matthias, just to elaborate on my revert of your good-faith edit at Lothar Berg, I don't think Prabook would be acceptable for any reference or external link on English Wikipedia. It fits neatly in WP:ELNO#EL12 (and somewhat 1, 6 for some of their articles, and 11) because it doesn't have any history of stability or substantial number of editors. It's only a few years old (though seems to have adopted the name/URL of an older but similarly unreliable Who's Who, based on a search of RSP), has no editorial guidelines, and seems like its purpose is to deliver as many ads as possible. I'd like it to be blacklisted, but it's mostly used by experienced good-faith editors, and infrequently enough that I can manually clean them up periodically. Best, Politanvm ^talk 18:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"Binding antibody unit" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Binding antibody unit and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Binding antibody unit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:User pages with UKPARL identifiers and Category:User pages with VcBA identifiers

A tag has been placed on Category:User pages with UKPARL identifiers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

These are just no longer needed tracking categories and therefore can be deleted. See: Template_talk:Authority_control#Several_ugly_categories and Template_talk:Authority_control#Query

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Bogengrad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bogengrad and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Bogengrad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Altgrad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Altgrad and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Altgrad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Computerwoche (0170-5121)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Computerwoche (0170-5121) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Computerwoche (0170-5121) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Cyclus (geometry)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cyclus (geometry) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Cyclus (geometry) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages with UKPARL identifiers

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages with UKPARL identifiers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages with VcBA identifiers

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages with VcBA identifiers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"Quantity synopsis parts list" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quantity synopsis parts list and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Quantity synopsis parts list until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Speed® Square" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Speed® Square and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Speed® Square until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Matthiaspaul,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 873 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 825 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Logic optimization

Hi! You probably noticed that I reverted a huge delete at Logic optimization. However, Wtshymanski has a point that there are far too much references in this article. I thought of spltting of a stub for each item in Logic_optimization#Graphical_methods and Logic_optimization#Boolean_expression_minimization, just holding the references and a generic introduction, to start with. After that, we could shorten both sections of Logic_optimization, by omitting references of minor importance and/or grouping the methods (and having one item per group, not per method). Since you are (one of) the main contributor(s), I'd like to discuss that issue with you before. (PS: Das animierte Wikipedia-Logo nervt beim Editieren.) - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

On 4 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some severe environmental impacts of the invasion of Ukraine can be seen from space? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 6,033 views (502.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pentium F00F bug, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Processor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 20106 articles, as of 16:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)