User talk:RexxS/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Strange codes in Module:ICD11

He RexxS, I saw that ICD-11 MMS Chapter 1 showed five "Code not found" error messages. After resolving this in Module:ICD11, I noticed some strange looking codes. I found 86 of them through a search. These codes have plus signs in them. Like these:

• ["1.00E+30"] = "753780243",
• ["1.00E+31"] = "283428170",
• ["1.00E+32"] = "1235618695",
• ["1.00E+50"] = "1154736543",
• ["8.00E+00"] = "1553463690",
• ["8.00E+01"] = "672974943",

Are these codes correct? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That is E notation - 1.00E+30 means 1 x 10³⁰, or the digit 1 followed by thirty zeroes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Manifestation: Thanks for spotting that. Somewhere along the line in transcribing the codes from the database to my text editor via a spreadsheet, one of the tools decided to 'helpfully' expand things like 1E50 to a full scientific representation of a number like 1.00E+50. That happened every time there was a code that had "<digits>E<digits>". It didn't do the expansion for the sub-codes like 1E50.1, so there weren't enough for me to spot on a scan through. I've now replaced around 50 out of the 32,000 codes, so that should be problem fixed:

• {{ICD11| 1E30 }} → 1E30

Please let me know if you spot any more. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Simple basic courtesy

I had hoped that Barkeep's post last night might reset things. But I read this morning you attacking me: "Simple basic courtesy to other editors is needed if you're going to avoid accusations of deliberate obstructiveness". I had written "I said what I wanted to say about "low cost" [of ethosuximide] at 09:18, 1 April 2020". I can stick "09:18, 1 April 2020" into the browser Find box and locate the relevant text on the page. The previous day, WhatamIdoing wrote "given Wugapodes' statement at 03:23, 6 April 2020 above..." and Doc James replied "I think given Wugapodes' statement at 21:43, 6 April 2020 their is not justification ..."

I am not going to hold my breath waiting for you to castigate WhatamIdoing or Doc James for failing in simply basic courtesy and accuse them of deliberate obstructiveness. As I am also not holding my breath waiting for you to charge WhatamIdoing with bludgeoning the RFC, when they wrote a nearly identical number of posts and quantity of text at the RFC as me.

This assumption of bad faith, where you view all my actions and posts in a negative light, has to stop RexxS. I am not here to harm Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 09:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Colin: I had begun reading your response in the sincere hope that we would be able to make a fresh start, then I realised you were playing games again. You didn't say where you posted "I said what I wanted to say about "low cost" at 09:18, 1 April 2020", so I copied the timestamp, went to your contributions and pasted the "09:18, 1 April 2020" into the find box of my browser, only to find nothing. I spotted a post at 08:18, but it seems off-topic. The simplest basic piece of courtesy is to link to something if you want to refer to it. I do that scrupulously in my contributions, and for you to make me play detective work again is contemptible.

When you're prepared to debate in a constructive and collegiate manner with a view to finding some common ground, I'll have reason to start assuming good faith. But with stunts from you like yesterday's why should I ever assume you act in good faith toward me? I'm not here to harm Wikipedia, but I'm not here to be treated with contempt by you, either. --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you still attacking me for using an identical method of referring to an earlier post on the page to that used by WhatamIdoing and by Doc James the previous day on the same page? The timestamp format doesn't need converted or your date preferences or timezone taken into account. You don't need to faff around with user contribs. You just literally stick it into the find box on the page we are all reading at that time and it will appear.

Contrast that with your "Given that I proposed a wording that was based on an eight-year old respected UK source" text, which neither contains a link nor says what the wording was about nor when you proposed it nor what the eight-year old source was. I had to scan back through all your blocks of text on the page, looking for something like a text proposal and several pages up I found some suggested text about a cost in 2011. I found it no problem. In the very next sentence you write "Why do I have to go searching through your contributions to find something you could have linked".

If my point isn't extremely clear, please go ask a friend, or User:Barkeep49. -- Colin°^Talk 20:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)

How dare you, Colin? You know very well that you didn't say I said what I wanted to say about "low cost" on this page at 09:18, 1 April 2020". You know I had no idea what you said in that post from a week ago, and you knew that I would have to go wild-goose chasing to find the answer to the simple question I asked. That supercilious attitude to others is symptomatic of your inability to work with those you disagree with. It beggars belief that you didn't understand what the "eight-year old respected UK source" was, as I had mentioned it my previous sentence "an eight-year old paper from NICE", and we had already had an extended debate about the figures presented in that document. I posted "Given that I proposed a wording that was based on an eight-year old respected UK source" on 21:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Here's your first mention of the source in this section: And it juxtaposes this with a UK wholesale price that we all now know is wrong ... 21:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC), 24 hours before my post.
• Here's my first mention of the source: The NICE costing statement from January 2012 (3.2.5) states a price of £0.27 per mg ... 23:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC), 21 hours before my post. I not only linked the document, I did you the courtesy of adding the section (3.2.5).
• Here's your second mention of the source: The 2011 price comes from a NICE guideline ... 07:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC), 13 hours before my post.
• Here is my second mention of the source: So the NICE document is quoting £0.27 per mg for the capsules 12:17, 7 April 2020, 9 hours before my post. I linked the document again.
• That was the same post where I made the proposal should we be writing something along the lines of "In 2011 in the UK, ethosuximide was over six times more expensive in tablet form than in syrup form, and NICE noted the potential cost impact of switching" in the Cost section?, 9 hours before my post.
• Here's your third mention of the source: As for the syrup vs tablet point from 2011 ... 13:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC), 8 hours before my post.
• Here's my third mention of the source: I believe that the view of NICE in 2012 on the cost-effectiveness of ethosuximide is significant., 15:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC), 6.5 hours before my post.
• Here's where you comment on my proposal: You say that I "want to reject it on the grounds that [my] own original research leads [me] to believe that it is no longer the case." 16:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC), 5.5 hours before my post.
• Here's where I comment on your rejection of my proposal: The question is simply whether you can reject encyclopedic content describing pricing in 2011 based on a good source, because your calculations show that the pricing is different now., 18:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC), 3.5 hours before my post.
• Here's where you comment on my proposal again: Perhaps User:WhatamIdoing can clarify the rules on editors choosing not to say something that is clearly in 2020 wrong and misleading. 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC), 3 hours before my post.
• In the same post you refer to the source for the fourth time: or saying "You know that thing we said eight years ago, it isn't the case any more" 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC), 3 hours before my post. Note the "eight years ago" - you introduced the words "eight years", not me, as it turns out.

You then have the gall to pretend you had no idea of what source and proposal I referred to in "Given that I proposed a wording that was based on an eight-year old respected UK source". That kind of gaslighting is disgraceful. Your attempt to compare your comment that specifically referred me to a post of yours from 6 days earlier, in an unspecified place that I probably was unaware of, to my mention of a source that we had been discussing all day, and which I had linked twice in that time, is frankly reprehensible. I'm going to ask Barkeep49 to review your conduct here and see what steps need to be taken. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll reply to the comments below when I get chance. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm re-reading your post and sadly disappearing down a rabbit hole. When you wrote:

"I realised you were playing games again. You didn't say where you posted "I said what I wanted to say about "low cost" at 09:18, 1 April 2020""

I'm now thinking we have reached a meta level of complaining of a post about a post about a post. Since you were so angry yesterday about the post about a post, I assumed you'd remember which post about a post you had got angry about and I wouldn't need today's post about a post about a post to include a diff. -- Colin°^Talk 22:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear. I have now made a post about a post about a post about a post. I hope you forgive my confusion earlier about what post about a post you were meaning, it's just that your post yesterday and your post today don't contain links.

Ok. Seriously. I hope it is now really clear that I'm no different to WhatamIdoing or Doc James or RexxS, none of whom "scrupulously" insert diff links whenever they refer to a previous post. All of us make assumptions that others are keeping up and that references are obvious and if that isn't the case, you only need to ask nicely for clarification. No need for all the hate, RexxS. -- Colin°^Talk 22:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't find your behaviour funny, Colin, and I'm appalled that you think making a joke about my justified request for you to observe basic courtesy is in any way appropriate. Contrary to your scurrilous accusation above, I do scrupulously link to any source or post that I think other editors may not recognise. You know full well when you are deliberately obfuscating just to cause work for me, and it's disgraceful to see that you think your mocking posts above somehow justify you. --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

​I was not supposed to work today but instead have worked longer than normal and now, even in this time of social distancing, have a commitment tonight. So I have not yet read this in any careful manner. But can I just say that there is literally an arbitration case open now. However even in my not careful reading it's clear you two aren't going to be able to interact at this point. Fine. So here's my new recommended solution: if the other posts something that is a problem don't complain about it. Don't respond to it. Just go to the case page and add it as evidence. If that advice isn't sufficient and you really do want me to read through and respond to what you've written ping me either here or on my talk page and I will tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thanks. Yes I agree, this "deliberately obfuscating" nonsense is going to to arbcom for sure. -- Colin°^Talk 08:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

So I have now spent a good 40 minutes really going through this argument and another 10 or so writing this response. It is a tempest in a teapot. The reason that it became anything, however, is because you two are just in a place where you cannot communicate productively with each other. Colin did make a post which timestamps to 09:18, 1 April 2020. It is this one. When I go to my contributions I also don't see that timestamp. This is because despite having the change time zone gadget turned off contributions still show in my time zone. So Rexx you're not wrong. about finding it (and confusingly enough I even find the minutes to be off on occasion when I search between the timestamp on the page and in the article history). Colin you're not wrong about having pointed to a easily searchable post (assuming a person isn't using the local time gadget). That took me about 2 minutes to figure out. The rest of the time was spent going through the rest of the discussion. I could post some thoughts about that too. But, I'm not because I don't know what good it would do; I still have good faith and respect for both of you but I have no good faith that you two can interact. So I am going to say, and I'm going to go to bold here to emphasize this as strongly as I can, That who was right and who was wrong about this and about the source and about whatever else you is agitating you about the other doesn't really matter at the moment. What matters is you two are, at this time, unable to get along. At all. So let me repeat what I wrote last night before I went through this discussion in painstaking detail, if the other posts something that is a problem don't complain about it. Don't respond to it. Just go to the case page and add it as evidence. I am happy to mediate between people who want it. And in some strange way I actually do think you both want it. So normally I'd have omitted the bold part and spent time trying to help you understand the other's perspective on the NICE source. However, with an arbcom case open (and my expectation that it's going to basically suck up at least a week of my wikitime to compile and write evidence) that could upend any sort of hard-won peace that might be found between the two of you I just don't know that it is the right use of any of our time. So again, stop responding to each other and channel whatever strong emotions the other provokes in you by going straight to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. A very sad, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Easter or whatever you celebrate

or: the resurrection of loving-kindness --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Alt in infobox

I was curious how many infoboxes have images but no ability to add alt text. I performed a very basic search, results are here. I opened five or so and they had the ability to add images but not alt text for said images. Obviously the search does not take into account how many times an infobox is used in main space (could be 0!), and there may be some mismatches, and it does not help for things like logos and insignias. Just wanted to let you know what I found; not sure what I should do with it since there are 1,639 results. Thanks for your help with alt text so far, it has been something I am interested in ever since I started making websites as a kid, so I am familiar with the concept but am hoping to get more skilled in the area, and ideally help others improve their skills as well (via whatever alt text improvement initiatives I can think of). Kees08 (Talk) 15:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: That's an interesting result, and I'll spend more time on it when I have a chance. A quick glance shows that templates like Template:Infobox IPA have correct alt text for their images, so there seem to be some false positives in there. Looking at templates like Template:Infobox artery show that the underlying template, Template:Infobox anatomy has provision for |alt= and |alt1= paramenters, so it would be sufficient in {{Infobox artery}} to just add |alt={{{alt1|}}} and |alt2={{{alt2|}}}, assuming you wanted the parameters in {{Infobox artery}} to be called alt1 and alt2. --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think for the IPA infobox, the IPA includes the alt text? A weird one indeed! The Infobox artery and anatomy tripped me up because the alt text is not in the documentation. I guess in those cases it should be on the doc page? That's probably why the search did not catch it, since it is not visible text on the page. I will have to think of a better way to filter that noise out (though improving the documentation to include alt text would be good too). Kees08 (Talk) 16:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: In the IPA infobox, I now realise that there are two images. The one showing braille has alt text auto-generated, but the other (initially hidden) image doesn't have alt text. So there's some fixing to be done there.

You'll find that many templates lack comprehensive documentation and the job of just supplying the full list of existing parameters is huge. In the first instance, just adding a line of documentation for alt text whenever we add the parameters would at least not make things worse. Unfortunately coders are rarely taught to create good documentation, so there's plenty to be done. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

... and today, and thank you for making this template. Music on my talk, listen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you know that the DYK project could use admins who move prep sets to queue from time to time? Those who presently do it say their joy is killed by too few ready to do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

How to report abuse of authority

You appear to have some level of administrative authority, and I wish to report your abuse of that authority. Can you please explain to me the process of reporting abusive admins? Thank you. —Dilidor (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Read:

• WP:ADMINACCT
• WP:ADMINABUSE
• WP:TOOLMISUSE
• WP:ANI
• WP:ARBGUIDE

Work out what you want to say and decide on a venue. You may find WP:BOOMERANG useful as well. --RexxS (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding RfC

Thank you RexxS, I appreciate that! Henryguide (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Image map question

Hi, RexxS - hope you're safe and not going stir crazy under quarantine. I'm taking advantage of the downtime and just added an image map tool to both my en.wp commons.js and Commons commons.js but now I'm wondering if I need the en.wp script? Also, I just made this image map but my knew toy doesn't offer an option to hover over the number to see the name - it requires a right-click. Is there a workaround for that or maybe a better tool that is still as simple and easy to use as the one I just used? Figured that one out - it was a duh moment. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'm fine, thanks, both physically and mentally (well, at least no less crazy than I've always been). Hope you are too. It looks like you're using the meta:User:Dapete/ImageMapEdit#English!image map editor that works on the File: namespace to give you an image map for use in an article. There's a full description of the image map extension at mw:Extension:ImageMap. I haven't used the tool myself, but it looks like it did what was expected in the Faisalabad article. If I hover close to each number, I see the tooltip for the relevant name; clicking it takes me to the relevant article. So that works. The only problem is that over half of our viewers use a mobile device that doesn't have the functionality of hover or right-click. The same goes for disabled editors using a screen reader who will just hear the alt text and the caption. Of course that's not really much different from the previous image, but I just wanted you to be aware that some folks might not like the change. Take care. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Colon and asterisks essay

Hi, RexxS. I just wanted to thank you for writing this useful essay on lists and indentations, Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. I never knew that information, but I am glad that I will going forward. Thanks you for all your other contributions to accessibility on this site as well. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: thank you for such kind words. I'm really glad that one more editor will now add to the small differences that collectively help make the Wikipedia experience a little more tolerable for those less fortunate. Thank you --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping out with the persistent stalking situation, I am still badly shaken from this ordeal but hopefully it will stop now. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: As you know, I can only be effective if I'm seen to be impartial when dealing with issues. Nevertheless, I am really sorry to hear that the episode has had such an effect on you. Please remember that this is only a website, and that your health and sanity are more important. I know that there are times when I have to take a break from Wikipedia – sometimes a few hours is enough; other times I've been absent for several weeks – and you should never be afraid to do the same. My best regards, and keep safe. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Swietenia Puspa Lestari and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Swietenia Puspa Lestari, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

1292simon (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with merger proposal

Hello RexxS, I was wondering if you could give me some guidance for a merge I proposed a month ago: Talk:Neutralizing_antibody#Merger proposal. I notified the person who wrote most of the text in the other article and I posted the discussion in the Wikiproject Medicine and on | proposed article mergers. However, I have not received many responses, or better: there was not a clear opinion expressed in the responses. I would like to continue with the merge, but I am not sure what the right code of conduct is regarding this merge. Are the responses sufficient enough for me to perform the merge? Thanks Huhny (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Huhny: It's time to be bold. You haven't received a single response objecting or giving a reason not to merge. You should do the merge, write a bit about the issues of antibody-dependent enhancement and microneutralization (and add the best sources). Then make sure all of the appropriate redirects exist and point to the merged article – don't forget the en-gb spellings which need redirects like microneutralisation. Ping me if you run into any difficulties or if you want me to check over anything. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I just performed my fist article merge. Huhny (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A question

Are we allowed to forbid a user from appealing a discretionary sanction for a certain timeframe? I can see that happening after an unsuccessful appeal, but when the sanction is first placed? And that restriction certainly couldn't stop anybody from going straight to ARCA. I'm looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications and I can't find anything. ~Awilley (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

At AE, we can impose anything reasonable, within the remit of discretionary sanctions, carrying the authority of ArbCom:

"... revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project ... Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE.

As ArbCom routinely issue sanctions that may only be appealed after a given interval, there's nothing that would obviously disqualify us from applying a similar constraint as long as it is believed to be a reasonable measure that is necessary and proportionate. Of course, any AE decision, including a six-month waiting period before an appeal, can be immediately appealed (to the admin, to AE, to AN, or to ARCA as the last venue), but unless something very strange has happened, a sanction agreed by consensus at AE would seem to be unlikely to be overturned by ArbCom. Why would they, when the next step would be for a case request for ArbCom to deal with it themselves? The whole point of AE is to catch misbehaviour that uninvolved admins can deal with with the backing of ArbCom without having to involve the committee in cases that don't need their attention. --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Central Modules

Hi RexxS, hope you are good. I have returned to active editing after a break and not much aware of the current status of wikidata acceptance in various Wikipedia's. Last RFC if I remember correctly was ineffective, has there been a change since then? Further there hasn't been much progress in mw:Multilingual Templates and Modules. Would you like to centralise Module:WikidataIB or any other of your amazing module using the same or any other manner being discussed in various discussions on phabricator or meta. Thanks a lot again for your persistence and efforts to improve interwiki data usage. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 08:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Capankajsmilyo as I'm deeply involved in medical articles, I'm sure you can understand that the COVID-19 articles are consuming a large amount of my time. I'm just being reactive to other topics right now, rather than proactive, so the simple answer is I'm not doing any work on interwiki data integration beyond what crops up as maintenance. When the pressure is off, I'll be happy to start taking on more initiatives again. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

DLB alt text

If I could entice you to do the favor, the text at Dementia with Lewy bodies may have stabilized now, and with the exception of alt-text on the images, it is looking almost ready for FAC. And I am afraid of images! If you could find the time, I would greatly appreciate it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Do you think the article is up to snuff? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SandyGeorgia: sure Sandy. It's done. When there is a really descriptive caption (as you've done in DLB), there's often little else to say just for a screen reader. In those cases, it's fine to simply use "See caption" as the alt text, knowing that the screen reader will read out the caption next anyway. I've added a couple of conventional alt texts and slightly rejigged a couple of captions - hope you don't mind.

Incidentally, I was interested by the article on Pittsburgh compound B that an image led me to via the "PiB PET scan" mention. My memory of PET scans was that they use a radioactive isotope of fluorine, but the PiB PET scan uses carbon-11 very specifically. I wonder if there's more to be said about PiB in the DLB article, or is just the link enough? It might be just me getting overexcited about leaning something new. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I will look at the sources to see if anything can be beefed up there ... later today. Thanks, RexxS! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Regex help

Where should I go to ask simple regex questions that I can't find the answer to in my regex tutorials? (If you care, here's the question: I have lines where a word is always supposed to appear in two places on the line, like this: ''Silene'' ... ''[[Silene]]''. If the word is missing in the first spot, then I want to do a regex that looks something like ''''.+''\[\[(\w+)\]\]'' to identify that the word is missing in the first spot, then capture the word in the second spot ... then I want to replace '''' with ''$1''.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I figured out that my main problem was that I was expecting the regex search function in the standard wiki-editor to work ... silly me. It's working in WikEd. I can probably eventually get the solution now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Got it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dank: I'm glad you've solved it. The biggest problem I find is often that different applications use different implementations of regular expressions. I'm never quite sure whether a particular regex is going to work for me in the insource: search function, for example. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Dank: I observe from other threads on this page that RexxS is kinda busy right now - if you need more assistance, WP:VPT is a good place for questions like yours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought of VPT but didn't know if they'd appreciate that kind of question. I'll do that, Redrose. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Habit cough

In case you want a distraction, as I am somewhat stalled here, because of red flags all over the place. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Habit cough. Here are the problems. We have basically two players in this game, in terms of secondary reviews: Vertigan (lead author on guideline) and Weinberger. Both on the Task Force that wrote the new 2015 guidelines. But the subsequent Weinberger reviews seem to disclaim those guidelines, and want to go back to earlier terminology, and then Vertigan writes an editorial that best explains the whole mess. So, if I stop there, it means I just write the article, with a Classification and Naming section, to describe all sides.

But it gets more complicated. When you start looking into Suggestion therapy (which seems to a subset of hynosis-- in such a way that I think I would actually have to add a description of it to a fringe article, wow!), it turns out that Suggestion therapy is mostly pushed by Weinberger. And that Weinberger doesn't like the new terminology, that aligns with DSM-5, because he doesn't want to stigmatize his patients by using the ... GASP ... tic word. Well, now we're getting into my territory, and my own views come in to play. Well, d'oh, it's a tic cough, and that's why the Guidelines aligned the terminology with DSM-5. And Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Therapy (CBIT) is what you use for tics, not "hypnosis".

So, now we have one complication that I need to somewhat quote a primary source (Vertigan editorial) in explaining the contentiousness of the new guideline. Another in that these are the only two players opining in secondary reviews. But the most reliable secondary sources are written by someone who disagrees with the guidelines but has his own pony in the race (suggestion therapy). And then my own POV on top of it, about Weinberger's aversion to calling a tic a tic. You see the mess and why it's hard for me to tackle this silly little article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have a distraction, Sandy, but that looks like a rabbit hole that I could disappear down for days, as I know nothing of the subject and would have spend a lot of time reading up. Unfortunately, I have not yet caught up on yesterday's changes to the main COVID-19 articles that I monitor, nor on Jarekt's changes to Module:DateI18n from almost a week ago that I've promised to sandbox and debug, nor on my general watchlist and emails. How I ever managed to fit work in before I retired is now a complete mystery to me. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

So what do you suggest I do? Because, ignoring it is always an option :) It's fraught. But here are all of these reviews sitting on desk, and I hate an unfinished TO do list. Maybe I should burn them ... but the fringey aspect of this "suggestion therapy" is bugging me. But the sources discuss it ... but there aren't a lot of sources ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sandy: As you've already invested time in getting to know the sources, I'd say try to finish the job. Imagine you were writing from scratch. Survey the field again. Use your experience to grade the sources: are there any that are so poor (relatively) that they can be dropped? So what's left are going to be used. The prominence of the views in each source should be summarised and given weight according to how often that view is reflected in the other sources. Uncontested views can be stated as simple facts. Where sources disagree, attribute each one and state it as their opinion. Try to avoid expressing your own preferences, and confine your expertise to the selection of sources by quality and deciding how much prominence each source gets. When you have created a rough draft, compare it with the actual article and then you'll know how much work is likely to be needed. Best I can suggest, but there are some talk-page stalkers who might have better ideas. Any takers? --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Because there are so few sources, I think I have to give the most weight to the official guideline, and then explain the post-Guideline controversy, but briefly. The guidelines do mention this suggestion therapy, so it has to be included ... but I would not be surprised if we see that debunked in the future. Thanks for the ideas, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Formatting author lists from wikidata

Hi RexxS. I'm looking to draw the parameters for v:template:article_info_main from wikidata. The one thing I'm struggling with is the author list, since there can be a variable number of authors, who may or may not share affiliations. Any ideas? Even a toy sandbox example would be hugely helpful.

• list each author of an item (in series ordinal order)
• append their orcid (as a hyperlinked icon)
• append a superscript indicating their current employer
• separately, list employers, grouped in cases where multiple authors have the same employer.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. I've knocked up a demo in Module:Sandbox/RexxS/Authors. I found a paper to try it out on:

For Micronutrient Deficiencies Are Common in Contemporary Celiac Disease Despite Lack of Overt Malabsorption Symptoms (Q93085178):

• {{#invoke:Sandbox/RexxS/Authors |getAuthors |qid=Q93085178}} →

  Adam C Bledsoe, Katherine S King ORCIDicon ^{Mayo Clinic}, Joseph J Larson, Melissa Snyder, Imad Absah, Rok Seon Choung, Joseph A Murray

  Mayo Clinic

I don't have a lot of time to test it, but perhaps you could give it a try with some papers you were considering using it on. It should catch missing and duplicate values for series ordinal (P1545). It reads the values from author (P50) and author name string (P2093). Of course, if the author has no Wikidata entry, I can't read their employer or ORCID ID. I also didn't know what icon you wanted for ORCID ID, but you can see where it would go.

I suggest you try it a bit and then tell me what changes you want, perhaps being a little more specific about what you mean by employers being grouped (The code won't double list the same employer). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'll make a copy and do some testing to see if I can learn enough to sensibly formulate my thoughts! You're a champion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been hugely helpful (my copy here). I'm using it to emulate v:Template:Article_info/author, but drawn from wikidata. You can see an example of what I meant by grouping employers below (achieved via footnotes).

{{#invoke:Sandbox/Evolution_and_evolvability/Authors|getAuthors |qid=Q63328534}} →

Michael J Stear , David Piedrafita , Sarah Sloan, Dalal Alenizi, Callum Cairns, Caitlin J Jenvey

The only error I've seen so far is cases where a single author has multiple listed employers, only the first one shows up in the notelist (e.g. James Heilman (Q16225640) should have two employers listed when stated as an author of Q75392964). I've yet to decide whether it's best to hyperlink names to wikidata items or scholia pages. The tricky part will be the corresponding author's email address - although contact emails in academic papers are traditionally public, I don't know what the etiquette of adding emails to wikidata is. I'm also not sure how/whether to encode department as a qualifier within employer statements. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thomas: Well done on getting that working. The trick is to generate sequentially indexed tables of everything you want, then massage them into whatever output is needed. It makes the code more reusable as well, when you come back to it after a while.

Yes, I thought about the employers at the time, and made a deliberate decision to only list one, assuming that they would have current employer marked as preferred rank on Wikidata. If there are many exceptions, I'll have another look.

Academic emails are publicly available and not usually considered personal information, so there's really no bar to using them. Try it, and see if anybody complains. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing RfC

I'm surprised to see a couple more comments trickle in to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#RfC_on_table_captions over the past few days but they just support the vast majority anyway, so it seems like after one month with over three dozen participants and some due diligence soliciting comments elsewhere, there's a pretty strong community consensus in favor of the proposal to mandate table captions for data tables. Do you think it's appropriate to end this? If this were my RfC, I would probably have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure but it seems unnecessary since you're around and can close it how you see fit and there is a pretty obvious consensus from my perspective. Thanks for taking the initiative. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Justin: I'm sure you're right about the consensus, but I'm uncomfortable closing an RfC that I started myself. I also wanted to see what wording a closer would recommend, rather than rely on my guess about what would suit most folks. We've managed without an explicit requirement for captions for years, so another day or two waiting for an independent closer is worth it to avoid any suggestion of the close being out-of-process. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I've never closed an RfC before either and your sense about this is totally relatable and probably wise. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)