User | Talk | Archives | My work | Sandbox | Resources | News | Stats |
---|
|
Using unreliable.js in other scripts
Hi! I was hoping to use the data in unreliable.js in other scripts. I can think of a couple ways to do that. The method with the least change is to just have unreliable.js stash its "rules" list in a global variable like window.unreliableBuiltinRules (like the existing window.unreliableCustomRules variable). Alternatively, the list could also be moved out into a separate .json file. Or we could do something else. I would be happy to send in patches for either option or to make the edits myself. Thoughts would be appreciated. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Enterprisey: I'd love to have a JSON file, but making that JSON file is a major headache. And would possibly balloon to a several megabytes file. You're welcomed to take a shot at it though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Or any other ways of externalizing the rules if JSON isn't viable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the green light. I've made a JSON file at User:Enterprisey/TESTING-unreliable.json and a new version of the script that uses the JSON file at User:Enterprisey/unreliable.js. Let me know what you think! Enterprisey (talk!) 03:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'll take a look in more details this week. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you, but any updates on this? Enterprisey (talk!) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- None so far, I got distracted by other projects (like the new WP:JCW/DIACRITICS and a bunch of The Foobar → Foobar redirects). I haven't forgotten about it though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you, but any updates on this? Enterprisey (talk!) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'll take a look in more details this week. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the green light. I've made a JSON file at User:Enterprisey/TESTING-unreliable.json and a new version of the script that uses the JSON file at User:Enterprisey/unreliable.js. Let me know what you think! Enterprisey (talk!) 03:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Or any other ways of externalizing the rules if JSON isn't viable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Enterprisey: I'd love to have a JSON file, but making that JSON file is a major headache. And would possibly balloon to a several megabytes file. You're welcomed to take a shot at it though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Manual edits: great; bot: catastrophy
Hy Headbomb. Please check here my appeal to reversing the edits done by the bot you suggested. As opposed to the excellent edits you did by hand for instance [here], that bot is a real danger to a lot of refs' usefulness. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I already replied there, and stop it with drama. There is a minor bug, that will get fixed shortly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- The bot page says 2 ppl are in charge, who might not react, or only after a long time. Careful how you write. "Drama"? That's a touch too personal. "Minor"? The bot might be damaging a lot of pages, in that one article the changes led to two cases of "failed verification", and many ppl don't bother to reverse their faults, let alone bots' failures, so clear words sometimes help. I wrote here after getting an email, I don't have a secretary to check everywhere first. Easy to fix? I hope so, I don't know and I hope you do. Arminden (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Maynooth Philosophical Papers
Hello! I have noticed that you have deleted much of the entry on the philosophy journal Maynooth Philosophical Papers. You characterize quotations from the journal's founding editor as "undue" and "puffery." Especially (but not only) in the case of the section on the special issue, it is not clear to me why a quotation that illustrates the content of a journal should be classified in this manner. The result of your cutting is that nothing but a stump of an entry remains. As a consequence, the reader now learns very little about what the journal actually is. So, I would like to suggest that you restore the deleted material. Many thanks. Wissembourg (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Signpost
Thanks for the copyedits! I've done what I can. Think Opinion could use a second set of eyes - it's still a bit on the rough side, though it's also a bit unfinished - and I can't copyedit Gallery. Everything's looking a lot better now than yesterday. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 02:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden: Writing definitely is harder than copyediting, you've done the big chunk! I'm just polishing. I hope you don't mind the new links on the image research piece instead of the raw URLs. 02:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Think they're much better, honestly. I kind of wrote it a bit quickly, if I'm honest. Probably could have covered more examples, but I had a good one in front of me and wanted to get it down while I still knew the whole path. Like File:The_Burning_of_the_USS_Missouri_in_Gibraltar.jpg. Full of bad information. Problem solved by actually reading all the text on the image, which detailed everything I needed. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 02:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
By the way
If you feel like getting an article out of the way, I'm just waiting to see if any FAs, FLs, or FTs pass today before closing next issue's featured content. I'd imagine it'll be ready for copyediting pretty soon after - or possibly slightly before - this issue publishes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 03:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- "An article out of the way"? I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I'm keeping an eye on the newsroom and the next issue. It's been a few years since I've gotten involved with the Signpost, so I'm touching a bit of everything and polishing what I can find here and there. Mostly focusing on the low-hanging fruits for now and copyediting as needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Basically, I might have an article ready to copyedit 1 August, with 30 days before publication, because I've been writing the Featured content as it passes. I... tend not to like having deadlines looming over me. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 04:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)