User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 3

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) in topic Wikidata weekly summary #117

Rezabot (talkcontribslogs)

Please block this bot. It has been creating a lot of items about subtemplates for one hour.--GZWDer (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Already done. --Rschen7754 06:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #90

Test

Yo. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource is coming in 1 week!

Apologies for using English; please help by translating this message!

Wikisource is coming in 1 week, on Tuesday, January 14! Help us prepare for the deployment at Wikidata:Wikisource. Specifically, we need your input in determining how Wikidata items will be created and used for each Wikisource page. Please join the discussion at Wikidata talk:Wikisource, and notify anyone who is interested in the discussion. --Rschen7754 08:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC) (using MassMessage)

Wikidata weekly summary #92

Wikidata weekly summary #93

Wikidata weekly summary #94

Wikidata weekly summary #95

Wikidata weekly summary #96

Wikidata weekly summary #97

Wikidata weekly summary #98

Wikidata weekly summary #99

Wikidata weekly summary #100

Re your revert

How is "commons and meta have this..." a justification for reverting my justified revert (talking about [1])? In first place, this project is neither Commons nor Meta and in the second place a visitor of the "List of administrators" certainly does not look for bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, not even speaking of stewards or ombudsmen. If we list this completely irrelevant information about which other hats a user in the corresponding group has we should also add to the "List of bureaucrats" and the "List of oversighters" that they are "administrators" at the same time and in case of the "List of oversighters" also that 2 of them are stewards and 1 of them an ombudsman for consistency. I hope you get how irrelevant this information is and why it doesn't make sense to provide it at that place. Vogone talk 17:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit of a slippery slope. --Rschen7754 17:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should put that information on a slippery slope as well so that it disappears. Vogone talk 18:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, your second premise doesn't even follow, because we said in policy that all bureaucrats and oversighters have to be administrators, so it would be redundant. --Rschen7754 18:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suppose not for crats, but they are all administrators and that is the de facto standard. --Rschen7754 18:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Lists on policy pages do not represent what is the case de facto. Anyway, could you please explain how this information could be of use? Otherwise I am going to reinstate my action. Vogone talk 18:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
To be able to see what users hold other advanced rights. For the same reasons that the templates on Meta and Commons do it. And if you disagree, please start a discussion instead of reverting. --Rschen7754 18:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you were the one reverting me (to bring up an example from enwiki, BRD might be something which could possibly explain why you are in the position to justify this addition rather than me its removal). Vogone talk 18:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Any progress? Vogone talk 11:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for feedback on my GSoC'14 proposal

Hi Rschen7754,

I am planning to work on the project titled "Tools for mass migration of legacy translated wiki content" this summer under Google Summer of Code. I have drafted a proposal for the same over the past few weeks. This project is going to help the translation adminstrators like you in a great way, as it would completely automate the tedious manual task of preparing a page for translation and then importing the translations into the Translate extension. You can check the proposal page for detailed information on how I plan to accomplish this.

As you would be an end user of this tool, it would be great if you could go through the proposal and provide feedback/suggestions. Your feedback would definitely help me improve the proposal as well help in creating an even better tool. You can do the same on the discussion page of the proposal or reply here, whichever is convenient for you. I look forward to hearing from you! Thank you!

P.S: I need to submit the proposal to Google by March 19, 2014.

BPositive (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #101

Wikidata weekly summary #102

Wikidata weekly summary #103

Wikidata weekly summary #104

Q16503

Please use slurpInterwiki to import all sitelinks from enwikiquote.--GZWDer (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't, due to the interwiki conflicts... --Rschen7754 17:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #105


Wikidata weekly summary #106

Wikidata weekly summary #107

Wikidata weekly summary #108

Wikidata weekly summary #109

Wikidata weekly summary #110

Wikidata weekly summary #110

Wikidata weekly summary #111

Wikidata weekly summary #112

Wikidata weekly summary #113

Route numbers for Australian roads

How would you suggest route numbers be added to Australian roads? Should there be a new property, eg

Mitchell Freeway (Q1939502) <Route number> → State Route 2

or is there something else that can be used? - Evad37 (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Evad37: that sounds like a good idea; might also be helpful for US roads to make things easier to parse... --Rschen7754 08:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Wikidata weekly summary #115

Wikidata weekly summary #116

Wikidata weekly summary #117

Return to the user page of "Rschen7754/Archive 3".