User talk:Donald Trung/Archive 81

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tech News: 2022-02

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 January. It will be on all wikis from 13 January (calendar).

Events

  • Community Wishlist Survey 2022 begins. All contributors to the Wikimedia projects can propose for tools and platform improvements. The proposal phase takes place from 10 January 18:00 UTC to 23 January 18:00 UTC. Learn more.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't comment on how you explain me, all I can agree is that if you want to put back what you want to add yourself, please sort it out with tabulation.If there is no tabulation in the link, please rewrite it to tabulation yourself.If you need a lot of bunk to express all you need to express, I think tabulation can help you briefly show the point.
If you want to explain what I think about being too long, you can see Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues. Rastinition (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2022-02

The winner this Translation of the week is

Please be bold and help translate this article!

The Lobster War (also known as the Lobster Operation; Portuguese: Guerra da Lagosta; French: Conflit de la langouste) was a dispute over spiny lobsters which occurred from 1961 to 1963 between Brazil and France. The Brazilian government refused to allow French fishing vessels to catch spiny lobsters 100 miles (160 km) off the Brazilian northeast coast, arguing that lobsters "crawl along the continental shelf", while the French maintained that "lobsters swim" and that, therefore, they might be caught by any fishing vessel from any country. The dispute was resolved unilaterally by Brazil, which extended its territorial waters to a 200-nautical-mile (370 km; 230 mi) zone, taking in the disputed lobsters' bed.

(Please update the interwiki links on Wikidata of your language version of the article after each week's translation is finished so that all languages are linked to each other.)

About · Nominate/Review · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 01:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you forget to log in while editing

I noticed that you seem to edit 2 times when 22:44, 5 January 2022.Because I was editing your talk page a little while ago, and I just noticed at 22:51. Rastinition (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm always signed in, what are you even talking about? --Donald Trung (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel it very strange why can be at the same time.
I don't live in The Bronx, haven't been there in 11 (eleven) years either. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Because I don't want to travel to The Bronx, I am not interested in this.
I am curious just because the time is the same. But looking up the IP's edit records, I guess he may not have good faith assumptions about you? Rastinition (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Anyhow, I'm off to sleep here, I will likely reply in two days as my vacation is over and I'll be travelling, I will probably come with a more detailed reply then and I'll check the other sources and come with a reason for why they should be included if you insist on a case-by-case justification by me for every one of them. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
If I do not object to your explanation (including no comment or no response) within 13 hours, you can insert those parts that you have already explained. Rastinition (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Because I use a specific desktop computer to log in, I won't have any activity when I don't use this desktop computer.This is why I set 13 hours.
But if I travel, the computer breaks down, or other reasons make me unable to use this computer,, maybe you will not see me for a few days, weeks, or months.
Because I did not record the password, if I log out for some reason, I will lose access to this account forever, and I have not bound email. Rastinition (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rastinition: Regarding the removed content from this edit I'll note why both the content and its sources should be included in sections below.

Concerning the self-published sources.

In general old Chinese coinages is a niche subject outside of China (and to some extent Japan) and non-Chinese works covering it is usually done by a small number of experts.

Regarding otherwise untrustworthy sources, the inclusion of the China Ancient Coins Collection Blog (中國古錢集藏網誌) in the Jurchen Later Jin Dynasty is to source the inscriptions as the website contains images of cash coins, as you can see I added it a day before I had found a better (academic) source there. In other contexts where this source is used is also mostly because of the images on its website that illustrate these cash coins, not any facts related to the cash coins themselves. Later the website Numista is cited, while Numista's catalogue is user generated, its list of Chinese cash coins was made by an expert based on Chinese sources. You also removed a quote from the Baidu Library, but this quote was from a contemporary document uploaded by a user, this is no different than quoting the Wikisource library for an original source document, which is a good usage of UGC as someone else had already pointed out to you. Artron is also another auction website mostly used for the confirmation of inscriptions, note that auction websites are known to authenticate the items in their stock and can be used for the authentication of certain inscriptions.

Regarding the other sources, namely Primaltrek, Ulrich Theobald, and David Hartill, well I have pointed out before that Primaltrek has been noted as reliable by the British Museum, Gary Ashkenazy has previously been published by the University of Arizona, both Primaltrek and his blog have been used by The Numismatic Bibliomania Society (NBS), the Royal Numismatic Society, among others. Most of the blog translates from and / or reports on Chinese news articles and rarely includes original thoughts by the author himself and in cases he leaves commentary this isn't used to back up facts. In the few cases when Ashkenazy has been wrong I have backed these corrections up with other sources. Regarding Ulrich Theobald (田宇利), he is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Chinese Studies of the University of Tübingen, he is generally considered to be one of the leading experts of Chinese history outside of China. David Hartill is probably one of the more heavier used sources for Chinese dynastic numismatic articles and while over the years people have noted how he self-publishes he is an award-winning writer at the Royal Numismatic Society and while he previously published with them he opted to self-publish. According to him he self-publishes because most publishers say that Western / Anglophone audiences aren't interested in East Asian numismatic books, his catalogue numbers are the de facto standard for Anglophone publications (including academic articles) on cast Chinese coinages and his books are generally regarded to be the standard (reliable) works on pre-modern Chinese coinages.

None of the sources used were randomly selected.

Also, regarding Art-Hanoi, Sema is considered to be one of the leading American experts of modern Vietnamese currency and published together with Howard A. Daniel, III. Also, the Art-Hanoi website hosts articles by François Thierry and Eduardo Toda y Güell for pre-modern Vietnamese coinages and the Qianlong Tongbao issued for Vietnam is mentioned in Toda's account of this inscription. Again, like with Wikisource this is a (largely) reliable book hosted online.

Concerning the content and its layout.

Most of the removed content was first here before being used as the basis for other articles, this doesn't mean that the content has to be identical. Regarding the inscriptions you removed, well they were in the history section and were short summations of these periods, the Qianlong Tongbao inscription was used until the Xinhai Revolution and it was explained in the text way, the Kangxi Tongbao was also the moment when Manchu Qing Dynasty cash coins got their distinctive look due to an altered metallurgical composition, which was explained in the removed section. The Xianfeng and inflation section explains why Manchu Qing Dynasty coinage changed so radically after the 1860's, while it's used in another article in this article it shows the readers exactly how this change occurred. The list of Manchu Qing Dynasty cash coins is an overseeable list of inscriptions, the full list article is about every Chinese cash coin issued until 1912, but this list is specifically about the Qing, if lists could be transcluded it might be a better solution but a more detailed list could be used here, as I wanted to include more details here, but again didn't have the time for it yet.

The same with the other specialised sections, they are specific to the Qing. For example the vault protector coin article also talks about other periods in Chinese history while this one isolates the one issued by the Manchu government. The silver coinages that circulated during the Qing were also summed up here, this article is largely "an overview" containing short summations of periods and coinage types while more details are in other articles, most of the repeated content is just short content here. Regarding Tibet, a reader now has to go through the entire monetary history of Tibet before Communist annexation instead of finding Qing period coins in the Qing period coins article, this doesn't really make much sense to do. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Response layout.
  1. Forms or lists may be available.
  2. The text content can be copied,when it can briefly show the point., but the reference doesn't need to be copied.
  3. When there is too much content to be copied, rewriting should replace copying, and reducing content by rewriting can make everyone quickly find the point.When rewriting, reference should be copied from {{main}} or {{seealso}}. Rastinition (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding 2 (two), internal links aren't references and content should best be verified as every article is a standalone article about a subject and regarding 3 (three) the content was usually originally at the overview article and spin-off (split) after another article was made. If re-writing is better then why didn't you re-write it rather than blanket blank the texts? --Donald Trung (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  1. I think the duplicate content only needs to be read from {{main}}.I think there is no need to copy at all in the beginning.
  2. Since you think those should be copied,so I offer 3 2 ideas that might work.When the copied content is exactly the same as {{main}}, it is redundant to copy the reference at the same time. Rastinition (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Usually when copying the copied content is "the skeleton work" from which expansions could be "fleshed out", in case of the list of inscriptions more detailed could be added to the dynastic article's list (as I was planning). Unreferenced sentences are always a bad idea, even if the reference could be found somewhere else, unless it's for something that is entirely uncontroversial and well known to new readers. People want to be able to verify what the text they are reading says and not have to "hunt" for references in another page. Removing references simply for the sake of removing them isn't a good idea if they are otherwise acceptable for the things they are used to verify. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I <s></s> part of 13:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC) and 13:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC). But if you want to copy too much, I think you should rewrite it to avoid being too long, trivial and losing the point.--Rastinition (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
In most cases the removed sections were relative short and only included a summed up version of the information found elsewhere, more comparable to the lead section than the bodies of the articles linked to. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not against copying when copying can briefly show the point.--Rastinition (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rastinition:, The reasoning still doesn't make much sense to me, simply because the information (which more than often is an excerpt) is a summation or coverage of the Qing relevant passages. In case of the Tibetan coinage it is from the Qing period, in case of the Qianlong Tongbao it is a short summation. If we look at the "History of China" article most the content is perhaps written different from its main pages but still the same points come across, the goal of an article is to give the reader a good overview of a subject is about and "main" article links are for more details and "see also" links for related subjects, these links are further reading not substitutes for content. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy content should briefly show the point, further reading can use "main" links and "see also" links. Rastinition (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
But your "solution" seems to show no content and only a link, even if the previous content was only a paragraph long. I fail to see how this is somehow better for the readers. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
If you can't understand what I mean, then I re-list 2 solutions.If you only ask my personal wishes(not relevant to the solution), I will only put "main" links and "see also" links.
  1. Copy content should briefly show the point, further reading can use "main" links and "see also" links.
  2. If copy can't briefly show the point, you can rewrite it. Rastinition (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Still, only a few sections can be described as such, namely the iron cash coins and East Turkestani cash coins, the others were sufficiently short. As you admitted yourself most of your cuts were because you found the article "too long", duplicate information is only an issue if it's excessive, not when it's relevant. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't comment on how you explain me, all I can agree is that if you want to put back what you want to add yourself, please sort it out with tabulation.If there is no tabulation in the link, please rewrite it to tabulation yourself.If you need a lot of bunk to express all you need to express, I think tabulation can help you briefly show the point.
If you want to explain what I think about being too long, you can see Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues. Rastinition (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Which clearly states that there are times when a long article is unavoidable, which is especially true for the coinage of the last dynasty in Chinese history, which due to existing in the modern age had the most well documented and most changing coinage in Chinese history (though I am planning on covering the equally complex coinage system of the early Republic of China in the future). Furthermore, the Manchu Qing Dynasty extended beyond China proper and included Tibet and Xinjiang which all had their own native coinage traditions which are relevant for the readers and to understand how these developed during this period. Article size should be representative of the content of the subject matter, shrinking for the sake of shrinking doesn't help. And the sections were largely short enough to keep readability optimal for the readers (as sections should be). --Donald Trung (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Not point You should not stress China's territorial legitimacy through this article.It doesn't change the territorial issue whether you put it or not.I can't understand why you emphasize Xinjiang and Tibet.I don't care about your opinion on whether Xinjiang or Tibet is Chinese territory, and I don't want to understand.
Back to the point,the point has always been to show the point.Too short is hard to understand, too long is hard to read.So I say if you need a lot of bunk to express all you need to express ,tabulation can help you briefly show the point.At least through tabulation we don't have to focus on issues that are too long or too short.--Rastinition (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
What does claims to Xinjiang and Tibet have anything to do with the fact that they were a part of the Manchu Qing Dynasty? "I don't care about your opinion on whether Xinjiang or Tibet is Chinese territory, and I don't want to understand." I think that you just don't want to understand what I write and deliberately misinterpret what is written in "Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues" without ever addressing any of the points I raise so you mention Tibet and Xinjiang being supposed "Chinese" territory even though the discussion is clearly about the Qing. Are you denying history because of modern issues? POV pushing is against Wikipedia's mission. Not sure what you're even trying to say here, are you claiming that Xinjiang and Tibet weren't ever administered by the Manchu Qing Dynasty (linking to the article so you could read it) so their coinages aren't exactly irrelevant during the period they were a part of the Qing.
Again, all the sections were sufficiently short enough and separated enough for the readers to understand the different topics during different periods and the differet types of coinages, removing large sections takes away from the chronology making reading more difficult. This is why removing information purely for the sake of removing it is a bad idea. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  1. There is some problems with heading. 2nd level heading history that is a classification.Everything related to history in the article should be included in this 2nd level heading. In fact, because some content copies 2nd level heading history of other pages,the history classification didn't work.
  2. I noticed 2nd level heading *** coinage has historiy classification through 3nd level heading. And these contents have not been merged to 2nd level heading history.
  3. About 2nd level heading *** coinage ,*** coins or *** coins ***,they should be changed to 3nd level heading.And they(including ) should be merge to 2nd level heading Coinage or Coins.
  4. I has nothing to do with 2nd level heading Mint marks It's fine.
  5. This article can use other regions as 2nd level heading, including Foreign silver "dollars" circulating in the Qing dynasty, Xinjiang, Tibet.But since most of these are copy-pasted, it can be completely replaced with the See also link, or this can use See also as 2nd level heading.And See also this 2nd level heading already exists and can be merged completely.

Since I only pay attention to the duplicate content copied from other links before, I simply check the layout this time.I feel that some of the content of this article is that some editors just copy and paste what they want, and only want to copy it completely. They just copy and paste without thinking about the layout of the article.

  • We can imagine.The title of the article is Novel, in order to complete this article, some people have posted parts of Harry Potter, some people have posted parts of the Lord of the Rings, and some people have posted parts of the Call of Cthulhu. Although they are all about Novel, is also complete enough, but I don't think this article has been improved.--Rastinition (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the heading "History" contains general history while the other sections didn't copy the "history" sections of other articles, they were used as the basis of the history sections of those articles. The layout of the article is about the varying types of coinages of the Manchu Qing Dynasty, the government issued a number of various types of coinages throughout its history and because it had a bi-metallic system these separate types of coinages were essentially separate coinages that co-circulated and had their own histories. Just like if you go to a country you see "Economy", "Demographics", "Administrative divisions", "Language", Etc. as separate headings, the various types of coinages of the Manchu Qing Dynasty were / are also various sub-topics. The comparison with the article "Novel" is a bad one, "some people have posted parts of Harry Potter, some people have posted parts of the Lord of the Rings, and some people have posted parts of the Call of Cthulhu. Although they are all about Novel, is also complete enough, but I don't think this article has been improved." the difference is that the Manchu Qing Dynasty issued coinages to co-circulate together and that these coinages together form a complicated system while individual novels are more comparable to individual coins rather than series of coins.
Just because the Xinjiang and Tibet as well as other were copied doesn't mean that it doesn't have a place there, spin-off forking is acceptable when it's to cover the same subject without subverting (POV-pushing) the other content, this is why they are (largely) identical to avoid forking. Looking at the individually linked articles they are about specific topics within the coinage system of the Qing, since more than one coin type was issued these have their own 2nd (second) level headings similarly to the article "United States dollar" (current version) where "Overview", "History", "Coins", "Banknotes", Etc. are all separate headings with their own sub-headings. The largest difference is that there are many dozens of sub-arricles of this topic, the other linked articles are planned to be expanded (as I have bought several books about Xinjiang and Qing coinage but simply haven't had the time to expand those articles yet) so the copying was provisional. The content below the second (2nd) level headings were all short enough to be considered as short overviews. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
You said so the copying was provisional Then I think you should use other places like draft, make sure the content is good enough and then move the content out of draft instead of rough copying.Then I think you should use somewhere else, like drafts, make sure the content is good enough, and then move the content from drafts to articles instead of rough copying from other articles. Rough copy only makes the article worse.Content should be organized or rearranged, not just stuffed--Rastinition (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The copying from the Qing Dynasty coinage article to others was provisional to expand elsewhere, I am not allowed to use draftspace because I once had emoji's in my signature. As for the argument that the content was unorganised, it most surely is now as the content randomly jumps decades apart from each other and completely ignores certain categories of coinages and no longer has an overseeable list of inscriptions. As you made it clear that if I would restore it and then edit it that you would just roll it back to how it was before I edited (see the note that I added to the WordPress link that you completely chose to ignore) I can't exactly re-write the content either. You need to provide evidence why the content would be better without those entire sections and not just parts of it to improve it for the readers, your only actual argument (other than complaining about the size of the article) is that it looks redundant having duplicate information but it's only redundant if it doesn't fit in the scope of the article.
Also, are you incapable of editing sections or something? As you always seem to leave messages at the bottom of this page. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #502

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • OneZoom "tree of life explorer" is an interactive map of the evolutionary links between all living things known to science using Wikidata.
  • Development
    • Getting the Wikidata:Mismatch Finder ready for release. Focusing on adding statistics.
    • Fixed an issue where statement editing was broken in some older browser (phab:T298001)
    • Made it so that grammatical features on a Form of a Lexeme can be ordered consistently across all Lexemes (phab:T232557)
    • Working on an issue where changes from Wikidata don't get sent to the other wikis for the initial adding of the sitelink to an Item (phab:T233520)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

  • Looking back at 2021
    • Developments rolled out in 2021:
      • New updater for the Wikidata Query Service to help it keep up with the large number of edits on Wikidata
      • Query Builder to make it easier for people to create SPARQL queries without having to know SPARQL
      • Item Quality Evaluator to make it easy to find the highest and lowest quality Items in a topic area
      • Constraints Violations Checker is a small command-line tool that gives constraint violation statistics for a set of Items to make it easier to find the Items that need more work
      • Curious Facts finds anomalies in the data in Wikidata and offers them up for review and amusement
      • Wikidata Map to see the distribution of Wikidata's Items across the world and the connections between them
      • Current Events to make it easy to see what's currently a hot topic in the world and being edited a lot on Wikidata
    • New entities in 2021:
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) 15:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-02

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 January. It will be on all wikis from 13 January (calendar).

Events

  • Community Wishlist Survey 2022 begins. All contributors to the Wikimedia projects can propose for tools and platform improvements. The proposal phase takes place from 10 January 18:00 UTC to 23 January 18:00 UTC. Learn more.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Not point You should not stress China's territorial legitimacy through this article.It doesn't change the territorial issue whether you put it or not.I can't understand why you emphasize Xinjiang and Tibet.I don't care about your opinion on whether Xinjiang or Tibet is Chinese territory, and I don't want to understand.It means I don't comment on things that aren't the point.
Back to the point,the point has always been to show the point.Too short is hard to understand, too long is hard to read.So I say if you need a lot of bunk to express all you need to express ,tabulation can help you briefly show the point.At least through tabulation we don't have to focus on issues that are too long or too short.--Rastinition (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  1. There is some problems with heading. 2nd level heading history that is a classification.Everything related to history in the article should be included in this 2nd level heading. In fact, because some content copies 2nd level heading history of other pages,the history classification didn't work.
  2. I noticed 2nd level heading *** coinage has historiy classification through 3nd level heading. And these contents have not been merged to 2nd level heading history.
  3. About 2nd level heading *** coinage ,*** coins or *** coins ***,they should be changed to 3nd level heading.And they(including ) should be merge to 2nd level heading Coinage or Coins.
  4. I has nothing to do with 2nd level heading Mint marks It's fine.
  5. This article can use other regions as 2nd level heading, including Foreign silver "dollars" circulating in the Qing dynasty, Xinjiang, Tibet.But since most of these are copy-pasted, it can be completely replaced with the See also link, or this can use See also as 2nd level heading.And See also this 2nd level heading already exists and can be merged completely.

Since I only pay attention to the duplicate content copied from other links before, I simply check the layout this time.I feel that some of the content of this article is that some editors just copy and paste what they want, and only want to copy it completely. They just copy and paste without thinking about the layout of the article.

  • We can imagine.The title of the article is Novel, in order to complete this article, some people have posted parts of Harry Potter, some people have posted parts of the Lord of the Rings, and some people have posted parts of the Call of Cthulhu. Although they are all about Novel, is also complete enough, but I don't think this article has been improved.--Rastinition (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donald_Trung/Archive_81&oldid=1065865295"