User talk:Rjanag: Difference between revisions

Archives

1: August–October 2008 2: November 2008 3: December 2008 4: January–February 2009 5: March–April 2009 6: May–July 2009 7: August–December 2009 8: January–May 2010 9: June 2010 – present

If you leave me a message here, my habit is to post a response at your talk page. If you would prefer that I respond here, just leave a note in your original message and I'll respond to you here. Thanks!

Click here to leave me a new message.

Do you have a handle on what this article is about? All the references are very technical and I would have to do some major learning to get this right. Do you think the article is actually combining more than one topic? Could you outline what I could be most helpful at doing? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough of a handle to write introductory-level stuff, but I'm not a super-expert yet. I agree that it would be nice to bring in some more accessible references.

As for what you can do...I was mostly just wanting a second pair of eyes to let me know if there are any major concerns that need to be addressed before going to GA (but it will be a while before I take this to GA anyway, so there's no rush)...and also if there are any particular sections that are really confusing, you could point them out. I imagine that the references we get are going to be pretty complicated, even if they're not journal articles, because that's just what the field is like...but my ultimate goal should be to take all that complicated stuff and dilute it into something that a WP reader can get something useful out of.

My main plan for the article right now is more or less as follows:

1. Add a section on some of the big issues that are being researched a lot (for example, the question of how information in sentences is processed, and how neuro uses specific brain responses–the ELAN, LAN, N400, and P600, note the redlinks—to piece that apart)
2. Add a section, if possible, on the applications of neuro to other fields and to real life
3. Possibly spin the "experimental design" section out into a separate article

That's about it for now. It's hard to go into stuff like the models proposed about how language processing works, because that is really more the domain of psycholinguistics (the way I like to think of it is, people in psycholinguistics propose a model about how the mind processes some language-related thing, then people in neurolinguistics test it...of course, there's a lot of overlap, but the general thing is that a lot of neurolinguistics is just knowing about brain imaging, and figuring out clever ways to see what the brain is doing; they just happen to do it with the goal of attaining linguistic knowledge rather than other stuff). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, butting in rudely, I'd be very happy to work on Neurolinguistics. But it will be at least one week, possibly three before I have any time. Later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; it's not going anywhere! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the article is looking rather good now. However, you say you are not an expert. I am an expert to some degree, but not specifically in neurolinguistics, which, if it is a cross-discipline field, becomes tricky. (Hope you are going to let others have the "last word", or you will never be done on AN/I.) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, yeah, I'm trying... my buddy's latest comment doesn't have anything worth responding to, so hopefully I will manage to keep my mouth shut long enough for the thread to get archived. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just started following this article today based on a mention in the NY Times. If you need another view or citation the NYT article is Art Hoax Unites Europe in Displeasure. FWIW, and I'm not sure if I would stick my own neck out to defend the writer's statement, upon a rereading I was surprised to see "...while five Lithuanian soldiers are apparently urinating on Russia". Best, CliffC (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source! It looks like there's nothing from NYT in there yet, so this will be very useful (to prove that it's been covered by mainstream media outside of Europe). As for the Lithuana thing...yeah, it's a bit touchy. There has been an ongoing argument at this article over what the soldiers are doing, and people have inserted all kinds of text, such as "urinating on Belarus" or "urinating on Lithuana's western and northern neighbors"...the consensus for now seems to be to revert everything that people add and leave it vague and non-speculative for now.

Best, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added source for my claim, although it in Czech, the important information in article should be pretty obvious to understand internationaly. It is much more obvious than any svastica reference on Entropa. But I may be not good at using external citations on Wiki, please take a look at it. --XChaos (talk)

Looks good now; the only problem was that you had three brackets {{{ }}} instead of two {{ }}. Thanks for adding your source!

Also, if you have time, could you provide (somewhere in the footnote; the easiest way to do it is put it after the closing brackets) your English translation of the relevant quotation (a sentence or two) in the reference, just for the benefit of non-Czech-speaking readers? Thanks again, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can provide translation, just show me where it should be placed. Relevant fragment of text reads: Depiction of Germany on Entropa sculpture by David Černý in Brusel doesn't have to show just motorways or maybe swastic, but directly nazi symbol - number 18, according to two historians. Numbers 1 a 8 symbolize alphabetical order of letters A a H, which are initals for Adolfa Hitler. ..... "It's utter nonsense", Aktuálně.cz was told by Černý. "If someone wants to see symbolism where there is none, he or she always finds some.", he added.

That looks good; you'll just have to provide the original Czech as well. You can do it something like this:

<ref>{{cite web | ........... }} " CZECH HERE "<br />'''English''': epiction of Germany on Entropa sculpture by David Černý in Brusel doesn't have to show just motorways or maybe swastic, but directly nazi symbol - number 18, according to two historians. Numbers 1 a 8 symbolize alphabetical order of letters A a H, which are initals for Adolfa Hitler. ..... "It's utter nonsense", Aktuálně.cz was told by Černý. "If someone wants to see symbolism where there is none, he or she always finds some.", he added.</ref>

Let me know if you have any questions! (Warning: I will be heading to my campus soon so I might be unreachable for an hour or so.) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to look at the new templates. Miscellaneous thoughts (take with grain of salt):

1. I like the idea behind the change from "creator" and "expander" to "writer," but I think the new terminology will drive many contributors away. Regulars are accustomed to the idea of "creation" and "expansion," and are likely to be lost when they see "writer." It requires more bytes, but I'd prefer to preserve the old terminology, perhaps by making this field something like "creator/expander" (but I don't think slashes are legal in the fieldname... maybe "creator_or_expander"?).

   That's a good point. Changing the name would not be difficult..."creator_or_expander" is a bit long, but I can't think of anything better. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. It's very helpful to see whether the hook I'm about to review was newly created or expanded -- and I think it helps keep nominators on their toes when they have to indicate this. That information still needs to be in the text display, IMO.

   I'm inclined to agree.... I think it was Gatoclass (and probably others, although I don't remember whom off the top of my head) who suggested to me that this wouldn't be necessary, since in theory we're supposed to be checking the article history anyway and then it should be pretty obvious. But personally I like specifying created/expanded. One solution would be to go back to having two separate |creator= and |expander= parameters (which would also solve the problems you raised in your first point...it would be tedious for me to code, but oh well, that's my problem). Another would be to add something like |status=, which could be set to "new" or "expanded"/"expansion", and depending on the setting would display "New article by ..." or "5x expansion by..." after the hook. That would be easy to code, and personally I would like it, but it does raise the problem of making the template a bit more complicated (as any addition of new parameters will do). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. In the source code, the auto-generated credits for the "multiple" case are a nice improvement, but I'm not equally pleased with the standard example, where the single credit is almost overwhelmed by "div" codes. I don't like having to cut and paste information that is bracketed by "div" codes and other distracting markup code.

   I thought about that, too...unfortunately, I haven't thought of a way around it yet. There has to be something there so that the credits templates don't actually show up. (I guess technically there doesn't, other than the fact that our precedent is not to have visible credits templates on T:TDYK...personally, I think they're kind of ugly and might be distracting, not to mention there's no guarantee that the nom will be passed anyway so we might not want to encourage nominators by showing them that credit template right away.) The original version of this template used an embedded void template, rather than div tags, generating something like this:

{{*mp}}... that this is an '''[[example]]'''?
<small>Created/expanded by [[User:User|User]] ([[User talk:User|talk]]).</small>
{{User:Politizer/Credits | credits=          <!--Credits begin.-->
*{{DYKmake|Example|User}}
}}                                           <!--Credits end.-->

Which really is not any better. Of course, personally I don't find the extra markup distracting, but that's because I already know the template like the back of my hand and I can just tune out what I know is irrelevant; I can't expect everyone to be so familiar with it all. Anyway, I do agree with you that this extra markup is an annoying problem, but I believe it's an insurmountable one, unless people become willing to have nominations looking like this on T:TDYK:

• ... that this is an example? Created/expanded by Politizer ^talk/_contribs
•   Example – Politizer (give) (tag)

1. For the aid of people who are working with the source code when building the next update, it is very helpful that currently the source code contains clear labels for "hook", and displays each proposed hook on its own line. This seems to lose that, due to those pesky style codes.

   Ironically, that was what I had in mind when I added those comment tags above and below the hook...trying to offset the hook from the rest of the text a little bit. Maybe it's just cluttered things. Would it help if I added an extra space within each of the comment tags, thus making the hook be even more "by itself" (and thus stand out more)? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. I'd like to see a standard way for people to add and label their proposed alt hooks so that the person building the update can easily find the hooks and quickly identify the alt hook that they intended to select. (Hooks should not be buried in other code....) --Orlady (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't know if it's possible to have that done within the template, since this one gets subst'ed (and thus is no longer a template) the moment it is used. I remember with the current {{DYKsug}} we did once float the idea of working in extra spaces in the template for when people add ALTs later, but it was shot down, mostly with the argument that it breaks up the flow of the conversation (with all the ALTs at the top, it might be difficult to see where they occurred within the discussion, and what issues caused ALTx to be suggested). I also remember not too long ago one user created {{DYKalt}} for making ALT suggestions (I think mainly on the basis that people were trying to suggest ALTs using {{DYKsug}}, which is only meant for brand-new nominations) and it was not very well-received. I guess we just have to find a way to balance making ALTs easy for promoters to deal with (as you suggest) with making them easy for nominators/discussers to deal with (in essence, by keeping the instructions for adding alts as simple as possible, most likely by not having them be involved in the templates and whatnot). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm leaving my responses above. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. Since I didn't find a discussion about this on WT:DYK, and since I don't have much time to look for one, I'll reply here. The template looks fine to me. I'm not that confident about the status parameter - if people messed up with nominator and expander parameters, won't they mess up with this? - but I think we could go ahead with it. We can always switch back if there are any major problems. Let's try it and see. Nice work with it btw :) Chamal ^talk 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my ignorance but I'm not entirely sure how this new template is any different or how it will affect me? Is it that comments/reviews must now be left inside the template? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not used any differently than the current one; the main difference is that the end result looks smaller. Currently it makes something like:

{{DYKsuggestion 
 | hook = ... that...........?
 | creator=Politizer
 | creator2=
 | creator3=
 | creator4=
 | expander=
 | nominator=
 | image=
 | comment=
...etc.

the new version, on the other hand, makes

{{*mp}} ... that........
<small>Created/expanded by [[User:Politizer|Politizer]] ([[User talk:Politizer|talk]]).</small>
<div style="display:none;">
*{{DYKmake|Example|Politizer}}
</div>

Everything you do as a vetter will not be affected at all. You don't need to leave comments inside the template, because the template actually disappears when it is used (as you can see above, there is no template in the final output, like there is in the current version); you still have the discussion as normal. I thihnk the only people who will really be affected at all by this are the people who take hooks from T:TDYK to Next, since this layout looks slightly different. For nominating articles, the only real difference is that now you would say writer=Candlewicke instead of creator=Candlewicke or expander=Candlewicke. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well that isn't too big of a change at all. :) --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 02:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A few issues I can think of offhand:

1. Why not just call it "NewDYKnom"? I'm in favour of anything that shortens the amount of typing :)

Actually, {{NewDYKnom}} also works; it's a redirect to {{NewDYKnomination}}. I figured having the full name would make it clearer for people to see the template (in the category or whatever) and know what it is, and NewDYKnom would be useful for people (such as myself) who don't care and just want to get it typed fast. I suppose I could always switch them (make NewDYKnom the template and NewDYKnomination the redirect). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. If the template is going to format alt hooks as well as the original hook, I suggest they appear at the top of the output text under the original hook, with the credit templates following.

That wouldn't be too hard. Done Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. I suggest you add to the "nominator" field in the template page a note that says something like Article nominator, if not the same as the creator/expander.

My original intention was only to leave documentation "instructions" like that for the fields that are required (article, hook, writer) and leave the others blank...I figured that would help force people to fill in the required fields (if they're copying and pasting from this example, they would be forced to delete the junk from those fields, and hopefully write something else in them) and would help clarify which fields are not required; in the table below there is a more specific description of when to use each field, including |nominator=. Although, I suppose not many people will be cutting and pasting directly from the template page, so it might not be a big problem to add more stuff to that example. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. No problem with the status field, that is a good idea.

- Other than that, I can't think of anything else right now that I'd like to see - although I'll probably think of something after you've finished it :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you think "author" might be a better label than "writer"? "Writer" seems a tad inaccurate as a label to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's probably better, since there is more to article creation than just writing prose (there's linking, formatting, bringing together refs, yada yada). I'll work on updating the template, the documentation, and the instructions. I might consider making |creator= also still work (although not be officially recognized in the instructions) just in case people accidentally enter "creator" out of habit...but that might be a pain to code. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fiddled around with it a couple days ago and I don't know if it will be possible. Trying to make both "author" and "writer" work does this: because of the subst'ing, if you leave one blank it just inserts the text {{{writer}}} (or author, depending on which one I make "primary"), leaving you with a bunch of ugly stuff like Created/expanded by [[{{{writer}}}]]. So I guess we can't have our cake and eat it too; we'll just have to decide one to go with. "author=" is fine with me; I'll just have to sit down for a few minutes sometime and change them all in the template.

Also, I was thinking, is there any point having a new name? We could just redirect {{DYKsug}} to this right under everyone's noses; other than the change of "creator/expander" to "author," no one would even notice a difference in how they use it. Although I guess that might make people forget that it's a new template...telling everyone the name has changed might be a bit annoying, but it will also draw their attention to the fact that things are a tiny bit different. So I suppose we can just go ahead as planned, switching the instructions to this template (and maybe even doing some manual replacements...ie, if anyone after the switch uses DYKsug at T:TDYK, I could manually change it to the other template before the discussion starts); then, once all the instances of {{DYKsuggestion}} are off the page, we could redirect that and DYKsug to NewDYKnom. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Pol.., er, Rjanag. Interesting decision. I can understand why, but why Rjanag? Seems like an odd name to choose. (And difficult to pronounce might I add!) Cheers, » \ / (⁂) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you made this change? What does Rjanag mean? For that matter, what does Politizer mean? But I had gotten fond of you with that name! Now I must change? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I log on at work you're "Rana" (well, R-square block-ana-square block ... I'm guessing they are IPA characters?!). At least my home computer has a decent browser, I suppose...! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, will do. Look out for a note under this heading in about 12 hours, assuming my train doesn't break down or something! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks fine now — those chracters are showing up correctly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Byeonggwan. In this series of edits, it seems that you have been copying material from History of Korea into South Korea#History. Those are split into separate articles, however, for a reason. First of all, the History of Korea article describes the history of Korean culture in general, whereas the South Korea article should focus mainly on the South Korean nation/political entity. More importantly, the article would simply be too long if we included all of Korean history, which is why the article just has a brief summary of the history, with the {{main}} templates linking to History of Korea and History of South Korea for readers who want a more in-depth history. If you intend to merge those history articles into this, please discuss it at Talk:South Korea before making any drastic edits. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it is somewhat strange to divide South Korean history into 2 pieces cause of the matter of space, and what I don't understand is that the part before division of South Korean history is longer than the after division(since 1945) as you know, but it is too short obviously. Anyway, I left the part of After division because it can be South Korean history.

Why do you not answer and just undo it on South Korea page? South Korea is considered as a one country in international world, but just Korea is not considered for now. They can check Korean history but South Korea is South Korea which is more important. And, I said I changed before division part mainly. I don't think it is necesary to point them out dividing its history into before and after division.

>talk/_contribs 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to have an other pair of eyes review it, but since nobody seemed to care enough I've protected the page because it was going out of hand, but technically this was an edit war. He's wrong, but not wrong enough to allow that. I know this can be frustrating because that's borderline. The protection will last 12 hours, after that we'll see how it goes. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]