User talk:Djsasso

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Archive #1 - Entries archived from May 2008 through March 2009. Archive #2 - Entries archived from April 2009 through March 2010. Archive #3 - Entries archived from April 2010 through August 2011. Archive #4 - Entries archived from September 2011 through April 2012. Archive #5 - Entries archived from May 2012 through September 2013. Archive #6 - Entries archived from October 2013 through November 2016. Archive #7 - Entries archived from December 2016 through November 2018. Archive #8 - Entries archived from December 2018 through Current.

Your edits are flooding recent changes....

Seems that your flood flag has expired.... :)FR30799386 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Thanks. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

changing sports to sport on articles

For what particular reason is sports being changed to sport on location articles?

Angela Maureen (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I assume Angela is referring to renaming of categories from "Sports in" to "Sport in". I'd like to know what's going on here, too. Was that change discussed anywhere? I notice that enwiki uses "Sports in". --Auntof6 (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Enwiki uses "Sport in" (ie en:Category:Sport in Europe by country). The only one that doesn't appears to the the US category which I am guessing just hasn't been noticed or fixed likely because of the number of categories. Sports in is improper grammar because we are talking about sport as an overall topic not individual sports. I have been intending to fix it forever but it was so many categories to fix. -DJSasso (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Enwiki uses "Sports in" for the United States, probably because that's the terminology in the US. In any case, this change should have been discussed, or at the very least announced in time for people to comment. I'm sure it would do no good to ask you to change them back until it can be discussed. I'm very disappointed by this unilateral action, just as I have been by some of the fallout from the template updates you do. Please don't continue this pattern with any other changes you have in mind: if you're making any change that's likely to cause disruption or surprise, let us know first! --Auntof6 (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Well its all well and good that you are disappointed by the template updates I do. Most of those are fixing fallout from the many many unilateral things you do without discussion and the best part is when you then get in the middle and mess up the cleanup from those updates which makes things harder and often are the reason for the fallout in the first place. A category name change shouldn't cause any disruption or surprise (in fact I see you do them all the time without discussion). You are just upset because I am moving categories you created. -DJSasso (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's beneath you. I have no idea whether I created any of the categories in question: I don't keep track of what categories I create. If you have a problem with things I do, then bring it up at the time. The subject at hand is the sports categories, which I admit I muddied by bringing up the template changes. Let's leave those aside here.

I agree that category name changes shouldn't cause disruption or surprise, but I may not mean that the same way you do. I mean that categories--especially whole sections of the category tree--that people are used to shouldn't be renamed with no notice. People are used to using "Sports in" for these categories: when the names change with no notice, that can cause disruption and surprise. How were we to know that you planned to do something you considered a fix when we had no idea anyone thought it was broken?--Auntof6 (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Please stop changing the US categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

See en:Sport#Nomenclature. Most, but not all, of the articles on enwiki relating to North America, the Caribbean and Central America use sports. The article on Asia as a whole also uses sports, but probably more individual-country articles from Asia use sport. In any event, certainly with respect to the US, sports is the standard usage even for the concept noun. Canadian English is more ambiguous, but the article on "Sport in Canada" was moved to "Sports in Canada" in late 2017; apparently, "sports" is now more common there. The rest? No real argument with "sport". StevenJ81 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah the US will get switched back. The categories for all the rest match the category names on en, which is to our benefit when people move articles over. Sport would be the common usage in Canada, but we always have the problem of being split between the UK usage and US usage for most stuff so people argue back and forth about the various differences. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. With respect to Canada, the article "Sports in Canada" is in the categories "Sport in Canada", "List of sports teams in Canada", and "Sports venues in Canada". Confusing. If we have those other categories, then by your own reasoning, keep the names consistent with how they appear in enwiki. And this might be a rare example of where a redirect in Category space can be useful, though it would have to be checked and cleared periodically.
Anyway, best to announce you're doing something of this magnitude before pulling the trigger next time. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really, I still maintain this was/is a minor change. As for those other categories, yes it can be confusing but when talking about teams and venues it becomes plural because it is referring to teams from multiple individual sports and not the overarching concept of sport. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

about linking to un-simple words

Wouldn't it be better to replace them with simpler ones, like in the mainspace? Computer Fizz (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There isn't always a simpler word that conveys the same meaning, we do the same thing in mainspace. -DJSasso (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "no sources" tag

Hello. Can I ask why you have been removing the "no sources" templates I left on a few articles? These articles still do not have sources. Among other things, the maintenance tag adds the articles to a category. This is very helpful in working through which articles to add sources to. In this case I was thinking of looking for sources myself later so was tagging them so they would appear in the category. Also the tag alerts the reader to the fact that there is no source, and that the information may be unreliable at present. Maybe I don't understand the process here. But over on EN wikipedia, removing the maintenance template would never be appropriate unless a source is added. Most likely we have a different standard here on simple. I'd love to learn about it if you have an explanation. Desertborn (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Because we aren't as mature a wiki as en.wiki the vast majority of our articles lack sources. As such articles here marked as stubs are generally assumed to be lacking things such as sources. This is so we don't end up with tags on all of our articles which in turn can be seen as more harmful to the wiki if all our articles end up with large tags at the tops of articles than the lack of references on the articles themselves. BLPs do sometimes get left with both tags but as far as I recall none of the articles were blps. That is not to say you can't tag them if you wish, its just that they may also end up being removed. This state of being has evolved due to editors coming over from en.wiki and mass tagging articles here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I should note I was coming back with sources as well, which have now been added. I had to step away from my desk before I added them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I was going to use the category as a sort of "to do list" but I can make a list in my userspace instead. Desertborn (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That is fine I can avoid removing yours, was just worried you might on the verge of spamming tags so wanted to catch it before it went too far. I don't remove them all that often, only when I happen to notice a bunch added in a row. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

What are modules?

You keep importing them and I've never seen them before. Nor are there any help information on them. Are they just like backend code or something? If so, why can everyone edit them? Computer Fizz (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

They are basically code written in a language called Lua. See en:Wikipedia:Lua. In this case I am just converting over Location maps from the old version which is no longer supported on en to the new lua version so that ours will continue to work. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

changing publisher and web to magazine and news on certain pages

Hey DJSasso: Why are you changing the words publisher and web to magazine and news on certain articles? Angela Maureen (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)