User talk:Hike395

Precious

hiking mountains

Thank you for quality articles around the Geology of the Rocky Mountains and Lake Sammamish State Park, for improving and fixing templates, for welcoming and advising users, for your contributions from 2003 saying "the best part of editing WP is when several editors cooperate to make a high-quality article", such as The Three Sisters, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! —hike395 (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1818 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much! — hike395 (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Koyaanisqatsi

Not sure I understand why you chose to undo my edits. The most recent threads were three years stale, and I deliberately chose one-click archiving as I feel it is a better fit for low-traffic talk pages and the previous auto archiving hadn't done a thing in nine years. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Beeblebrox! I was following the advice given at the Archiving help page, which says

It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers.

To me, the purpose of archiving is to reduce Talk pages down to a manageable size, not to eliminate discussions that are only four years old. I think it's important for editors to see what issues other editors have been grappling with, even if those issues are a few years old. I've seen old discussions flare back up after some years. If we entirely archive a Talk page and leave it empty, editors are not going to seek out the archive issues. To me, it's a matter of transparency and not hiding information.

Currently, Talk:Koyaanisqatsi currently only contains 3 threads and is only 2600 bytes long. I think that's easy to navigate. I thought about unarchiving more threads, but I could see why nine-year-old discussions could be considered obsolete. I thought having 3 threads might be a good compromise. What do you think? — hike395 (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the autoarchiving was only set up in 2020: one more thread would have triggered it. The parameters seem typical for a quiet Talk page. — hike395 (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

New template

Can you please make sure you don't remove the archived urls when introducing your newly created template into the articles? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Thanks for reminding me! For recent dates, there was simply a URL change, and so I don't think archive-url is necessary. But for older links, the content may have changed, so keeping an archive-url is important for those. — hike395 (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the "archived-url" to the template. What's going to happen to the articles that have been already edited (such as Arabs, where many archived urls have been removed)? Do you intend on going through them again? M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just going back to look at them now. It looks like the accessdate for the links in Arabs is in 2021, so the most recent version at the CIA should be fine. The template just wraps {{cite web}}, so we can add links to archive.org if we need them. — hike395 (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see any |archive-url= for links with |access-date= before 2021 and with |url-status=dead, so I think everything is fine. If I keep going, I'll make sure that I preserve archive links to older versions. It's very tedious: AWB doesn't help that much. — hike395 (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Unless you were also thinking of archive links where |url-status=live? Those aren't required for WP:V, but could help in the future. Let me know. — hike395 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The thing with their site is that they tend to change information from time (sometimes, even contradicting their previous articles), and when that happens, whatever the original link (source) was supposed to support ends up not being sourced any more. That's why I the archived-url is important to keep. M.Bitton (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I agree. There are annual archives of the World Factbook available at the CIA, going back more than 20 years. I'll have the template link to those, also, for verifiability. — hike395 (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Treeline

Good morning My professor (University of Basel, Switzerland) would be very happy to discuss the "tree line" with you. Please contact him at: ch.koerner@unibas.ch (he is not used to wikipedia, therefore, email would be better for him). Best, Hantzzz (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Mr Körner wrote me these words, he would be very glad if you could reply him :-) Thank you very much.

"Dear colleagues who care for this Wicki-page on treeline. I found the page only by chance and read it with great interest. I would love to come in contact with you, given the treeline concept underwent some development over that past two decades and the web page could profit from some edits. I am the author of ‘Alpine Treelines’ Springer, Basel, a book that was also translated into Chinese. I am happy to share a few recent works with you. You can find my profile under https://duw.unibas.ch/en/koerner" Hantzzz (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hantzzz: Please tell Professor Körner that I very much respect his work: I first cited his work at treeline back in 2010. We could engage in a private conversation, but it would be more in the Wiki style for Professor Körner to post comments/suggestions/criticisms at Talk:Treeline. There is no requirement for formatting, or even getting a Wikipedia account -- it would be wonderful to get his feedback, either positive or negative. Could you perhaps show Professor Körner how to post to a talk page? — hike395 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. Christian Körner would be really happy if you could contact him via email (ch.koerner@unibas.ch) 2A02:1210:32F4:5500:39E4:D402:2D0E:2940 (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleague at hike395... I am not familiar with these wicki routines and it would be easier for me to communicate per e-mail at

ch.koerner@unibas.ch

The description of the alpine treeline is a great improvement over much earlier attempts, but it still suffers from a few formal and conceptual shortcomings, and I found the literature somewhat outdated (I know, an always true statement).

Maybe you cannot change this because spell checkers did not get grips on the new terminology, but you would best use treeline and NOT tree line. The latter brings a lot of useless hits at searches. Just as the outdated timberline, we should all use treeline for coherence. Timberline refers to timber, and thus misguides users. Whether something is a 'tree' in biology is not related to its usfulness as timber. I discuss this in Alpine Treelines, Springer 2012 (with a Chinese translation). The line of the closed forest shoud be termed forest line (as suggested), and for the transition from forest line to the uppermost individual trees the term treeline ecotone has been suggested. I am discussing the problem of 'line' in alpine treelins. The ecotone may be wider or narrower for disturbance or normal forest dynamics reasons. All more formalistic issue.

Conceptually

Here the problems go deeper. Are we approaching this problem from a geographical or from a biological perspective? For a Geographer any forest edge on a mountain may be a treeline. A biologist would ask, is, what I see, the biological limit of the life form tree or have people cut the trees higher up, did a fire devast the forest (as in many places (e.g. Klimanjaro), or do we see the outcome of millennia of pastoralism? Also absence of soil like on Kinabalu does not permit trees to grow at the life form limit. Since we biologists always ask for theory and testable hypothesis the only thing that matters for us is tree biology and not human interference, fire, stochastic phenomena (not predictable). To make the story short: humans cannot shift the treeline, but they may cause the absence of trees from the treeline. I summarized this both in the Encyclopedia of Biomes (Elsevier) and in Trends Ecol Evol 2021. I think the endless dispute of what is a treeline and what not can only be resolved of a distinction is made between the upper edge of fundamentalniche of the life form tree and the edge of realized niche. With the first it is possible to predict climatic treeline positions across the globe at 78 m precisition (10 m in NZ), with that remaining error reflecting the limited climatic data for remote places (see Paulsen and Körner 2014, Alpine Botany). I am happy to provide pdfs on request to ch.koerner@unibas.ch. There are other issues such as the inappropriate use of the term tundra outside the Arctic or the inclusion of drought driven tree absence in the term treeline. With that idea we have subSaharan treelines and the term loses sense.Not all physiological tree limits are treelines. Drought is clearly not a common phenomenon of mountains. But locally, there are drought driven tree distribution limits. Notable the dier a mountain the higher the treeline up to a limit of 250 mm precip when trees cannot grow anywhere.

Causes for treeline

I stop here to see whether there is an interest to dive into this terrain. The explanation is related to tree architecture and aerodynamics, with trees reaching the biologically universal low T limit for plant growth, but they reach it at lower elevation than non-trees for physical reasons. So physiologically trees are not inferior to other life forms, but the upright growth sets a thermal limit. This is why krummholz does not represent a treeline but may be included in the ecotone term. All explained in Alpine Treelines (Springer) 2A02:1210:502E:5900:8876:70FC:FCF7:CBE3 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Problems with #invoke and an unnamed parameter

After seeing you use of {{#invoke:Template wrapper I have decided to use if for another wrapper project. However I have run into a problem and I am hoping that you can suggest a simple solution.

I have set up a simple template in User:PBS/test3 which contains:

One={{{1}}}

A={{{A}}}

B={{{B}}}

I have a wrapper template User:PBS/test4

{{#invoke:Template wrapper|wrap|_template=User:PBS/test3|_alias-map=
|A=This parameter is set in test 4
}}

And finally a test of the two template in User:PBS/test5. When I call test3 from test five it acts as I expect. However if I call test4 from test five it does not pass on the value in unnamed parameter 1=value Do you know if this a limitation with #invoke, or have I made a mistake? If it is a limitation do you know if there is there a common work around? -- PBS (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@PBS: In test4, you need to set |_include-positional=yes, see Module:Template_wrapper/doc#include-positional. — hike395 (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks it worked a treat. -- PBS (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

did you break a template?

It appears that something in your recent edit to {{Include-USGov}} broke it. See the articles that currently populate Category:CS1 errors: URL–wikilink conflict.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist: It was actually [1], but there is a simple fix, now implemented. — hike395 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

{{Include-USGov}} is now stricter about what it accepts as |agency=. All cases now fixed. — hike395 (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And now {{USGS}}. See Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored. You know, we have sandboxen, test cases, and the Show preview button for a reason. Please use them.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I did use them! I didn't anticipate this case, so there was no test coverage. — hike395 (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Those were not problems in the template, but problems in calling {{USGS}}. — hike395 (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

{{Include-USGov}} still broken? This from Bangkok:

{{Include-USGov |agency=Overseas Security Advisory Council |title=Thailand 2012 Crime and Safety Report: Bangkok|date=14 March 2012 |url=https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=12189 |website=Overseas Security Advisory Council website |publisher=Bureau of Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State|access-date=24 September 2012}}

 This article incorporates public domain material from "Thailand 2012 Crime and Safety Report: Bangkok". Overseas Security Advisory Council website. Bureau of Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State. 14 March 2012. Retrieved 24 September 2012.

and this from Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill:

{{Include-USGov|agency=United States Department of State|policy=https://2009-2017.state.gov/misc/87529.htm|author=Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor|year=2005|title=Russia|journal=International Religious Freedom Report|location=Washington, DC|publisher=Department of State|issn=1936-4156|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2005/51576.htm|access-date=2019-05-26}}

 This article incorporates public domain material from Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (2005). "Russia". International Religious Freedom Report. Washington, DC: Department of State. ISSN 1936-4156. Retrieved 2019-05-26.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed --- Thanks for reporting those to me. I was attempting to do something fancy with |work= and |publisher=, but it clearly was not robust against corner cases. I added all of your reported bugs as new test cases. Please let me know if you see anything else. — hike395 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:EPA content/doc?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks, easy fix (remove wlink from |agency=). Is there an existing template or module that strips wlinks from strings? — hike395 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

A found a couple of other calling templates and fixed those, also. — hike395 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Went through main namespace with AWB and stomped on all incorrect usage of |agency=. There should not be any other Title/URL conflicts. — hike395 (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Added {{delink}} to {{Cite USGov}} to avoid future errors of this sort. — hike395 (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vogelsang Pass

Hello! Your submission of Vogelsang Pass at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for updating the official name status for city and county pages across the US. I hope that AWB makes that task easier because that is a tough job to do for thousands of articles. Have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! I'll chip away at this task -- it might take a long time. — hike395 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Official name for U.S. settlements

This might not work in this situation but what happens if a temporary bot is made to fix this issue? Have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to fully automate (unless the consensus is to simply remove all |official_name= from U.S. settlements). For example, I left a use of the parameter in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. We might be able to automate all cases where |official_name=County of XXX or |official_name=City of YYY, which would be a large subset of all usage (in the U.S., at least). — hike395 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again but I found out that Template US State also uses |official_name=. Also, if you did wish to request a bot, it might only need a simple if then statement to run "If official_name says City/Town/Village of X, then delete." Thanks again for your help, have good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Added a short version to the TemplateData guidance at {{Infobox U.S. State}}. My AWB run looks for transclusions of {{Infobox settlement}}, so it will catch all upstream uses (as long as |official_name= does not change parameter name). I could do a special AWB subrun for states.

I'm a bit reluctant to reach for 100% automation, even on a subset, because there is no room for error. I want to try to understand the usage better with a manual AWB run (for a while) before making a recommendation. — hike395 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It's 100% your choice about automating the process or not. If you change your mind, I'd be happy to help with any concerns (Wikipedia:Bot requests would be the place to file the request). Thank you for fixing the U.S. State Template guidance as well. Have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@DiscoA340: I'm going to have to halt the AWB work, because someone has objected and the discussion is still open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Infobox redundancies. Hopefully we can come to consensus there. — hike395 (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for alerting me to this. Hopefully it can be sorted out. DiscoA340 (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey again,

I was wondering what your opinion is about the discussion so far. Quickly looking through the comments, it still seems there is a majority against using "City of X" wording for the infobox. Great idea for a compromise though but it seems the tide has turned against the official name. Thanks and have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@DiscoA340: Do you mean the newer discussion here? I can try to convince some of these editors, but it looks like it will be difficult. The proposed change to the infobox looks like it will fail. We may still be able to change the documentation, however. — hike395 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's up to you if you want to try to get the official documentation to include "City of X" or not. I may be wrong but the most current discussion seemed to be a last call for people who support using the official name to comment. Even when I added the RfC, none of these supporters showed up; so I think we can safely say that people are okay with the documentation for the three templates. When the RfC expires in a couple days, I believe you could start to remove the official name parameter again if you want to (Really the only other option is to start a discussion at Village Pump to find the true number of supporters but I doubt it would change the outcome of Template talk:Infobox settlement#Use of official name in Infobox Settlement). DiscoA340 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

A trifle for your troubles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't worry -- you didn't cause any problems at all! — hike395 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sierra Nevada lower montane forest

Hello, Hike395. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sierra Nevada lower montane forest, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Vogelsang Pass

On 19 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vogelsang Pass, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the view from Vogelsang Pass has been described as "one of the most stunning" in Yosemite National Park? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vogelsang Pass. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Vogelsang Pass), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox settlement

Thanks for your efforts to improve this template. I tried to make one change, but the article is locked. At "native name", it reads:"This will display under the name/official name." Could you change to "This will display below (or beneath??) the name/official name." This is because "under" can be misunderstood as meaning "within" (eg. file this under "top secret"). Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Good idea: I used the word "below". — hike395 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Documentation for Infobox classical composer

You kindly fixed the list of works in {{infobox classical composer}}, - do you think that the documentation also needs to be changed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Not sure where to change the documentation? The change was that |list_of_works= shows up as Works not Notable Works. The latter wasn't documented. — hike395 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, or would do it. I never use that template, - always infobox person. I thought that the parameter was now "works", not "list_of_works". Just asking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: No worries. The interface for that infobox remains unchanged. — hike395 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Hike395!

Happy New Year!

Hike395,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops Thanks so much, Moops! — hike395 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that I brightened someone's day in any way. I wish that brightening days en masse was not seen as a 'disruptive' behavior by some. :( — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Culture of Yorkshire

Hello, the change you made to the infobox on Culture of Yorkshire has lost the emblem image and just gives a link. Can you have a look at getting the image to show. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)