User talk:Psypherium

For your updates on Tasmanian localities. You may or not be aware of the recent change to accessing data:

Module:PopulationFromWikidata/doc

Module:PopulationFromWikidata

Hope that might be of interest to you.JarrahTree 03:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(note: I have modified the links in your comment to be more human readable, please feel free to revert it if you do not like this change.)

Hello @JarrahTree:, I thank you for the comment. I had noticed this, but I had not yet decided on the appropriate course of action for when the population is listed both in the infobox and in the article text (This causes citation [1] and [2] to be duplicates of each other).

Initially, I attempted to find a way to transclude the citation alone from the Wikidata value (causing [1] to have an "a" and "b" value), but I am as yet unable to ascertain a function which would allow this.

After some thought, I have come to the conclusion that in these cases, the article text population should be updated to match the Wikidata value and the reference removed (The infobox citation [1] is adequate alone).

For an example of my preferred method, see: Avoca, Tasmania.

For an example of what I would prefer to avoid, see refs [1] and [2] here: [1]

After some further thought, my overall conclusion is that if the article only includes population data, it might be better to use the module alone. If the article includes population data and other demographic information, the module and the template should both be used. The only minor issue that remains is that this causes duplicate citations ([1] and [2] instead of the preferred 1 "a" and "b").

Do you have any thoughts about this?

(edit: I have now updated the Template:Census 2021 AUS/doc to include a reference to Module:PopulationFromWikidata/doc, alongside a recommendation to use Module:PopulationFromWikidata instead of using the template when dealing only with a population number.

Psypherium^{talk page} 04:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per MOS:OVERLINK, countries should not normally be linked in an article, because a high number of links not relevant to the topic distracts readers. Sandstein 08:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Countries should not normally be linked in an article "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article". That article also has a lower amount of links in the lead than the example "good" article in MOS:OVERLINK, which I take to mean that the article is not currently overlinked. The first other example I found of a swiss referendum also had the country wikilinked. These factors contributed to my editing of the article.

If you disagree that is fine, I have no intention of further editing that article.

I hope that your days will be good :)

Psypherium^{talk page} 14:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:OVERLINK says, when referring to the article on "Supply and Demand":

"Do not link to the "United States", because that is an article on a very broad topic with no direct connection to supply and demand."

The country of Switzerland has a direct connection to the 2021 Swiss same-sex marriage referendum, and for this reason I believe that it should be wikilinked in the article.

Psypherium^{talk page} 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]