User talk:Trappist the monk

CS1This user is responsible for those .

Comments are welcome. If your comments are about my work on a particular article, please make
them at the article's talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.

---

Panzer Tracts and {cite book}

Hi, Thanks for sorting out the {{cite book}} issue at Panzer I at the Help Desk.

What is your thinking about the pagination scheme of the dreaded Panzer Tracts series? As far as I can tell, Jentz & Doyle use ordinary hyphen-minus on the front covers, e.g. Panzer Tracts 3-1, and in page numberings, e.g. 3-1-17. {{sfn|Jentz|Doyle|2006a|p=3-1-17}}

A slightly simpler way could be to leave out the volume number and just use the page number: {{sfn|Jentz|Doyle|2006a|p=17}}

I know that cite book automatically formats normal page ranges with an en-dash, which I normally try to insert anyway, but |pp=3-1-17–3-1-20 is very unwieldy. With too many hyphens I think it just gives up.

Perhaps |pp=3-1-17–20 , or |pp=3-1-17 to 20 is easier to comprehend at a glance, although not exactly approved.

Am I interpreting the behaviour of the template correctly? Do you have any specific preferences? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

References

• Jentz, Thomas L.; Doyle, H. L. (2006a). Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. A, B, C & D. Panzer Tracts 3-1. Boyds, MD: Panzer Tracts. ISBN 9780977164349.

MOS:RANGE applies so use a spaced en dash: {{harvnb|Jentz|Doyle|2006a|pp=3-1-17 – 3-1-20}} → Jentz & Doyle 2006a, pp. 3-1-17 – 3-1-20.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks very much. Best wishes, MinorProphet (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Module:Time

I want to know if you can consider dropping protection to extended confirmed since the module is only used about 2,000 times. This does not fall to the level of "high risk" that is needed to have the template protected at that level. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 22:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

done. rationale for template protection here (permalink).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, now it is possible to partial block in response to edit wars, so protecting in this manner is pointless now unless if there are a large number of people involved in the conflict. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 22:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra

Hello! I hope you can help me with a little problem since I just saw that you undid my edit on Reedy category. (I would have done it myself anyway after a while.) So far I simply wasn't able to link my new article for Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra on the dozens of articles that feature the book in their literature section, some of which written by myself. (Reedy category showed up first in the search list of such articles.) It seems both an article on Wikipedia and a link online are competing for the title and both just give an error. Is there some way to fix this? So far, I've not found a solution yet. Thank you for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

First the technical part. It is not possible to simultaneously link a single item (|title=Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra) to more than one target ([[Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra]] and |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/higher-categories-and-homotopical-algebra/C5509D2179302B3F3876A007815A2BBC#fndtn-information).

At Reedy category, you might move all that is currently in § Further reading to a new section § External links. Then move Cisinski, Berger & Moerdijk, and Campion to § Further reading because they are not used as sources in the body of the article. Above § References create a new section § See also to hold a link to Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra.

Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra has already been tagged with {{over-quotation}} so that needs attention. Further, the rest of the article appears to rely on a single source: the book's author. At en.wiki, we do not care about what a subject says or wants said about themself. We only care about what wholly unconnected people have published about the subject in reliable sources. So, your sourcing is in need much attention.

I know that this sounds a bit harsh, but fix it now before your article ends up at WP:AFD. You might want to consider moving to Draft namespace so that you can continue to work without worrying about WP:AFT.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk Thanks for your detailed answer! Putting it in the "See also" section really seems like a good option. (It's still odd though, that this technical problem even exists. On the german Wikipedia, the external link is always separated to avoid it.) I've also cleaned up Reedy category a bit now.

The over-quotation has already been dealt with, but I leave it to the person who added the template to remove it again or tell me to further reduce the quotation.

I'm still a bit confused about that "sourcing in need much attention". Although I see that it could be better, aren't four reviews by well-known mathematicians as listed on the website of the University of Cambridge enough? Because depending on how strict you mean "wholly unconnected people", that could be up to impossible since the only people who publish about such an advanced mathematical textbook are other mathematicians. I've now also added external links to nLab and another review. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk Update to the last part: I was now informed that the problem is that the quotes are purely promotional blurbs. In that case, I support a removal. But for one of the quotes, I have found the review it came from. Would it be okay to go through it and compile something for the review section that leaves out the part used for promotional purposes on the publisher's website? Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really the person to be answering that question; I spend most of my en.wiki life gnoming citations. I have been here long enough to know that citing the book that is the subject of the en.wiki article is more-or-less a non-starter here so that is why I mentioned that. Perhaps you can consult with editors at WT:WPMATH or other suitable wikiproject about how to improve Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra and Denis-Charles Cisinski. Those editors are best qualified to know how to make improvements.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)