User talk:Tony1/Archive 3

De-linking script

I appreciate your date formatting, but in this case your script was formatting the title of a reference. Can you modify your script to ignore everything within <ref> or {{cite}} tags? Plasticup ^T/C 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this, and find no ill effect from the reformatting of international to the proper US format. Am I missing something? Tony (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What you're missing is:

1. Your edit changed the title of the reference. If someone were to do a google search for the revised title, they wouldn't find it.
2. There is no such thing as proper US format. A hodgepodge of formats is used. I am an American and I use the ISO 8601 format most of the time. The US government is trying to standardize on "dd month year", which is what is used in this ref's title.

In any case, the questioned edit has been reverted, twice in fact by two different editors. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your date audit

Hello. I just wanted to point out to you that the script you are using is breaking links. In one case to an image that was later removed as a redlink. It's the very first line in the wikitext of the article, so it's not like it was buried in the middle somewhere even. Please be more conscientious while you're doing this, remember it's not a race. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks for pointing this out. Yes, it's a rare example of a cyclone article that uses international dates (although that was inconsistent). Tony (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but to be on the safe side you may want to consider changing the script to ignore items inside of a link that are more than a date only- breaking links is a bad thing. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 10:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd love this to be the case, but until we find someone who can advise on how to add this functionality, I have to rely on careful scrutiny; clearly not careful enough in this case. Tony (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

When I need help in that kind of thing, I ask at WP:VPT. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 10:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have asked at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Getting_monobook_script_to_avoid_image_links. I really would like to fix this. Lightmouse (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of this comes from using a piece of my code designed mainly for making linked dates consistent. To use that for other dates, they were linked, made consistent, then unlinked. Ultimately you'll have to design some new regexes. Gimmetrow 19:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Tony, my recent tussle at MOSDATE wasn't what I expected. I found the "reasons" presented rather weak and embarrassing. I was hoping to make them clearer while getting the talk page rhetoric toned down. I'm not sure the end state is an improvement. Gimmetrow 19:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, take a look at that village pump link. It is looking positive. Lightmouse (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you only reformat and delink already-linked dates, you would avoid almost all improper changes of dates in image links and titles. That would, of course, miss making unlinked dates in the prose consistent. Is that tradeoff worthwhile? Gimmetrow 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, this is an excellent idea. I wonder whether there could be a set of two buttons (US and international) for linked only and for linked and non-linked dates. That way, one could play safe, but have the option where there's a mess of both linked and unlinked of using the current all-encompassing function while taking extra care. Is this feasible? Tony (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite, I have asked myself the same question. My AWB script only looks at linked dates, the monobook script goes beyond that to unlinked dates. Perhaps it is time to change the monobook code so that it does not audit unlinked dates, or has it as a separate option. What do you think, Tony? Lightmouse (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Spooky! An edit at the same time! Please add it to my wishlist and I will work on it. Lightmouse (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's simply a matter of making the reformat and unlink functions available separate from the combo - they were not really designed as a package anyway. Gimmetrow 15:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have split the functions. The function 'Delink dates to dmy/mdy' only applies to linked dates. The function 'Full audit to dmy/mdy' will check unlinked dates too. Please test it. Lightmouse (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out another case where the auto formatting messed up the link of an image. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks indeed for this, Hurricanehink. Lightmouse asked me to test the latest fix, and clearly it needs to account for what I take to be a "Commons" location string. I've reported it here. Tony (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the follow-up. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/NBA All-Rookie Team

Hi, could you review this FLC again as all your comments have been resolved? Thanks—Chris! _ct 18:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Glossaries

My view of this matter is that McCandlish and Skyring are really doing much the same thing: both are coing up with elaborate rules, by which they want the Manual of Style to tell everybody to use the styles they like and are used to, whether the styles are natural to the editor (and the reader) or not. The potential difference between them is that, if the semantic web actually existed, McCandlish's Most Important Thing would be quite useful, whereas the difference between 13 August and August 13 will be purely conventional for the rest of time.

But the semantic web is vapourware, and it may always be; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is partly because his text very badly needs simple editing. I have more or less followed McCandlish's text, except for substituting may for should, and I've already removed about 60% of what I've covered as repetitious, or unnecessary (for example, the command to always alphabetize; why do we need to say that?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking in auto-formatted citations

Is there a way to keep auto-formatted citations from creating date-links in the ref sections? NJGW (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• The above request is a result of a discussion here, and whether some editors should force the use of citation templates. BTW, thanks for your help in looking at the various articles I have nominated for FA. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I believe there's a way for some citation templates, but not all; something to do with separating the month and the year access fields (I'm a computer dummy). This situation will inevitably change when the community becomes more used to seeing normal dates and demands greater flexibility in their citation templates. Um ... I suggest you ask the extremely clever User:Gimmetrow. Tony (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tony

		Thank You!
		for your assistance in helping Virus to become a Featured Article today. It's much appreciated, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 13:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, Graham; I'm very pleased! Tony (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP delinking dates

Congratulations on being one of the most destuctrive forces on Wikipedia. Your campaign to delink dates ensures that scores of children won't be at all concerned about history.Ryoung122 08:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Think of the children, Tony!!! --Closedmouth (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Scores of children? That's OK. I'd be worried about hundreds, though. Tony (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I think I've come around to your point that wikilinking dates may not be a good idea, but I'm afraid I have difficulty supporting the point that they are never a good idea. Would you please point me at the discussion that authorizes Lighbot (and others?) to automatically delink dates in articles. From my reading of all the discussion and, in particular, the definition of the word deprecate, linking of dates is still allowed, although it is discouraged. The concerted effort to delink dates in existing articles may be considered as overstepping bounds, implicitly treating wikilinked dates as prohibited rather than deprecated. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Deprecated" means "disapproved of". I don't know what more you need to perform a human-supervised semi-automated service to editors, sparing them the manual labour of removing the square brackets. BTW, in this section, we seem to be getting mixed up about date autoformatting and year-linking, which are two quite different functions. Tony (talk)

I am assuming there is a specific discussion somewhere that asks the question "Should we delink dates in existing articles?" with the result of that discussion being consensus for "Yes". There is nothing in policy or guidelines that says linked dates are not allowed and/or that linked dates are being removed. The Deprecation article specifically states that "deprecated features remain in the current version". What I am asking is for you to point me to that discussion so that I can explain to the various editors why dates are being delinked. That's all. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated means we prefer not to use it. Maybe the computing analogy is inexact, but the feature "does" remain in the current version, i.e. there are linked dates all over the place and they still do what they always did. The point is that we as a community have decided, on the basis of very strong arguments, that we would rather be without them. Therefore any action to remove the links is in line with guidelines and consensus, and should (unless there are specific circumstances in a specific article) be supported. We don't deevlop guidelines just for the sake of it, but for the purpose of implementing them. Meanwhile no-one's being punished for using linked dates (though IMO continuously re-inserting them deliberately out of pique ought to be classed as disruptive).--Kotniski (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to get a simple reference so that when editors ask me "why are dates being delinked?", I can answer them by referring them to a Wiki page? When I refer them to the discussions at MOSNUM, User talk:Lightmouse etc., they understand why they should no longer link dates, but they don't understand why existing dates are being delinked. Those are two separate topics. Truthanado (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To me they are exactly the same topic. If we decide (as we have done) that WP articles are better without linked dates (except in exceptional circumstances), then we both refrain from making more linked dates, and remove such links as exist. It would be patently absurd to say that linked dates that existed prior to a certain date are desirable while those added later are undesirable.--Kotniski (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think Kotniski has adequately answered your question. Who are these inquiring editors, and why haven't I heard from them? Please link me to some of these queries. Tony (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Present-day

If you can think of a substitute, please do. But articles on the (American) Civil War and the Korean War don't seem to use 23 September; I believe the military adopted the European style more recently than that. If military history articles don't actually use it, there shouldn't be that much trouble; and I'd rather not encourage a certain editor to go Date Warring on Battle of Gettysburg. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM re. non-English speaking countries

Hey Tony. The inclusion of non-English speaking countries dating convention keeps creeping back into the discussion at MOSNUM talk. To me, this is a moot issue because of it's sound rejection over the last three weeks of polling and discussion. Pete keeps trying to bring it back into discussion and from what I can tell, he's the only editor wishing to do so. I have answered this move in the talk and tried to put it as straight forward as I can, referencing the fact that this is English Wikipedia and the MoS is for this WIkipedia, as I'm sure all the other Wikipedia's have their own MoS, and are not trying to force ours upon their editors; therefore, we should not be forcing theirs upon ours. My question to you is, how can this be put to rest in order to move on? I'm asking you because I perceive you have dealt with such issues in the past, and perhaps successfully. My perception at the moment concerning this issue has evolved to that of dealing with a troll, looking for attention, and each time I reply I feed it. I'm not saying that Pete is a troll, it's having to respond to the same point over and over which seems to have the trollish flavor. Thanks for any suggestions you may have.--«JavierMC»|Talk 15:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't much care which way it's resolved, as long as it's rational, i.e., doesn't involved disallowing US dates in articles not related to an anglophone country. I'm fed up with Pete Skyring's one-person campaign. I don't know what to do. Tony (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll stop responding and let someone else debate the issue. Cheers.--«JavierMC»|Talk 12:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking

Could you please look over your edits before you let the bot do its work? In this edit. January 29–February 4, 1990 was changed to January February 29-4 1990. --Maitch (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maitch. This resulted from the inconsistent linking/non-linking of the two items in a date range, which was an existing mistake. I've reported this to Lightmouse. Tony (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking dates (and other things) in articles I've worked on

Not that I own the articles in question, but since I took quite a few through FAC, and since I'm aware you've come under some fire for mass delinking, I thought I'd just say I'm very glad to see your name pop up on my watchlist, delinking dates in my FAs. I certainly didn't want to have to do it myself! Thanks for doing a frequently thankless job. Mike Christie (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FLC

I see no discernable improvement in quality there over recent months, so I'm wondering/hoping you'll begin to invest your time and effort again at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If FL is full of poor quality articles, all the more reason for someone like Tony to spend his time there. We should be striving to improve all of Wikipedia, not just one area. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, since I haven't retired from RL work, I can't devote myself to raising WP's standards more than a 10th of what I'd like to. I'll try to give more time to FAC now that the campaign to rid WP of the cancer of date autoformatting and low-value linking appears to have taken off irreversibly. But my strategy will remain to have a large footprint / time ratio; inevitably, this means keeping nominators on their toes and encouraging some reviewers to be stricter in their analyses of prose, by providing intermittent examples. Heck, when I read that it looks boastful, but you know I hate that kind of behaviour; in fact, it keeps me on my toes more than anyone else, which is helpful for my career during my low-activity periods. Tony (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I know your strategy; my point is that the footprint is being lost at FAC, and might not be having any effect at FLC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Plasticbot

Do you know this person? Look what it did to our perfectly correct, delinked dates in citations !! [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you pressed the red button? Tony (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured out it was Plasticup and talked to him. Another one of those wacky citation templates issues; people try to fix them without understanding how deep the issues go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've stopped the bot for now. Some of its processes are still sound, but it will take me a little while to work through the code and axe these type of changes. IMO the problem is in the citation templates, not in my bot. But that's a whole other issue. Plasticup ^T/C 03:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree (you're trying to do the right thing, but there are underlying issues on Citation templates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosdate RFD you'll be interested in

Somebody's RFD'd the redirects MOS:UNLINKDATES and MOS:UNLINKYEARS. Thought you might be interested. NJGW (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm aware of this bizarre little exercise, and will comment in due course. It appears to be all about I don't like it on the part of editors who are suspicious of any systemic change on a wiki. The logical extension of their argument, at MOSNUM talk, is that all style and policy pages would have to double-up each piece of guidance with a statement to the effect "yes, you're allowed to do it". Dotty. Tony (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers muchly --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, you are very welcome! Please let me know if there are any other article you'd like date-audited. Tony (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Script

Hi Tony. The script you are using to denude all date links from Wikipedia has a fault - see [2], where it converted "July 13–July 15" to "July July 13-15". fish&karate 13:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this feedback. Lightmouse is busy trying to debug something from the script, and clearly what was safe is now not. (Actually, I think he's already fixed it.) Will report it to him immediately; we rely on such messages. Tony (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this edit had the same problem. I suppose that the script has been fixed now, but wanted to let you know — you might want to check any other script-aided edits from around that time to see if there are any other articles that got inadvertently messed up by the script error. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Friday

original message

Hi Tony, please see the talk page (section "Link to Friday"), which I think is the best place to discuss this, since this is a very article-specific question. In terms of the general issue, selective linking, I'm totally with you. — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved your edit to Friday [3] to the Talk:Sunday Times Golden Globe Race, since I assume that was your intention. I will note though, that the link had already been directed to the superstition section, so I'm not sure why you wrote that part. Second, I have serious misgivings about your delinking of the countries in that article. What is the point of that. I don't think the guideline you cite supports that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons (album)

Could you please explain this edit? I'm not seeing it. Full dates should be linked, especially when they are so relevant to the article, surely? J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. Tony (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine; I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the MoS. So, should I no longer link full dates? J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

True. Thanks for your inquiry. Tony (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Lately, I've been doing all the cleaning up, editing and wikilinking of every Dispatch. Would you be interested in working on Wikipedia:FCDW/TempME? It's due up next, it's much too long, needs wikilinking and consistency cleanup, and there is some advocacy in there that isn't appropriate for a Signpost news article (the Signpost has to stay very neutral, not advocate guideline or policy changes). Since I have been in recent conflict with the interviewee over his promotion of an IRC channel for featured content, I don't feel comfortable doing the usual cleanup I do on every other Dispatch. It's also going to need a front-end, like on the other interviews (see Rick Block and Ruhrfisch). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have time, any prose work or other input on Wikipedia:FCDW/September 22, 2008 would also be appreciated. My prose is terrible and no one has yet been available to copyedit. If I remember correctly, you'd expressed interest in a non-free image Dispatch at WP:FCDW a while back, so perhaps this will be up your alley. Эlcobbola _talk 19:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony, that would also be helpful; I didn't ask you first because we thought Awadewit was going to get to it, but she's put a user template saying she's ill. It should publish at any moment if you have time to look at it. Trying to keep up with the Dispatches myself is quite a drain; others periodically offer to help, but no one does so consistently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [4]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting MOSNUM

Tony, "Scolaire, just blurting out that "dates are linked" at talk will convince no one. Please don't be disruptive" is not acceptable language in an edit summary. Anybody who wants to defend the wording of a sentence should have the curtesy to discuss it in an NPA way on the talk page, not throw snide comments in edit summaries while edit-warring. I am up to three reverts now so I am withdrawing from the discussion altogether, but I think the unthinking unlinkers have behaved very poorly today. I've posted this on WT:MOSNUM too. Scolaire (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, I'm sorry if you were offended, and want you to know that my intention was anything but to cause offence. There was nothing snide or discourteous about my edit summary: it had to be said. You've been reverting one of our most experienced and respected editors (at MOSNUM, MoS and elsewhere) in Kotniski; you reverted me, I think, and you reverted Waltham, who's been around MOSNUM for quite a while and is well acquainted with the issue and with the etiquette of consensus, discussion and be bold. The delinking of DA (and a much older issue, of years, days of the week, decades, centuries, etc) has overwhelming consensus. Take a look at that RfC on me that backfired for Sapphic and UC_Bill, who launched it a few weeks ago and have chosen to re-open it against the better judgement of the admin who closed it. 28 to 4 or 5? Out there, the ratio is yet greater. I can provide links to a selection of enthusiastic supportive comments on removal if you wish. We find that you're pursuing a legalistic argument that doesn't hold water, and the disruption at MOSNUM is unwelcome.

In the meantime, I'm happy to discuss the matter, here or elsewhere, even though it seems like yet another re-run of the same rigmarole that we've been through umpteen times. The most important thing is that ill-will be minimised, so I'm sorry if you were put off. Tony (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to think I was being legalistic - that is something I can't stand! My own involvement in this discussion began when I came to the page because I was trying to bring an article up to GA and I wanted to know what the current position on date-linking was. I found a single sentence that effectively said "dates are not linked, except when they are." Others had already begun the discussion on that sentence so I joined in, hoping to get a bit of clarity. Now the sentence has been edited to say "dates should not be linked, except under certain circumstances, but we're unable to tell you what they are." After kicking the matter back and forth for a while I came up with a wording that I thought provided clarity: "Dates are linked when the link is useful for providing a context to the sentence in the article", which to me is self-evident because that's the rationale for linking anything, "but the great majority of dates should not be linked", which is the message that everybody tells me they're trying to get across. Now, I've never come across any of these editors before, so I didn't know experienced or respected they were, but only Kotniski bothered to respond to me on the talk page at all, and nobody has said why my alternative wording is wrong, or not better than the previous one, or not less ambiguous. I may not be as experienced as all of you, but I do know that the D of BRD stands for discuss. You can respond to me (I'm a he, by the way) here on the issue of my attitude and behaviour, but please respond at MOSNUM on the merits of my edit. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

PS Could you give me a link to "that RfC on me that backfired for Sapphic and UC_Bill"? I'd very much like to look at it and see if it clarifies anything for me. Scolaire (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to date fragments, such as solitary years, yes? I get confused sometimes when date autoformatting may be at issue. I have to turn in now—it's 01:30, but will return tomorrow morning if possible. Tony (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC) [e.c.] Here it is. For what it's worth, you may be interested in perusing this page, especially the link at "Community attitudes". Please let me know what you think. Tony (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I am referring to all dates. That dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting has been agreed, and I'm cool with that; that editors are doing mass unlinking as a result of that consensus is a fact, and I've no problem with that; but that dates should not be linked, period - I can't see any agreement on that, indeed I see a great deal of disagreement. I have a POV on that but my concerns with that one sentence have nothing whatever to do with that POV. I only want a Manual of Style that an editor can read and know what it means. To say "you may not do something unless it fulfils a criterion and we're not going to tell you what the criterion is" is not fair and, furthermore, it doesn't reflect the current position. Now look what I've done - I've broken my own rule and discussed content on a user talk page ;-) Scolaire (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, thanks for all the the discussion! I'm so glad I didn't walk away! I've unwatched your page and MOSNUM now so you can continue your private little squabble in peace, and leave that deliberately confusing sentence in the MOS. My article has just had its "particularly reasonable" dates unlinked, so I guess I have my answer anyway. Actions speak louder than words, and I won't be recommending anybody to RTFM after this. Scolaire (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

major depressive disorder

Tony, I have been working on an article with more gravitas now - major depressive disorder. Big sticking point at the moment is size, as it stands at 58 kb prose, about 8 kb over the accepted maximum for FAC (we're still working on the copyediting but that won't get rid of 8 kb I suspect). Normally wouldn't ask for input but thought you may be interested given some off-WP work with mutual colleagues. Thus, in essence, what would be the next thing to cull or abbreviate, or Paul Gene is suggesting to ignore rules sizewise as we have already placed a stack of material into daughter articles. Input on any other potential glaring issues most welcome. Need to sleep and shake off cold. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Harry Potter FAC

Hi there,

Per your comment on the Harry Potter FAC, I've completed all of them except for this:

"English language versions"—hyphen required, esp. in BrEng. - I don't understand what needs to be done, can you elaborate?

Thanks, The Helpful One ^Review 16:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I got User:Juliancolton to copy edit the article for me, please see the FAC, and leave any comments there :) The Helpful One ^Review 19:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Arizona Diamondbacks seasons

I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Arizona Diamondbacks seasons. When you have the time, could you check and see if your issues have been resolved? Thanks! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bling bling

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For fixing the MoS faults on what seems like every article on my watchlist. Good job. — Realist2 14:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist, you are most welcome! Tony (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to thank you too, but I saw the barnstar and I just want to say that it is well deserved. Everyday your name pops up on my watchlist, and it is good to see the removal of unnecessary links. While I'm here, could you maybe use the script to update: Veronica Mars? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started a list here where editors can request semi-automatic removal of date autoformatting. Tony (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Discrepencies with list guidelines

Hi, Tony. I've begun a thread at WP:FLC#completely contradicting guidelines for lists. Let's begin with the Lead section regarding all the inconsistencies the style guidelines have wrt lists. I know it's a big ask, and this of course is all dependent on how interested people are in changing it, but I was hoping that if real life isn't too stressful at the moment, you might be willing to help address some of the problems, as you did earlier in the year with the overhauling of the FLC criteria? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks fixed for the moment. Tony (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully! I'd still like to see if we can get all the list related page in sync with each other on everything else though Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

New service

I've started a list here where editors can request semi-automatic removal of date autoformatting for an article or set of articles. Tony (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

List guidelines

Re [5]:

• Please try to spell my name correctly, second time I'm asking (compare Wikipedia talk:Lists#avoiding the verbatim repetition of list titles in the opening sentence).
• "I'll need back-up there, please" sounds like forum shopping to me.
• "And guess who's lurking there to revert it (10 days ago)—our old friend of progress, Francis S[c]honken. [...] Francis S[c]honken has serious ownership issues with several style and policy pages, and has a long track-record of reverting any change for the better." is incivil at best, but closer to a personal attack by the looks of it: either way I'm asking you to remove such inflammatory language, that lacks any serious ground. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't true, I'd remove it. You need to take a hard look at your behaviour. Tony (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Question re refs

Hi :) I am looking to build National Party of Western Australia towards FA, and am a bit confused by a seemingly silent point on WP:REF. After some consideration this morning I decided to abstract the main book and journal article references to a list, but keep the one-off references in the "notes" section. Is this mixing of styles correct practice from an FAC point of view or do I need to figure out a different way of doing it? (I figured asking the question now while there's only a dozen of them is probably better than waiting till I have over 100. :)) Orderinchaos 00:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OiC, I'm no expert on refs. Have you read this interesting section at MOS talk? User:Ealdgyth may be a good person to ask. Tony (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Extreme points of India FL

Hi Tony, Extreme points of India has made the FL cut. How do you want to proceed for Australia? Do you want to use the same format? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nick, that sounds excellent! Tony (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll work on it next week. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the WikiProject Australia people would be interested to see it take shape, so when you're doing it, I'll post a note there. Tony (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A note

Redacted. Unnecessary. I was upset. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Who, what, where, when? Clearly, I've upset you, but nothing in your post directs me to where. I place considerable value on your inputs, so whatever I've said must have accidentally offended you. Link? Tony (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And I responded to Ottava that I have no idea why he's upset at my reminding Raul that there's a six-week-old FAC nomination waiting for his attention. Tony (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Joel Selwood

Hi there,

I noticed you made a minor edit to the Joel Selwood article. Given your exposure to a range of FA's, would you mind performing a quick peer review? The previous one undertaken for this article recommended getting the prose slightly tweaked to get it to FA standard before I apply for its FA status. Cheers Boomtish (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Louvre at FAC in May

Hi Tony, in May you opposed the FAC nomination of the Louvre (although you did note in the edit summary it "could be saved"). I've updated the article and gone through your exercises (although I will never be a great copy editor, those helped me). I've consulted other editors and have put the article up for another peer review. I am approaching you because of your oppose, and to see if you feel that the article is on the right track. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure if Tony would agree, but I think the article still needs work. Here's what I would do to the opening paragraph:

The Louvre Museum (French: Musée du Louvre) is located in Paris, France and is the world's most visited art museum. It is a historic monument, a national museum of France, and a central landmark—located on the Right Bank of the Seine river in the neighbourhood of the 1st arrondissement. Nearly 35,000 works, spanning from the 6th century BCE to the 19th century CE, are exhibited over an area of 6,000 hectares (15,000 acres).

You will also need more references (especially for claims such as "the world's most visited art museum"). I'm happy to help where I can—it should be a FA.  HWV 258  04:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with the overlinking. Tony (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of links, but it is the sort of article that attracts links (addressing so many people, places, genres, etc). Saying that, many links could disappear (e.g. why are "Paris", "Right Bank", and "1st arrondissement" linked in the first paragraph as well as the last; and linking "world war" everywhere?).  HWV 258  04:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, selective linking is increasingly the way to go, now that wikis are maturing. Otherwise, you dilute the high-value links. Templates in running prose are usually more trouble than they're worth, and disgusting when they force bright-blue splotches needlessly. You don't need the first "France", since "French" is already there, and so is "France" a sentence later. "Neighbourhood", again, is repetitive and needs to be framed as parenthetical. Hard-spaces shouldn't be used to connect normal numbers and things. Would sq km (and mi) be easier to visualise than ha (acres)?

The Louvre Museum (French: Musée du Louvre) is located in Paris and is the world's most visited art museum. It is a historic monument, a national museum of France, and a central landmark—located on the Right Bank of the Seine river in the 1st arrondissement (neighbourhood). Nearly 35,000 works from the 6th century BCE to the 19th century CE are exhibited over an area of 6,000 hectares (15,000 acres).

Tony (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the "heaven's" or the "sake", but with the rest, I agree.  HWV 258  04:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for taking a look guys. I'm not too current on where the wikilinking trend is, but I do agree that less linking is more pleasing aesthetically. I was worried about having redundant citations in the lead, hence the lack of inline references there. The claims are sourced in the body, though I do see your point as "most visited" is rather bold. Square kilometres may be easier to visualise, I'm not quite sure why I chose hectares. Thank you for looking, and any more advice is welcome. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with a citation-free lead, except where you're hitting the readers with highly unusual or contentious statements, and as long as the claim is referenced further down. Remember the big picture of what the lead is supposed to do. For heaven's sake—yes, I agree that was on the edge! Tony (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the uncited lead, unless the statements are unusual, because the citations have an effect on readability. In this case I am unsure, but I do not feel that Louvre=most visited is unreasonable. If one were to ask someone what the world's most visited museum was, I would wager that most would guess the Louvre, the British Museum, or the Metropolitan. Also, the removal of extra wiki-links has the advantage of lowering the total file size (an issue with this article). Lazulilasher (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Date audit, script-assisted; see mosnum | Delink common terms. See: wp:overlink

Unfortunatly some of these are deliberate such as links in Info boxes and image captions, so I and other users will now have to replace these which may in some cases be impractical without undoing all you edits. Please don't remove these if using the script in future --Nate1481 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide examples of such "deliberate" links. I don't understand why being in an infobox makes any difference. Tony (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FLC request

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Brazilian states by Human Development Index. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've switched to "Strong oppose". Tony (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Eckhart

Hey Tony, listen, I received suggestions by User:Anne Teedham and she has given a better re-write to the lead. I was wondering if its well, like you stated in the FAC, about having another user editing the article. I am not sure if she will help me out with the prose, but, do you recommend anyone who can scrutinize the rest of Eckhart's article? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne Airport FAC

Hi Tony. YellowMonkey has done what I think is a brilliant job copyediting Melbourne Airport. What are your thoughts on the article now? Mvjs (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flocke

Hi, Tony, thanks for your comments at Flocke's FAC. I made some additional changes to the prose, making sure to pick out any redundancies and/or unnecessary wordiness. I would appreciate it if you revisited the article and the FAC with any further suggestions/comments regarding the prose. Specific examples would help greatly, or simply let me know if I should contact someone for a full copy-edit. I hope it won't come to that, though. :) Thanks again! María (habla conmigo) 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Farthest South

Mind revisiting Brianboulton's FAC, where you had raised some prose concerns? I have since copyedited the article. Maralia (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominators should not support their own nominations: Proposal

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates#Nominators_should_not_support_their_own_nominations:_Proposal. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to restart this process again, see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates#Nomination_procedure:_Proposal. Best. --Kleinzach 01:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

Although I agree that there are many superfluous links that can be removed from articles, I think the last part of this edit looks slightly strange. Why link some countries but not others? Just curious. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this does look inconsistent in one way, but is bound to occur normally where some items in a list have already been linked on their first occurrence above in the text. No reader of the English WP should need to consult an article on an anglophone country, in all but the rarest of circumstances. Personally, I'd not link any country names but those of the most obscure places. But if you wish, I'll go back and re-link them all. I'm going to ask that the script be changed so that there are two levels of "delink common terms"; that might minimise this problem. Thanks for your comments. Tony (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary to re-link them - I'll leave it as is for now. When I eventually get around to pushing the article towards FA, I'll bring it up in the peer review and hopefully get a consensus on what level of linking is sensible. Thanks for the explanation though. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking dates in citation templates

It should not be too hard to go through the templates at WP:CIT and remove the auto-wikilinking of dates when the date is inputted in the 2008-10-02 format. Is there consensus for this type of step, has it been discussed somewhere/brought up before? Cirt (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure people would welcome it. Please go ahead. Tony (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hrm okay, I'll have to see about figuring out how to do the de-linking in those templates myself or if I will need help of have someone else do it. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I meant the WP:CIT templates, not infobox templates. Like for example {{cite news}}. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I know. My comment was by analogy. Tony (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing autolinking of ISO dates in citation templates will make it harder to spot date format inconsistencies within references (it's awfully common to see dmy/mdy publication dates, but accessdates in ISO). It's a nitpicky thing, and absolutely not a reason to hold back, but...it's late, and I'm grouchy. Grumble. Maralia (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dates and Indonesia articles...

Hi Tony

I saw your edits to the Suharto article. Would you be kind enough to contribute to a discussion I’ve opened at the Indonesia Project page? Here. I’d like to establish a convention for dates, and I suggest international style (ie, “3 October 2008”). Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Old discussion (links in quotes)

I added something to an old discussion. See here. Notifying you as you were the last person to comment there. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Dahl

In your recent changes, why did you un-link English (as the type of teacher his wife was) but leave drama linked in the same sentence? --DAW0001 (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

readiness for FAC

I'm about to nominate antbird as a Featured Article, but I was wondering if you could quickly check it to make sure the prose is reasonable enough to get through. A number of editors have pored over the article making and suggesting prose changes and clarity issues, so I think it is there, but my forte is content so I'd appreciate a quick opinion. Ta! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. [Just letting you know what I'm posting on talk pages, Tony; I want to make sure people who have recently fought for some point or another at WT:CONTEXT don't suddenly tune in one day to a deleted page and feel left out.] P.S. not watchlisting; don't wanna break my computer. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The delinking you just did at Robot was great, btw. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, Dan. Yeah, it's easier to read now, and those good links are more obvious. Pleased to be of service. Tony (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

date/overlink

How do you do these 2 things in the same edit? Cirt (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the explanation, I shall try that sometime. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

When should dates be wikilinked?

If the answer is never, shouldn't the delinking be done by a bot? Plasticup ^T/C 04:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "as opposed to a (human-supervised) script? If so, the problem is that removing DA really requires decisions a bot con't make; the main ones are whether the format was correctly chosen (i.e., international for NASA—clearly not). Inconsistencies within an article are a major problem, and a bot can't fix these—it just removes square brackets and leaves the raw format there. This is why DA removal by script is really a wider audit of what our readers have been seeing. Tony (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

But those seem like two separate functions. One is removing the autoformatting, and one is putting day/month into the correct arrangement. Surely the former can be completed by a bot without harming the article, as most readers have been seeing the dates in this arrangement anyway. The arrangement (International/American/etc) could still be carried out separately. Plasticup ^T/C 04:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That is true. My sense of thoroughness has pointed me towards doing both at once. If the purpose is to more quickly rid us of the cancer of DA itself, yep, bots are the way to go, and you might add your voice at Lightmouse's "wishlist" page. Your thoughts at whatever is the latest location of attacks on his good work (ANI, bot application? He knows better than I do) would be most appreciated. In fact, LM and I talked about the issue of what bots can and can't do only yesterday at the wishlist. Tony (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I could certainly get my bot to crudely hack through the most common auto-formatted dates, but there is something to be said for the thoroughness of your approach. Obviously no bot can evaluate the process in the way that you can, but perhaps a cruder approach could be used on the monstrous number of low-quality articles. Would that be something you approved of? Plasticup ^T/C 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. The advantage is that when stripped of concealment, editors will be more likely to come along and fix inconsistent formats (although I suspect not globally wrong choices, such as I see quite often). You might consider passing this proposal by two of our smartest boys on this matter: User:Lightmouse and User:Colonies Chris for their opinion (perhaps linking to this section as an opener)? It's certainly another strategy that may work well in combination with mine, which is to target FAs, GAs and the thousand most visited, to promulgate the relevant section in MOSNUM (and for commone terms, CONTEXT and MOSLINK) via links in the edit summaries. It is succeeding in changing people's behaviour. But it leaves the millions of other articles untouched, of course. Tony (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tafl Games - Overlinking

G'day Tony. good to see someone else from Sydney universities here. :)

I think you might have gone a tiny bit overboard on removing the overlinking from the Tafl games page. I've put back the links for Ireland in the 1st paragraph and German language in the 2nd. Otherwise I think it's OK? --Danjel (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And a grammarian too! --Danjel (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd take out all of the language links (why on earth is the German-language article worth diverting to? It's far too general to provide the required significant increase in the reader's understanding of the topic at hand. I know there's an issue where the script removes just some of the country names in a list. It's something we haven't resolved yet. I don't mind your decision to retain "Ireland". Tony (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it contributes to the article. Tafl is, after all, a Germanic word and the history of German as a language is good to have alongside it.

In any case, there are a lot of people out there that don't have a lot of understanding of there being any other language other than English out there. Try telling people that you speak Tagalog, for example (I don't, but still :).--Danjel (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

English is a Germanic language too. Does that mean we should link less familiar words to the article on the German language, since the history of both languages is entangled? The clincher is, why would it be an advantage to encourage a reader to interrupt their reading of the article visit such a huge, broadly framed article? Can you think of a section there that could be linked more specifically? Tony (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba

Thanks for your support and comments. Have addressed your concerns. Please strike out comments that you feel are addressed satisfactorily. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but unnecessary—I supported, and would rather spend the time revisiting one where I've opposed. Tony (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

opinion on quark

Hi Tony. I'd last to ask you for an opinion on the prose of quark, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quark. The problem is one of fundamental philosophy, rather than specific errors—I'm quite sure the prose in the current version would be OK for a textbook, but not so sure if it's OK for an encyclopedia article. I believe it's condensed to the point of opacity, rendering it inaccessible to the general audience. I wrote a second version (link on the FAC page). I am not saying mine is perfect; it is only intended to give a sense of the direction that I am suggesting the article should go. i actually want to Opose, but since the problem is one of philosophy, I am uncertain. If you have time, would you please comment on the FAC page? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Far out

G'day. I see you have been visiting some of my favourite isolated rocks. I'd be happy to pitch in with this task but I am loathe to just copy script.js into my monobook and hope for the best. I imagine its simple enuf, but are there any instructions anywhere? Yrs, in a howling westerly Ben MacDui 09:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

By all means, Ben: transclusion is best; then updates and improvements that Lightmouse make are automatically carried across to you. Here, in this cap, are the instructions. Lightmouse runs a "wishlist" page for comments and queries. Tony (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Installation and usage of date-autoformatting removal script

Instructions for installation

• EITHER: If you have a monobook already, go to it, click "edit this page", and paste in this string underneath your existing script:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

• OR: If you don't have a monobook.js page, create one using this title:

[[User:[your username]/monobook.js]]

Then click on "edit this page" and paste in at the top the "importScript" string you see three lines above here.

• Hit "Save page".
• Refresh your cache (instructions at top of monobook).
• Go to your user preferences and select "no preferences" for dates, which will display the raw date formats that our readers see.
• Carefully check MOSNUM's guidance on which date formats are used where. Generally:
  • US-related articles use US formatting, except that some military articles use international;
  • Canada-related articles may use either, but almost all use US;
  • UK-, Australia-, NZ-, Ireland- and South-African-related articles must use international.
  • articles without clear links to an anglophone country may use either—generally stay with the prevailing usage in the article. Note that India-related articles use either.
• You're ready to start.

Applying the script—it's very simple

• Go to an article and determine whether US or international format is used (or should be used).
• Click on "edit this page". You'll see the list of script commands under "what links here" in the left margin. Click on either "Delink all dates to dmy" (international format) or "Delink all dates to mdy" (US format). If you wish, click on "Delink common terms" as well.
• The diff will automatically appear. Check through the changes you're making before saving them.
• Click on "Save page": it's done.

Afterwards

• Respond politely and promptly to any critical comments on your talk page. If someone wants to resist or revert, it's better to back down and move on to improve other articles where WPians appreciate your efforts. NEVER edit-war over date autoformatting; raise the issue at WT:MOSNUM.

Thanks - up and running. Ben MacDui 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Way Out (2004)

Hey Tony, thanks for adding comments to No Way Out (2004)'s FAC page, I really appreciate it and I've learned from the issues you pointed out. I have addressed those comments and replied to some of your comments at the FAC page, it would be grateful if you could return to give it another look, thank you.--S_RX 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Year in X - WP:LOW

I saw your comment about "Year in X" at User:Lightmouse's talk page. I just thought I would point out WP:LOW. Maybe that will answer some of your questions regarding the delinking of these pseudo-dates. Dismas|^(talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That is very helpful, thanks. I'm unsure that it's references to MONSUM and MOSLINK reinforce the point, though. Tony (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:LOW#Linking years consistent with the MoS? What it currently says seems to be too simple:

"Solitary years remain unlinked (preferred) and should not generally be 'piped to articles (e.g. [[1989 in music|1989]]), especially when part of a date. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (links) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)"

Of course, linking to other areas of the MoS only works when updates are rolled out throughout the whole system, otherwise inconsistencies spring up. The link to "As of" above is a prime example. The "As of" system changed, but the MoS links pointing to it were (I think) talking about the old system. Links can be dangerous sometimes! Er, maybe using "as of" links to flag up when the MoS links were made would help? That might get silly! Wikipedia editors do, eventually, learn to check when a page was last edited, but that only works up to a certain point. Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

overlink

I don't know if it is yourself our your bot, but it appears details are being de-linked on rugby league infoboxes. Per our MOS they should be linked. Many thanks.Londo06 08:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

By "details", I presume you mean dates and date fragments. This is occurring throughout WP not only in infoboxes, but in all parts of articles. Please see MOSNUM for the new practice. Tony (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by details I meant things like Australia and England being de-linked on the infobox. I have no problem with dates being de-linked, I wholly support that move, but not places in the infobox.Londo06 11:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But is your point that the infobox is different from the main text in this respect, or that such items should always be linked? Please see Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#What_generally_should_be_linked. Tony (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the MOS for the infobox and others has those details linked. I am not aware of any such details for the body text, however it is for the infobox.Londo06 12:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Do you mean Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)? I can find no example or advice that suggests such items should be linked in infoboxes. Have we spread into the issue of infobox templates? If so, you may have noticed that since the start of this month, quite a few of the date-producing templates in infoboxes do not now link. This may be occurring for place names produced by templates too (are there any?) In any case, the time when we linked everything in sight has passed, and people have realised that text in infoboxes, especially those with coloured background, is easier to read when plain black. Can you link me to an example that is concerning you? Tony (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Watmough.Londo06 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Better, here's the diff. Yep, people who can read English well enough to consult the eng.WP are meant to be familiar with the major English-speaking countries and their demonyms, such as the US, the UK and Australia. We'd like the high-value links to stand out to readers without dilution by such low-value ones; it's very hard to get readers to click on any links at all. The wikilinking system is brilliant, but WP has gone overboard with it, which has somewhat diminished its utility. We're trying to make it work better. Tony (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Soviet and Russian manned drifting ice stations

Hi Tony. Sorry about the barrage of edits to your talk page just now. I hope all the posts made it through and were helpful. Thanks for doing a date audit of Soviet and Russian manned drifting ice stations. I noticed you made a comment about the title "two hyphens, one hanging". Would you have time to explain, either here or at the article talk page, what you think the title should be? drift ice and drift ice station are other terms (i.e. instead of drifting), and I can see the arguments for drift-ice station but I can't quite see where the second hyphen comes in. Do you mean Soviet- and Russian-manned drifting ice stations? Forgive me if that mangled the hyphen MoS beyond recognition. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your redlink here is exactly what I had in mind, and I prefer your or "drifting ice station" (maybe no hyphen necessary there, since the coupling of either "drifting ice" or "ice station" doesn't seem important in that context. I don't like the gender-specific "manned", but can't think of a way out. Tony (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Word-for-word translation of gender-loaded terms can sometimes be difficult. The term 'operated' or 'staffed' might work. If you go beyond 'word-for-word', you could simply say 'Soviet and Russian drifting ice stations' as with Soviet Antarctic Expedition. The national designation of the station is not purely due to the staff. Google has references for '<national sponsor> drifting ice stations'. Lightmouse (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have suggested your shorter version but for a concern that some may be unstaffed. Carcharoth? Tony (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the unstaffed ones were just floating buoys dropped in the ocean. The "stations" were the manned ones. The real distinction is the one made between dedicated drift ice stations and ships sailed into the pack ice and allowed to get embedded in the ice and be carried around the pole for a season or two before (hopefully) emerging again. I think "manned" could be dropped, but I rarely get involved with move discussions anymore, unless it is something absolutely indisputable. Everything else I just create redirects for. Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and more to the point, the "Soviet and Russian" designation is surprisingly rare. It seems most articles do treat the Soviet era and the Russian eras differently, though I can understand why sometimes some articles do treat them in one article. A bit like the way History of Greek and Roman Egypt got split into History of Ptolemaic Egypt and History of Roman Egypt. With minor instances of other names along the way (Ægyptus, History of Greek Egypt, and so on). Many sources treat the Greek and Roman era in Egypt as one "chapter", but others divide it up. Ah, I see History of the Soviet Union is a similarly sparse list of articles, bit like History of Greek and Roman Egypt. I'd bet there is a similarly chaotic edit history there as well, with many page moves to many different titles. Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC replies

Hi Tony! I replied to your comments that you left on the review for the USS Nevada (BB-36)...but 3 out of 3 of those replies were questions back to you! If you could take a look a reply, thanks a lot. —the_ed17— 23:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

I reverted your edits to Give Up. Please review WP:DATE -- wikilinking date elements like this is valid, and enables WP to identify dates as such and display them in a reader's desired format. Bankbryan (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And I see that someone has re-reverted it already. Please catch up on the major changes to practice, which were made nearly two months ago. Thanks for your inquiry. Tony (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up and will do. Bankbryan (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

I have moved to address a few of the issues that you brought up at the FAC, if you would check the article and give me some feedback I would apreciate it. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Hanna (2002)

Hi Tony. I got a copyeditor to work on Tropical Storm Hanna (2002) to improve the overall prose, so if you get a chance, could you take another look at the FAC? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you respond if you get a chance? Sorry to pester you; lately, FACs with opposition tend to be closed quickly, and I believe I've addressed your concerns. Thanks in advance. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

Hi, you commented on the (failed) FAC; please can you help me out by leaving some feedback at peer review? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 12:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Random browse column? (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Brazilian states by Human Development Index) Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: En dash spacing on year ranges

Thanks for your explanation. Incidentally, I think that the spacing of dashes in years would make a good example for your Manual of Style page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea: will do. Tony (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As of

Tony, I sent an FA nominator to WP:MOSDATE#Precise language about an imprecise section heading ("Recent events"), and instead, he added "as of year" links. I thought we were done linking years? Why is MOSDATE still recommending that "as of" statements link to the year article ? I was surprised to see it still there, since we haven't used them since before dates went delinkey. (See as of) is still in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Making sure that articles are written in precise language with regards to historical and current dates is something I've always kept an eye out for, so forgive me for jumping in here (as an aside, Wikipedia:Updating information is shorter, but also has some relevant links). As far as I can tell, the MOS doesn't say to link to years. It is referring people to Wikipedia:As of, which says to not use "as of XXX" links (eg. [[As of 1990]]), and even lists deprecated links that are (slowly) being cleaned up: see Wikipedia:As of#Deprecated "as of" pages. What people are meant to do is use Template:As of, which as far as I can tell, doesn't link to dates. I wasn't sure exactly what Sandy was talking about, so I went and tracked down the edit I think prompted this: I think it was this (which is indeed deprecated per Wikipedia:As of), and was then changed with this edit, when in fact I think the correct edit would have been to add the template (which was created in February 2008 - there was an earlier version in 2006, which I presume had much less features). I think there has been a misunderstanding here, so I am going to pop over to the FAC and point this out. Questions about Template:As of should be left at the talk page, where it looks like User:Ikara will be happy to explain things or change things as needed. I will also leave a note at the template talk page. Incidentally, if you look on the talk page, there is a method of enabling editors to detect plaintext output from templates. See Template talk:As of#How to detect this template in an article?. This was one of the objections to people using date-markup that outputted plaintext (that editors would not see if there was a problem until they hit edit), but the method described there would probably overcome that objection. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The "as of year" links are deprecated per WP:As of and the discussion regarding it that took place at the Village Pump. However, they should not be outright removed as they still serve a functional purpose. Instead they should be converted to the {{As of}} template as appropriate. Links of the form [[As of Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year}}, and links of the form [[As of Month Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year|Month}}. This will output the plain text "As of [Month] Year" and categorise the article appropriately, but not create a wikilink in the article. See the template documentation for more options and information – Ikara ^talk → 16:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that template turn them into virtual links, i.e., bright blue, etc? If so, it should be binned. Tony (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You would bin the template rather than (if it had been linking dates, which it hadn't) delink the dates inside it? Sigh. I did say above: "which as far as I can tell, doesn't link to dates", and I said elsewhere that it doesn't link to dates (ie. it outputs plain text), and I tried to explain that even though it outputs plain text it is not "invisible" in the sense that it flags itself up in various ways to (logged-in) editors but not to readers (to be honest, I'm not 100% sure myself how it actually does that). But instead of noting that, you jump to the wrong conclusion? Whatever. It does add a "category link" at the bottom of the article, but this is a Wikipedia:Hidden category (this was a recent - last few months, well, February actually - change that I hope is mentioned somewhere in the MoS - it is important that MoS regulars are kept abreast of technical developements that might enable old issues to be revisited). The categories this template adds articles to might not be that useful if they get fully populated, but the aim to keep track of articles that need updating is a noble one, and fully in accord with keeping our articles accurate and up-to-date - i.e. as important, if not more so, than pushing back against (date) overlinking and the dilution of useful links. Useful links are only useful if the article is up-to-date, though using "as of" language is a step in the right direction (I shudder when I see people saying "recently" and stuff like that, and I still get annoyed that people don't keep Hurricane Katrina up-to-date even though loads has been written about it outside of Wikipedia since it passed FAC). Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Replacing 'As of xxxx' with a template is easy. The only question is whether it is the right thing to do. Lightmouse (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Test: As of 2008, As of July 2008. No, it doesn't make blue links. Apparently it just adds the page to a category. But the wording at MOSDATE leads someone who doesn't take the time to delve into that other page to think that have to add as of 2008. Of course, another curiosity is how this element came to be with no discussion at MoS. I love it when MoS makes a fool of me at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite... I remember a discussion about the abolition of the "as of" system closing with "no consensus" a few months ago; this recent change has passed undetected. And it's a pity, because I should have supported it had I known about it. I do not care for such lack of effort when transparency is concerned; someone could have taken a few minutes to notify through one of the proper communication channels. Waltham, The Duke of 04:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to tell you all we need a MoS noticeboard; who listens to me, anyway. Some folks were off in their little corner of Wiki, doing their thing, never told anyone at MoS, it doesn't surface until I ask for a change on an article at FAC, and the issue surfaces. I get kinda tired of the buck stopping with me, when I make an idiot of myself :-) We need a centralized MoS discussion board. Or we're going to always be chasing our tails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be an idea if people kept a closer eye on the Village Pumps (WP:VP). They are meant to be used to notify people of discussions, but you would be surprised how often (as in this case) the discussions take place there, and not elsewhere. I think Waltham is referring to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:As of (April 2008), which was followed by the July 2008 discussion. And it might be surprising to MoS regulars, but some people think of MoS as "Some folks [being] off in their little corner of Wiki, doing their thing". :-) If anyone takes offence at that, please don't (ultimately, if communication lines are not kept open, we are all doing our thing in a little corner somewhere). Communication works both ways, as Tony has recognised here, in his response to this. I agree that Schissel's offer there was a refreshing change in attitude, and me personally, I'd like to help out with explaining things if you (Tony) would accept that offer (I won't say I'm completely converted, but I do see that a lot of date (and other) delinking needs to happen). Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I should add here that I am aware of Tony's earlier efforts with the other discussions and the careful linking to a page explaining everything, and links from edit summaries, and so on. I'm not saying that there was no outreach - indeed there was rather a lot and it was done very well. But possibly, it seems, not enough or not in the right way. Wikipedia can be incredible frustrating like that. You think you've explained things to everyone, but there are always some people who pop up and say "too cryptic", "not enough disucssion", "never heard of this" and so on. That's part of why Schissel's offer to help spread the word was so, well, helpful. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's the discussion. No notice to MoS (the relevant guideline page), a very limited discussion, no clear consensus, and MOSDATE is currently linking to an essay (and apparently has been for a long time); all of the lack of clarity that I've been sounding the alarm about for a very long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I wasn't very active in late July, or I might have noticed the discussion; I generally watch the Pump. Anyway, I think the situation with regards to where discussions are held has improved somewhat lately, partly thanks to the increasing prominence of {{cent}}; whoever has added it to the Proposals section of the Pump, it was a flash of brilliance.

As far as the institution of a "MoS noticeboard" is concerned, I am not sure why "Moscow" can't fill that role. Or that template that's been brought up; instead of creating a new page which could quickly generate redundancy and discussion-splitting, we could create a template—placed at the top of all MoS talk pages, and placed in or linked from some other central venues—that would leave editors no room to add anything more than a short notification (it would be, of course, supervised by the project). All important discussions around MoS would be added there. We could make it more conspicuous or have it collapsed by default, perhaps as a component of the MOSCO banner.

(I've also considered a newsletter—MOSCO is a WikiProject, after all, and not everyone reads the Signpost—but that might prove to be too much work for our small and busy staff. Although it wouldn't necessarily contain much more than what is already written in the updates.)

PS: Sandy, why use an external link where an internal would do? It looks like a diff. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 12:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point: His Grace is using a horribly slow connection at the moment. Tony (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But why do you suppose MOSCO hasn't gained traction? Because people are afraid of anything associated with MoS? Because the only people who care are those who edit war the guideline in the one little corner that they care about? Because we haven't established Wikiwide a process by which guidelines, essays, policy etc. are efficiently discussed and sorted? And look at the confusion we're dealing with; that discussion at the Village Pump was listed as a "policy" discussion, and I came across another similar discussion just this week, an essay with zero consensus marked as a proposal. We still have a big problem, and we haven't gotten our arms around it, leading to increasingly chasing our tails. And it comes home to roost at FAC, because that's the only place the MoS is enforced. (Link fixed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Who supposes that? (In case you are referring to me, I said "I am not sure why [it] can't fill that role" (emphasis added).

And thanks for fixing the link. I don't think an external link to a Wikipedia page actually slows me down, but the format is counter-intuitive. I don't like it in diffs, either, but we have few options there.

Anyway... Any comments on the template idea? Waltham, The Duke of 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who supposes that: I'm asking why MOSCO hasn't taken off. I don't follow categories or templates; I still don't know what CAT:GEN is. I watchlist pages; I need one cental page that I can watchlist to keep up with MoS. Having centralized MoS discussions would benefit everyone; just look at this example of someone getting minimal input at the Village Pump on what they honestly believe is "policy", with no feedback at MoS or even apparently awareness that MoS should have been noticed. Contrast that to RSN or BLP, where anyone with an issue or question knows to go to those noticeboards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering about redundancy. On one hand, style is arguably important enough (as a whole; not each individual guideline) for a general style noticeboard to be reasonable, and take a rightful place along with the rest in {{editabuselinks}} (the name is largely historical, and only a row deals specifically with edit abuse). In organisational terms, it would be quite useful, seeing that a) it would be easily accessible to non-regulars and b) it would finally provide a centralised discussion venue for style in general (including non-MoS style-related pages). On the other hand, is it easy to make a clear distinction between what goes to the noticeboard and what goes to the WikiProject? We certainly don't want duplication and splitting of discussions. One solution is always to abolish MOSCO. Another is to retain it for discussions of a restricted scope: planning and macro-management of the Manual of Style. Notices would be left in the noticeboard at the beginning of such discussions, and notifications would be made about any decisions. The WikiProject would work like most WikiProjects: mostly with regulars, and only with matters in its scope. Noticeboards have a different character, and so would the style one.

These are just plans, though. Waltham, The Duke of 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Aimed at various people: what on Earth does MOSCO stand for? Manual of Style Community Office? WP:MOSCO goes to WikiProject MoS, but what on Earth does the CO stand for? If it's some sort of in-joke and you only call it MOSCO because it feels like Moscow, no wonder it hasn't taken off. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been wondering the same thing about MOSCO. Thought it was just another way of making those of us not "in" wonder what is being talked about. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is here; apparently, the name is short for MOSCOORD ("coordination"). There is also the less mystifying WPMOS, but I prefer MOSCO because it's pronounceable. Waltham, The Duke of 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Progress on the style guidelines will be made only to the extent that we preach to people who are not in the choir. New FAC reviewers are going to be hard to come by as long as the only people we're likely to co-opt are people who have already written a FAC. 1. Keep working on the guidelines. 2. Listen to how people feel about them. 3. Promote them.

CAT:GEN is the same as Category:General style guidelines. It's (now) 25 style guidelines. It's been around for 5 months. If Wikipedia lasts for a millenium, "we" (meaning something like FAC reviewers and style afficionados) will never "gain control" of the style guidelines; they're growing all the time. We will never get some kind of uber-guideline passed that says that no one else can contradict the guidelines we like. We don't need it, either; most people have a positive reaction when I copyedit according to just about any guideline currently in Category:General style guidelines). If we see this as a battle to co-opt people by copyediting their articles according to the guidelines, which I generally find people really appreciate, and not as a battle to silence opposition in the form of wayward guidelines, I don't see how we can lose.

I think no one has used MOSCO as a noticeboard because we already have one: WT:MOS. Even if it's a little harder for us to have to deal with completely different kinds of issues in one place, it's easier for the people who have to figure out where to post, so that's where they post.

"I love it when MoS makes a fool of me at FAC": I'm very sympathetic, I'm embarrassed when I don't know style guidelines, that's supposedly what I'm good for. That's what WP:Update is for. Check it out. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerned

Hello. I would like to ask you for a favor. I know you said you don't usually copy-edit articles, but could you please take a look at it. It went though quite a few other copy-edits, but even though I'm quite embarrassed by this, this is my level of English at the moment. The article recently failed FAC, and even though prose isn't the reason it failed, it certainly didn't say anything in favor of the article. So, if you have the time and are willing to help, would you please take a look at the article, it would be greatly appreciated.

P.S.: Many thanks for the advanced editing exercises as well. I actually find them difficult (in a good way, of course). Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll refuse, at least please tell me, so that I wouldn't have to wait. Diego_pmc ^Talk 14:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, too much on my plate at the moment, and there's always pressure to review at FAC. Do you know how to go about systematically teaming up with the right people, so you can reciprocate using your own skills and "trade" their copy-editing? Tony (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It would help...

..If you could revisit and see if your comments to No Way Out's FAC have been addressed and maybe have a better decision for the outcome :)--S_RX 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

date delinking

Tony, where's the best page listing the many reasons to delink? I think you had a subdirectory but I can't remember what it was called. (Feel free to respond here.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for a page in Tony's namespace, you can always check the directory. I've only just found about User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA, for example; I'm sure Tony has linked to it in various places, but I haven't been too attentive in the later MOSNUM discussions. The information in the page has been given here or there, but in this page it is all together.

You might also be interested in my essay, which nobody seems to be promoting (sniff): User:The Duke of Waltham/Auto-formatting is evil.

Wait... Are we talking about date delinking, or general removal of links from overlinked articles? Waltham, The Duke of 00:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

His Grace is a master at navigation. This is the first I've heard of the "directory" route. Yes, the info page concerns date autoformatting. This should be kept quite separate from the delinking of date fragments, which, amazingly, has flared up as a burning issue despite our perception that it had been resolved long ago. People do cling to old ideas, don't they. Tony (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just promoted both your links in the latest thread at the Pump: WP:VPP#date auto-formatting chaos. I admit I didn't know about Special:PrefixIndex either. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you'll be amazed with what you can find if you have a good look around Special pages. Waltham, The Duke of 05:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You (the others, not you) didn't know about Special:PrefixIndex? <boggles> That is a very useful tool. Though I think recently the "auto-completing" bit of the search box had the article part of the prefix index integrated with it (something so simple and obvious I'm surprised it was not done earlier). As for finding subpages in someone's userspace, there is now a "subpages" link at the bottom of everyone's contributions log (scroll to the bottom) along with a lot of other stuff. Someone told me the Mediawiki page where this was developed, but I've forgotten the name! Ah, here we go (Google helps here): Help:User contributions, MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer. This was probably all mentioned in one of the recent Signposts (in the technical section), but I've fallen behind with my reading there. Carcharoth (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. I didn't know about Special:PrefixIndex either. Very useful, as you say. I see autocompleting in the main Wikipedia search but not in the PrefixIndex search. Thanks for pointing out the link to 'subpages' etc, that is useful too. Lightmouse (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pff, you call yourselves Wikipedians... :-p

Carcharoth, I really like the box at the bottom of the contributions pages, though I must say I am mostly aware of it because I followed the discussion on the Pump (regarding the selection of a suitable icon and nomenclature for unregistered users). I don't really need it, because I use navigational pop-ups, which—amongst other things—provide a link for one's "userspace". Waltham, The Duke of 03:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking

(e/c – Rambling Man stole my heading! lol!) Although I support your script-assisted changes, un-linking dates and common terms, I would like to gently ask that you be more careful, too, :-). Your edit to Cédric Pioline changed dates in the entire article to the US format instead of the international format it was originally in. I don't think it would take more than a quick glance to determine that Pioline would prefer to have his dates international! I'm not sure of the mechanisms behind what you're doing or how easy it is to change it, but I hope mass US-format changes can be avoided in the future. It's quite tedious for "manual" Wikipedians like me to change all of those dates back, one by one. Thanks! :-) Maedin\^talk 13:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, second report today of the wrong format. I do try hard to assess each article correctly, and a lot of them have the wrong format to start with. You're perfectly right, and I apologise. And it was well formatted anyway, without inconsistencies.

But now I see our old friend User Tennis expert has been stalking me and reverting. Someone else has just stepped in since, but naturally enough re-reverted to my faulty version. I'll convert to the correct format now, once, but I dislike intensely edit conflicts over this matter. I'd be pleased if you took it up with Tennis expert yourself if he returns to impose his ownership on the article. I'm outa there, wishing the editors goodwill and going on to make improvements where they're appreciated! Most of his colleagues at WikiProject Tennis don't agree with his extreme stance. Tony (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so graciously and for fixing the article. I was sure (from previous comments of yours that I have read) that you were fairly careful anyway, so I'm grateful that you didn't take the heads-up as accusatory or derogatory. As for Tennis expert, I'm afraid you've asked timid 'lil Maedin! I actually have an interest in tennis articles, but my penchant is for using diacritics regularly, wherever they belong—a view which is, unfortunately, the exact opposite of Tennis expert's. He/she was overruled on their wholesale attempt to remove all diacritics, and so far has let me alone. I hate edit conflicts and confrontation as well, and I'd rather let Tennis expert alone, but I will voice my opinion if he reverts the delinking edits again.

Anyway, thank you again for responding quickly and well! Maedin\^talk 13:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are sadly mistaken, Maedin. I clearly never advocated the "wholesale attempt to remove all diacritics" and I would appreciate your not spreading around false information about myself. Tennis expert (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry, Tennis expert, you're absolutely right. It was an uninformed opinion and I have since reviewed the matter and have now read comments that I only scanned / skipped before. I've stricken the comments above related to my mistake. My apologies! Maedin\^talk 09:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Another incivil and factually incorrect comment about yours truly from TONY. I suggest that you start WP:AGF. Tennis expert (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking

Hi Tony. Just thought I'd let you know that User:Tennis expert is systematically undoing your edits once again. I've tried to remind him that his edits are not actually improving the article but I suspect (a) he'll delete the message with a smug edit summary and (b) he'll continue applying his own consensus to articles he seems to own. Just thought you should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he damages them by reinstating glitches and worse, wholesale wrong date formats. He's very eccentric. Thanks for the info, since I don't keep tabs on my work; those who run the scrip are sworn off warring, so he can stew in his own little world, and eventually will see tennis articles turn into a shag on their own little rock in this respect. His colleagues at the Tennis WikiProject largely disagree with his fanatical stance.

Have you seen the latest proposal for a different but related matter that flared up recently at MOSNUM talk? It's at the bottom, and I'm quite hopeful that it might satisfy both sides of the debate about solitary year linking. It's not my idea, but I'm promoting it and attempting to gain consensus. Tony (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic example of rampant incivility and a systematic (intentional?) failure or willful refusal to WP:AGF by The Rambling Man and TONY. Exactly which glitches have I reinstated and which wrong date formats have I inserted? And thanks, I guess, for labeling me as "very eccentric". I don't remember calling you names. Tennis expert (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people would be pleased to be considered eccentric. Strictly speaking, it means "off centre", which your extreme views on linking certainly are. You have failed to move with prevailing practice at WP, and tennis articles and their readers are the losers, plus your colleagues, who mostly disagree with you. You have persisted in stalking me and reverting my work and that of others who have tried to retain the improvements against your handiwork. More than once, I've been made aware that you've reinstated the wrong date format for Australian tennis players, for example, in your rush to make all of the dates and years bright blue again. This is unacceptable behaviour, as is changing UK-related articles into US spelling. You risk making a pig of yourself. Tony (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Wow, Tony, calling someone a "pig"---how civil. Also, your mischaracterization of the norm as "extreme views" only serves to show how far off-base you are. This is Wikipedia, not a paper book. That you push for date delinking simply for appearance' sake says a lot about you. This coup of yours doesn't make you right, and harassing those that stand up for the right to wikilink doesn't make you a good editor.Ryoung122 08:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What coup? I didn't call him a pig: I said he's making a pig of himself. However, I will soften this to "you risk making a pig of yourself". Tony (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

TONY: (1) My views, which have been expressed many times in very simple and direct language but which you still do not understand, is that there is a consensus in tennis articles to link years and dates. I personally am not in favor of linking years but am in favor of linking dates. (2) Which UK-related articles did I turn into US spelling? Which wrong date format for Australian tennis players have I imposed? If you'll point out my errors, I'll correct them. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting, trash talking, and gossiping about my edits. Tennis expert (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, sorry that I've dragged you into another debacle. "Tennis expert" has continued to revert your edits against the WP:MOS. Despite being asked the purpose of relinking years and the odd country, plus turning "runners-up" into "runner-ups" (!), he is adamant that his impression of consensus rules over others. I think this one is doomed. RIP WP:Tennis. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Your input would be appreciated here. --John (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting request (gasp!)

I am deeply unsatisfied with the writing in History of a Six Weeks' Tour. It is a strange literary work and somewhat difficult to explain. I was wondering if you would consider copyediting at least the lead and "Composition and publication"? I am positive that I have not written as clearly and concisely as possible. :) I would greatly appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Tony, I constantly see you on FAC's and you always oppose. Well Veronica Mars is undergoing a peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Veronica Mars/archive2, in the hopes of getting it to FA status. Anyways, I don't want to nominate it and have you list 1000 points as to why the prose is bad. This is my (kind) way of saying that your comments would be appreciated, and if you could state any problems, that would be great. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Link intersection

Where you aware of Wikipedia:Link intersection? It seems relevant to issues of linking. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What distortions does "what links here" have? On some pages, "what links here" is very useful (usually the ones with very few links - I agree that on pages where there are lots of links it is not useful). I find selecting namespaces helps filter some things out, and if you are looking for a deletion debate, "what links here" limited to the Wikipedia namespace is very useful. I also use the "what redirects here" function all the time (the options to remove or combine links, transclusions and redirects has made 'what links here' very useful). I'd really encourage you to take another look if you are basing your opinion on your use of 'what links here' from last year or so. But I've gone off topic. What were your objections to Wikipedia:Link intersection again, and how exactly does it affect readers? If it could be a useful tool for editors, why on earth would you be glad it is "dying"? Dare I point you at Wikipedia:Category intersection and Wikipedia:Semantic Wikipedia? I dunno, it sometimes seems there is a big philosophical divide somewhere around here that people keep waving at each other from the other side of. I find rummaging around links and following things up and browsing (even if rather random) to be fascinating. I suppose others want more focused and precise navigation and browsing. It's difficult to provide both. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide enough?

Tony - WRT major depressive disorder, I have added bits to the diagnosis and treatment sections, as well as noting presentation (one line) in Signs and symptoms. Tricky ot know how much to add. Further detail would go into general issues of all psych disorders in 3rd world countries. Do you think it is enough as is? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova

Hi Tony, any chance you can rerun your script over this? As usual, Tennis expert has relinked the dates but made other changes so a simple reversion is impossible. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As one of the promoters of the change in practice, I've cautioned other supporters against edit-warring on the matter. After all, one of the arguments put against the change was that DA stops edit warring. Although I don't believe it was a valid argument, I don't want to give ammunition to those who might throw back at me their prior warnings.

However, that doesn't stop you from acquiring the script and running it. I'd be very pleased to see that happen. Apart from this consideration, the more people who are able to run the script, the more time-intensive manual labour editors at large can be spared in what is a mammoth task. Tony (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, TRM, reports coming in that he's been stalking other people. Creepy, hey?! I suppose I admire strong views and passion. Tony (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Geoff Horsfield

I don't understand why you keep adding mf=yes to the Geoff Horsfield infobox. As an English player, who has only played for English clubs, it makes sense to use df=yes, i.e. UK date format. --Jameboy (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed my bad goof. Thanks, Jame. Tony (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Have been doing a bit of work on the article and missed a couple of your interim edits, so hope it didn't look like I was edit-warring. Thanks for fixing it. --Jameboy (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Tony, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Tony, are you planning to use Wikipedia:FCDW/October 13, 2008? I set up WP:FCDW originally in the hopes it would be a central coordinating spot for the Dispatches, so I wouldn't have to hound people for input; I'm not sure if you still want the first open slot each month, or if I should just wait for you to pop in whenever you want a slot? Can you update the talk page there if you want that slot ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Still confused. Is Wikipedia:Update/Style update October 2008 the September updates? I don't think we can build a Dispatch around that; is there more? Or should I wait a month? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

1942 in India

Hi Tony - see you delinked all dates in this article. I understand the policy in general, but question its relevance in a an article which is actually all about dates and their linkages. Your action means that users accessing this article can no longer link through to articles on specific dates (eg 8 August) to get more information on other events on that date, or, more importantly, be able to link back to the article relating to the birth year or death year of the person listed (eg 1900 in India). Was this policy really meant to restrict users ability to navigate and get further information relating to date articles? Could you please reconsider this action in relation to date articles such as this, otherwise thousands of such articles will need revision and become of very limited value to users. Ardfern (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can see why you might argue for an exception in articles on chronological topics, but I'd like to know how, say, 14 January is relevant to India in 1942. It starts thus:

• 1129 - Formal approval of the Order of the Templar at the Council of Troyes.
• 1301 - Andrew III of Hungary dies, ending the Arpad dynasty in Hungary.
• 1501 - Martin Luther, age 17, enters the University of Erfurt.
• 1514 - Pope Leo X issues a papal bull against slavery.
• 1539 - Spain annexes Cuba.

and continues in the same vein. India is mentioned once on that date, in 1761. Um ... am I missing something?

Links are not intended to be magic carpets for discretionary browsing, but signals to the reader that more relevant information is available that will increase their understanding of the topic. Articles on WP are meant to be serious tertiary sources of information, not "On this day" features for fun.

If an unfocused reader wants to aimlessly wander, the search box is there for that. Tony (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC revisit

Hey Tony, a revisit has been requested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Congregation Beth Elohim. Giggy (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Khalid al-Mihdhar

If you have some spare time, I would appreciate if you would take another look at the Khalid al-Mihdhar article. Substantial amount of copyediting has been done, with help of User:Momoricks. Please let me know if there is anything else needed with the article. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, do you have time to revisit this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dashes and name initials punctuation

A follow-up to one point you raised above, and one that you raised at WT:MOSLINK. I get very confused about dashes, so I will try once again to read your guide and see if I can finally understand what the big deal is... About name initials and punctuation, what is the story behind the difference between J.J. Thomson and J. J. Thomson? Is it the spacing, or is it the line-breaks, or both? Sometimes, when I see J. R. R. Tolkien break across a line, I put in non-breaking spaces, but that is laborious to do all the time. Unfortunately, line breaks occur in different places depending on the reader's set-up. Also, J.J. and Thomson and still break across two lines and look awful. So maybe it is a spacing thing. Wouldn't thin-spaces work as well as no spaces? I think we have an article on types of spaces. Here we go: space (punctuation). Hmm. I think you might be about to tell me that this is to do with dashes and the puctuation for those as well. I'll go and read that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I can't stand the spaces. In a justified on-screen format it can stretch, too; even worse when the column is narrow against an image or infobox. Tony (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Chronological versus thematic

One final post here! I wanted to just briefly discuss the chronological versus thematic point you made. I think having something be too thematic can result in the article getting ahead of itself and jumping around in someone's life too much. On the other hand, I do see what you mean when you say a thematic arrangement can work better. One of the reasons I went for a chronological order was because in some cases the sources I was working from used a thematic order, and by the time I had finished writing an article in thematic order, what I had written looked very similar to the source. Effectively, I was trying to rewrite the information in a different order to avoid plagiarism. This is a problem with short, stubby articles. Initially, they will look very like the (also short and stubby) sources - the biographical databases and short summaries of people lives (eg. Dictionary of National Biography). It is only when the articles start to expand, and use different sources, that this problem lessens. John Allan Broun is a good example of an article that expanded as more sources were used. It is still a bit too short to justify the sections I split it into, but those can be seen as a map for future expansion. Some, though, like Martin Barry, are probably doomed to stay as stubs unless someone digs out some really obscure stuff (or that stuff gets put online). Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for User:Tony1/Know your Manual of Style

I just finished going through User:Tony1/Know your Manual of Style and while I knew some of it, I learnt quite a few things I didn't know before, and the examples are really well-chosen. Quite funny as well: "No hint this time". I got that one right, and I spotted the lack of a minus sign and spacing in the units for the "25 degrees Centigrade" one (er, should what I wrote there be hyphenated?). I failed the 30-kilometre (16 mi) one though. Anyway, thanks again. I'll try and point other people to that guide if I see them asking questions about hyphens and dashes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking in information-dense articles

Hi Tony. I was working on (and creating) some information-dense articles recently. Well, created one today and the other examples are from April, but that's neither here-nor-there. What I wanted was your opinion on whether the "sea of blue" effect applies here? My feeling is that the same criteria for linking information-dense articles will, because of the density of the information, produce more of the "sea of blue" effect. But maybe they are OK. Could you have a look at one or two of the following and let me know what you think? Sir Robert Muir, Basil John Mason, Thomas Lewis (cardiologist), Harold Baily Dixon, William Mitchinson Hicks, William Carmichael McIntosh, Walter Gardiner, Arthur William Rucker, Henry John Carter, John Allan Broun, Martin Barry, Thomas Snow Beck, George Fownes, Augustus Matthiessen, Joseph Spence (author), Ramsay Heatley Traquair, John Curtis Chamberlain, Baruch Harold Wood. Oh, and I date-delinked all of them! Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the first two and left comments and edited here and there. A basic structural change can help to make a smoother read. En dashes: you might be interested in whipping through this. Do watch "from 1996–99", which is incorrect. LInking: yes, these stubby articles are like leads in a way—thick with facts. The linking is mostly appropriate, except for a repeat link and another that I though was unnecessary. Tony (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I did an update on Muir. Could you have a very quick look? Turns out I missed quite a lot. That textbook (in revised form, of course) is still going today. You say "from 1996–99" is incorrect, but you corrected the articles to that form. Did you mean to say "from 1996–1999" is incorrect? I don't think it is incorrect in terms of information, but yes, if one style is preferred over the other, then yes, that should be used. I just prefer to give full years at all time, rather than worry about the times when giving the full year is needed. I'm thinking mainly of numbers. For example, 2-5000 people versus 2000-5000 people. But maybe that doesn't apply to years? I'll have a quick look at Mason now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, from looking at the Mason changes, I think you mean changing "1996-1999" to "1996 to 1999". So when should one use the dash (or it is a hyphen) and when should one use "to"? Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you might be interested to know: I found an obituary for Muir in the British Medical Journal. Second page of it is here. It details when he got the various honours. He seems he really was a very big cheese in the world of pathology, if that is not too disrespectful a term to use. It is rather impressive when you read biographies that lament in this way, but you have to be careful to avoid hagiography. I'm now almost regretting that I didn't kick Robert Muir (the Canadian politician) out of the way to make room for the Scottish Muir. But then I suppose if I looked in more detail into the Canadian politician's life, it might be equally well documented. Or maybe not. Anyway, thought you might appreciate the follow-up. The father was United Presbytarian, btw. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review comment request

Greetings Tony1! I've seen you around several times and I just think that you are pretty experienced editor, so I wanted to ask you if you could have a look on Meshuggah and leave you opinion/sggestions on Wikipedia:Peer review/Meshuggah/archive2. = A small request :) Have a nice day...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well!

Tennis expert caught in action, battling his dastardly foes. (I hope I don't get into trouble for being too frivolous.)

Isn't that just lovely! --Closedmouth (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And my response: User_talk:Tennis_expert#The_barnstar_for_your_fight_against_evil. Tony (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never been called evil before, at least not on Wikipedia. I didn't realise this was such a serious issue! --Closedmouth (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Badge of honour: where is the barnstar for us? Tony (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The evil-doers never get the recognition they deserve. Or maybe they do. I don't know. Alls I know is, we're gettin' screwed!
On a serious note, it's a shame to see the self-proclaimed expert on the sport spending his time edit-warring over dates instead of adding content to the articles. A real shame. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, not for the first time, your actions have been described as breathtaking! Keep up the good work ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Official site" quiz question

Hi Tony, first off, big ups for your work here. I'll stop there to avoid gushing. I have a personal dislike for hidden weblinks within infoboxes. That is, when you look at the page it says "Official site" or similar but to find out what the website listed in the infobox you have to click on it or otherwise take steps to access the information. Many people and groups have more than one official site further compounding the issue. Since the infobox is part of the lede is this spelled out that we're suppose to be masking the actual official websites of the person/group?

My hope is that a group, for instance "XYZ" could have their website "XYZ.com" simply displayed as such in their infobox. Likewise Janey Person's website "JaneyPerson.com" would simply read as such. The number of article subjects with official websites is only growing; surely we don't want them all to simply read "official website" which only confirms that such exists? With the exception of uber-lengthy websites wouldn't this make sense? Thoughts? Suggestions? -- Banjeboi 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Benji. I'm not the best person to ask, so I'll get a few others to comment. Is an infobox really part of the lead? Can you provide a link to an example? Tony (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Infoboxes are a part of the lede when used to ... lead the article. They are presented side-by-side with the most important overview of content. For an example of the "Official Website" in action Chi Chi LaRue is one example. Compare to how a company, Titan Media appears. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and supported by Wikipedia:LEAD#Content_of_the_lead. Tony (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify on the Chi Chi LaRue example I've done a workaround which looks horrible but is better that a tease link that simply says "Official Website". -- Banjeboi 03:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, it looks messy now. I don't quite understand what was wrong with it ?five edits ago, when both were neat blue. The square brackets don't look good at all. Tony (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of saying their website is ChiChi.com (or whatever it is) the infobox coding has been corrupted to force "Official Website" overriding what the actual website is - I don't think we should tease readers. With the rare exception of web addresses that are too long there is no reason to do this. Which is more helpful;

Official Website

En.Wikipedia.org

There really are few reasons to force "Official Website" as such and I see no reason to do this on biographies or any other infoboxes in any categories. -- Banjeboi18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Not sure if you're addressing this somewhere presently but Jeffree Star is a good example of what the links should look like instead of saying simply "Official Website". -- Banjeboi 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Any update? -- Banjeboi 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Star: perfect, IMO. Tony (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oct 13 Dispatch

A pity to subject Signpost readers to my prose, but this is the best I can muster: Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFAS. I cribbed the top from an earlier Dispatch you wrote, just to have something in there, so if you're able to update and tweak ... The flow is a bit weird, but that long Signpost logo down the side dictates other image and graph placement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew you'd do that... thanks :-) But it breaks the sortable table. Whoever designed sortable wikitables used the wrong minus sign, and I don't know how/where to get that fixed, but if we switch it to a minus, the table doesn't sort correctly as a negative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for Gimme asking if he knows where to get this fixed. (You do know you can click at those little buttons at the top of the table to sort, right?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely forgiven, mathematician! My knowledge deficit, not yours, it looks like. Yes, those little buttons are rife in FLs and elsewhere; while sometimes overused, I guess they're handy occasionally. Tony (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Still haven't figured out where/how to get it fixed, though; thanks for the ce ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your assistance with copyeditting USS New Jersey (BB-62) while the article was up on the mainpage I herby award you The Editor’s Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk

I hope I've addressed most of your comments at the FAC. Please visit the article again at your earliest opportunity. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. We've gone over this article several times trying to address grammar and prose issues. Please let us know what remains to be tackled for your oppose. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC

		USS Nevada (BB-36)
		Thank you very, very much for your constructive criticism on the successful FAC that the USS Nevada (BB-36) recently went through. Looking back, I can see that the article's prose was definitely not ready before you came along...but thanks to your help, it was passed today. :D Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 14:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Nevada underway off of the U.S. Atlantic coast on 17 September 1944.

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Periods in citations

Tony, can you point me at a MOS page? I am certain I've seen a page that asserts that a footnote like this: <ref>Burke (2004), p. 237</ref> should have a period after the "237", but I can't find a MOS page that says this. Am I misremembering? If not, do you know what the relevant page is? Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's consistent throughout the list, you can have either a period or no period. I myself am firmly of the minimalist set (no period), since the line break is already there as a signifier that the entry has finished. I try to eliminate all redundant formatting in my text. Sandy Georgia is one of the experts, who can point you to the guidelines. At a wild guess, WP:CITE. Tony (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no such requirement, Mike—as Tony says, only consistency. From WP:Citing sources#Citation styles: "There are a number of styles used in different fields. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." Maralia (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, both. Maybe I saw something in an old version of one of those pages, years ago. Anyway, it's clearly not a requirement now. Mike Christie (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Links

FYI, just wanted to let you know that I have had to undo some of the script-based edits you made earlier to day. (My watchlist lit up when you passed through Canada...) Anyway, many of the articles dealt with historical issues, and the links to Canada et al were appropriate and useful in context. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tennis FA

Hi Tony, I'm trying one last time to get the Tennis crew talking. I've initiated a new thread and invited a few contributors to join in. I don't expect much from the "expert" but it'd be interesting to understand whether his main interests lie in improving the encyclopedia or process wonkery. My best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Morning/evening Tony. I've tried to get the "expert" to let us know why he wants to prevent the project getting close to FA. He simply removes my messages from his talkpage and continues date relinking. Not sure what we can do now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried spamming a few of the project contributors to get some idea of whether we're wasting our time with the "expert". Someone has gone so far as to suggest RFC... I'm wondering what the point of the whole project is as the "expert" seems to run the whole show. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse date script

Hi there. I recently installed this script to help with the delinking of dates. However, I can't get it to work! I noticed you did the Shaun the Sheep pisode list just a moment ago. I tried to do this one with the script, but nothing happened. I click edit, then use the link from the toolbox, and it shows up a preview of changes, and there are never any changes! Any guidance on what I'm doing wrong? --Ged UK (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The toolbox provides the links to click (Delink common terms, Add metric units, Delink dates, Delink dates to dmy, Delink dates to mdy, All dates to dmy, All dates to mdy, Delink dates to dmy+common terms, Delink dates to mdy+common terms), but when I click on any of them, the preview link that appears shows no changes. I refreshed the cache after I installed it, as I do with any script. I'm also running Twinkle, User:Smith609/toolbox.js, Friendly in case any of them are clashing it. --Ged UK (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

Hello, Tony1. I know you don't edit the templates, but give some guidance in updates to the Manual of Style. Just a note to anyone here that to say a format is deprecated doesn't mean please break dates going backwards. At this writing, cite news and cite book are broken for those of us with date preferences. To show accessdate in ISO for two templates and not others is weird. This reminds me, rather than retrofit templates on the fly, let's consider a new set to replace WP:CITET. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Susan. Templates make my head spin, and I always recommend that people avoid using them . They were designed for newbies who'd never properly looked at or written a reference list, but soon spread like leprosy throughout the project—it's a pity, because they're uncoordinated subject to change at developers' whims, and I like to think that these things can be controlled at article level.

Have you thought of choosing "no preference" for your dates? I believe that all WPians should do that, since it allows them to see in display-mode the many inconsistencies and wrong global choices of date format in our articles—in effect, what our readers have been seeing. Tony (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Films considered the greatest ever

This edit of yours removed all the links from dates of films to the "xxxx in film" articles they were linked to. Linking dates to "xxxx in film" articles is specifically mentioned as an exception in the link you cited as justification for the edits. I found these links quite helpful, and I think other readers do as well. It is not possible now to easily undue the edit. As you did it with a tool, I'm requesting that you now use the same tool to undo the edit. Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your readers won't know that they're helpful unless they have X-ray vision. MOLINK says this:

• Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., [[1991 in music|1991]]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see [[1991 in music]])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. However, piped links may be useful:
• in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists); and
• in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as is often the case with sports biographies that link to numerous season articles.

and this:

• Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember that there are people who print the articles.

It's not the links themselves but the concealed piping that is the problem. There are several options for dealing with this. One is to simply spell out the pipe. See whether this works; it looks much more likely to attract clicks now. I think you're overestimating the likelihood that readers will click on single year links, which normally lead somewhere very unfocused. Tony (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't find your alternative appealing. Instead, how about a note at the top of the article that mentions that "all years in this article are linked to articles about the year in film" or something similar. This is mentioned as an option for dealing with this. I see this article as a portal to the history of film. Contextually, I suspect a common thought will be "what other films came out that year?" I don't see the option of having the slightly unexpected destination is worse than having no link at all. Making them all explicit fills up the article with gobblety gook. Would you be agreeable to restoring it as it was while adding a note? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Check your edit. You removed links from all the years in the entire article, not just in the table... -- ☑ SamuelWantman

Perhaps you didn't notice the comment above? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't. The Werdnabot piecemeal archiving process sometimes covers up other edit notifications unless you check carefully. It's a pity that, unlike the last fix to the table (which you don't like, anyway), many edits have occurred; many had occurred even before your previous message, so by then a quick-fix revert had become difficult. You yourself had the option of reverting at any stage. There are two relevant statements at MOSLINK:

Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., [[1991 in music|1991]]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g., ''(see [[1991 in music]])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all.

and

Avoid placing two links next to each other in the text so that they look like one link (such as internal links).

WRT the first statement, there's an inescapable likelihood that most readers won't catch on to the fact that behind what look like trivial links to year-pages are your concealed year-in-film links. I've gone for a more explicit and prominent approach: a "See also" overriding link beneath the two relevant sections, leading straight to the gateway page "List of years in film". This will alert all readers to the facility rather than concealing it. I think it's a significant improvement of the navigational aspect of the article. I do not believe that readers will want to divert from this overview at every turn, but the option is there for them to do so as flagged at the top of these sections. At least they know about it now.

WRT to the second MOSLINK statement, this was indeed a further concealment, since many readers (including me, at first) saw one link, not two in items such as The Godfather (1972). Numerous film articles do indeed include the year in parentheses. Tony (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: FAC

No problem. I almost always declare an oppose these days, even at FACs that might only be a few tweaks away from a pass. The only reason I didn't do it in this case is that I didn't review or even read the bulk of the article. I'd merely noticed in passing that Ealdgyth had questioned four sources; it seemed too few for an article that I remembered using the IMDb, so I scanned the "References" section to pull out those additional issues. If the nomination isn't withdrawn, I'll leave an oppose at the page later, based on the sourcing issues. Steve ^{T • C} 07:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good; thank you Steve. I think it's important that nominators be dissuaded from underpreparing. Sandy does a good job of keeping the list as short as possible, but needs reviewers to support her. We got into the habit of not opposing. :-) Tony (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

sig

Thanks for picking that up. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I have added the delink dates script to my monobook but it is not working. Any help?. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I been manually delinking dates for few months and now iam tried of doing it. I been seeing you nick in the watching so i thought i could do my work more faster when installing the script. Coming to that yes iam using firefox. Never had problems with firefox that is the only browser i have. Here is my monobook. You can check :). I have refreshed it three times and yet it is not working :(. I have tested with MS IE yet it not working. Sorry for my English :). --SkyWalker (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyWalker, I can't understand why you are having problems. I have the following suggestions:

• make sure you refresh the cache
• try logging into Wikipedia with a different browser and trying to see if the script works.
• disable add-ons, plug-ins, etc (such as WikiEdit). It might be easier to delete Firefox and reinstall it

Other than that, I am sorry but I can't help. Lightmouse (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I will try out all of it. I will let you and Tony know about it. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

TONY i got it WORKING!!. :). I came to know when i was editing a page and found it on left side. Till now i was looking on top. It is best if Lightmouse added instruction so that people don't get confused. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I always tell people to look on the left. Are you sure it is on the right? Lightmouse (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I meant left :P. I keep on making this silly mistake :(. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw Lightmouse thanks. Please i think adding instruction with images is nice. Seriously i did not know what i should after adding the script. A manual is a must.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I thought that you meant left, but I needed to check. I will consider your suggestion for instructions, or maybe Tony will help me with it... If you have any more suggestions, feel free to ask at User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist. Thanks and keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If i have some idea i would share it with you :). --SkyWalker (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late msg. Thanks for the tip. I use it according to the article. I have learned that UK dates are different so if i see month and day i will convert to day and month. I did not know Australia have the same method. Btw i was wondering why is the script changing actress to actor?. Most people believe and me too that actress is for female and actor is for male. Iam confused please help. Thanks.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• You can generally see from the title, the infobox and the lead items—whether the topic as American and Canadian, or other. If not related to an anglophone country, use what is established in the articles (presuming your settings are at "not pref". Canadian articles are almost entirely US format, but you need to check each one. British, Irish, Australian, NZ, South African and Zimbabwean use internation; many of their sports articles need changing from US. Tony (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk revisit

Tony, have you had a chance to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one: No Way Out (2004). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/No_Way_Out_(2004)

Replied to your last batch of comments.--S_RX 01:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Footscray City College

I've declined your speedy on Footscray City College because the article is not a spoof. It has been subjected to repeated vandalism by multiple IPs and user accounts. I've reverted to the cleanest version I can find. Remember to check the history of articles that appear to have bogus information in them. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"second fastest qualifier" "third fastest"

Hi tony, do we need a hyphen for first-fastest, second-fastest etc? Thanks, YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think even good American writers will insist on this (AmEng tends to use fewer hyphens than other varieties). I'd say "fastest" rather than "first-fastest". Tony (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

Hi Tony. Could you avoid changing the date format on non-American articles from the international date format to the American one, e.g. here? Ideally, you should be entering the "df=y" parameter to birth date and age templates if they are non-Americans. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, this is the third time, although I've done thousands correctly. Very sorry. I could have saved you the trouble by fixing it at the touch of a button ... Tony (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok - sorry; I assumed you were using the same script to do all of them. Thanks for all the hard work in that case. I am personally still bemused as to why the birth date and age templates use US dates as standard... пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I told User:Deb about the new policy, but she continues to link dates. See if you can explain it to her better. I still think that the policy is written obscurely - "deprecated" is not clear enough for most people to understand, and the language about "purely for autoformatting" makes it hard to understand that the policy is a general policy applicable to nearly all dates in WP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I must comment that I don't link dates "purely for autoformatting". I do it because it looks good and is useful. I also note that the debate continues on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). It would be nice to think that everyone who disagrees with the policy does so because they are too stupid to understand a word like "deprecate" - but I don't think I am as stupid as people who use the word in a misleading manner. Deb (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, it does have the effect of diluting our high-value links in the vicinity, and can worsen the "sea of blue" effect that we find in some articles; all or little return, in the view of most WPians. The utility you talk of is the autoformatting that our readers cannot access. How is that situation desirable? Tony (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"The autoformatting that our readers cannot access" is a patently false over-generalization. Tennis expert (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how; please don't talk in riddles. And be aware that my time budget for participating in circular arguments with individuals is strictly limited. Tony (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

United States

Is there a rule that U.S is to be linked on infobox?. Two user are reverting the changes in Amber Tamblyn and Leelee Sobieski. Even though i told them it should not be overlinked they are still linking it. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea the other threatened he would report me to 3RR in article Amber Tamblyn. Also lando has reverted you changes [6]--SkyWalker (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure Master, Anything you say. Regarding 3RR. Well if the admins wish to ban me so be it. Today is my birthday so i think i will watch some movies and play games and continue editing after i get unbanned. :)--SkyWalker (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I did not pursue the reversions at CONTEXT, preferring to let things cool and, indeed, proposing a practical compromise, as you see below. Is this not a better way? You still haven't self-reverted at that article ... I'm disappointed. Tony (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now Lando is linking New Zealand in article Luke McAlister --SkyWalker (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Overlinking

Some additional context for your comment would be excellent. I'm only aware of what's been going on at Amber Tamblyn, where SkyWalker has most certainly violated 3RR. PC78 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not violated in wrong way. Both of you keep on linking US on the infobox which i reverted. When i repeated warned to read below links. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reported SkyWalker for a clear viollation of 3RR at Amber Tamblyn. I appreciate that this concerns changes made to WP:OVERLINK, but whether right or wrong, edit warring is unacceptable. PC78 (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

3RR is more than three reversions; I have made three.Londo06 11:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:3RR. Your comment implies incorrectly that the number is the defining characteristic of the policy.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Feature request

See Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Delinking_dates_according_to_the_new_format. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

De-linking within infoboxes

To leave two details linked and one not looks awful on an aesthetic basis. The fact that it is removed from the text is a point I agree with and also use as a tool for another section of my argument; you do need to link something like the U.S. once within an article. The primary reason is that it looks shockingly awful within the infoboxes; either all geographical details are removed, or all remain linked.Londo06 11:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. WRT Lobieski, I wouldn't be linking either "NYC" or New York" on that line, so the problem is solved. In fact, the infobox looks far neater with just "Official website" blued out at the bottom. Who does not know where NYC is? ANd may I ask why "actress" is linke in the opening line? It's in contrast with the high-value links in the rest of the article.

But this will not resolve the blue black blue issue in all instances. Perhaps we do need to write into CONTEXT a slightly more detailed guideline that discourages the blueing of "United States" in infoboxes unless it occurs with other linked items on the same line, where editors have the option of linking it for neater appearance.

Would you be agreeable to that kind of wording? I know that Woody would support something like that at CONTEXT, so we could put a proposal there ...? Tony (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear; that is all blue or no blue. If it is an infobox with other linked items it remains linked. BTW I fully support their de-linking outside of the article, for me it is largely an aesthetic thing and the fact the one link for the first detail most browser look at;- the infobox, is not such a bad thing.Londo06 12:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very pleased that you support their not being linked generally in articles. I would still leave only the option of linking a common term in an infobox, only where it is juxtaposed with other linked items and might look untidy unlinked (personally, I dislike infoboxes for other reasons, so in creating an article I would avoid the situation). My concern is to mark the guideline as special circumstances so as not to provide a slippery slope for those who would link "UK", "Australia", "US", "Canada" et al throughout an article. Believe me, such linkings are all over the place as though a nervous twitch. Under these circumstances, I'm please to support an insertion. Is that agreeable to you? Tony (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the guideline (WP:CONTEXT) is open to interpretation: it merely says that "Items that would be familiar to most readers of the article, such as the names of major geographic features and locations" "generally should not be linked", so it's up to the judgement of individual editors what this includes. Now obviously United States will be familiar to most, but the likes of Palau and Vanuatu are much less likely. I would personally prefer to see some measure of consistancy when linking to countries, particuarly within an infobox, so I guess this echoes the aesthetic concern raised above. PC78 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Until someone aggressively removed a list of specific geographical names last month, this was the case; but I did in a way agree that specifying, even though it was a "such as" list, was too inflexible in some circumstances. I'm happy with the generic list at the moment, I think. It's hard to get it right, though. Tony (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is incorrect; the specific list was not always there, having been added in early July without discussion. There has never been a consensus to delink "United States", "Canada", and similar terms. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is correct: your actions were indeed aggressive, and without notice or agreement by anyone. I think you need to clean out your own house before criticising others. Tony (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, keep in mind that you added the text in question, reworking both MOSLINK and CONTEXT without discussion in early July. I removed it in September, after reading through the talk pages of both guidelines, and discussion began. If you wish to look at it in terms of "bold, revert, discuss" then process was followed. That is in no way "aggressive". --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case

I'm sure this wasn't intentional? Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think, someone else trying to be nice once edited the page to include those. Or I haven't changed it from a long time ago. I have no objection to what you're doing and I'll restore your edit. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined on Alexander Jacob IPS

Hi there. I have declined your speedy request on this article, as no reason was given, and there didn't appear to be anything obviously wrong with the article at a glance. I would be willing to reconsider deleting if a reason can be given that is based in the existing Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please note that just sticking a {{speedydelete}} on an article is not especially helpful to admins, if you can explain somewhere why a page should be deleted when you tag it, it saves us a lot of time playing guessing games with borderline articles. Happy editing, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

Hello, please see my comment at Talk:Alexander Jacob IPS. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

Albert Speer

Tony, I questioned whether an article about a German shouldn't be using international style dates rather than US-style dates, and the nominator correctly pointed out the wording to me from Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Strong national ties to a topic:

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.

Is that what was intended? He correctly interpreted it that the guideline doesn't apply to Germany, since it only refers to English-speaking countries. In other words, even though they use international-style dates in Venezuela, since they have stronger ties to the US than to the UK, we want to use US-style dates in Venezuelan articles, even though they don't use US-style dates in Venezuela? I don't really know what this guideline intends, but the nominator correctly stated the guideline (as worded) doesn't apply to non-English-speaking countries, like Germany, so the dates are US-style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

US editors write about subjects related to non-anglophone countries, or to no country at all. The upshot of the heated debate about this at MOSNUM was that their spelling and their date format should be retained in those instances. It's only articles related to the UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ, South Africa (and Zimbabwe, to be pedantic) that must be in international format. Fair enough, too, since MOSNUM did not adopt the other option of international except for North-America-related articles. Tony (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

PS As for Venezuela, it's whatever the existing (original) date format is. Who cares whether month or day comes first, anyway, for non-anglophone countries? As long as it's consistent. Tony (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually go by Date format#Date format which is pretty well referenced. Venezuela uses dd/mm/yyyy.[7][8] Germany uses d.m.(yy)yy.[9] Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, that's not my reading of MOSNUM Tony (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

But when I'm writing a Venezuelan article, I do use the format used in Venezuela (day month year) since I assume Venezuelans will be reading it. That's OK right? As for changing the dates, well, since I'm usually writing alone ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I don't know what your answer was. Does a German article have to use international-style dates, or does it not matter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter: either format, but editors may become upset if the existing one is switched. Where the formats are significantly mixed, there's a case for making a new choice. Tony (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony; that's all I needed to know ... it's hard to keep up with Mos, 'ya know :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Delinking common terms

Hey there, I've been using your script for not too long now, and I have a question about delinking common terms; in this case, countries, states, cities, and such. I brought up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Linking common terms, and then moved the discussion to the Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Linking common terms—countries, states, etc. but haven't received a response yet, so I thought I should ask you. In a nutshell, my question is (this question, of course, stands under music WikiProject): the script unlinks common terms, but doesn't unlink other, lesser known countries and such. Do we leave those terms linked or do we unlink them, as they do not add to the reader's knowledge of the subject? DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 03:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In the great majority of articles, the specific geographical names the script delinks lead to a neat removal; typically UK, US, American, Australian etc. in the opening sentence. However, this doesn't work as well when commonly known anglophone country-names are listed in the running prose along with less well-known country-names (Namibia, for example); this leads some editors to object on the grounds of untidiness. IMO, it doesn't matter if the common ones are black and the uncommon ones are blue, since it brings a new level of meaning readers ("this one is uncommon; you may wish to click on it", rather than imposing a blanket blue on all country names, which readers are then more likely to ignore). If you have the time, I'd review any such lists within the diff (where the delinkings will show up as red) and decide yourself whether to (1) delink further, manually; (2) leave as is; or (3) reverse and re-apply the script without the "common terms" function (by hitting "Delink dates to mdy" or dmy. The bottom two buttons are the superbuttoms that include common terms and ISO dates. Tony (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Script bug?

Hi Tony, there seems to be a bug in the script you used on Silesia - it replaced [[Category:Silesia| ]] with [[Category:Silesia|Silesia]], thus moving the article away from its prime position in the category listing (whih I presume wasn't intentional). Cheers, Kotniski (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's just come up on Lightmouse's page and MOS talk; I don't know why it hasn't been noticed before. I'm just about to go to bed, so could you revert if necessary? Lightmouse is surely fixing it as a priority, and I'll watch for it until this function is disabled. (I've learnt something about categories through this.) Sorry for the trouble. Tony (talk)

Done. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Advice_about_categories_please. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dates

I can’t keep track of where the proponents of links to trivia are going with RfCs and what not. Let me know if I can help with something more valuable than arguing with other editors as to what constitutes a "consensus". Greg L (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

date changes

Please be aware that the changes you are making (script-assisted) to delinking dates per the latest MOS is leaving unformatted dates which may appear non-sensical to some readers. See, e.g., the recent change you made to 78th United States Congress‎. Those dates now need to be fixed. Please advise. Thank you.—Markles 14:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the ISO dates? Are you aware that our readers (and the many WPians who have not chosen date prefs and logged in) see only the raw date formatting. Removal of the square brackets has, indeed, brought home the issue.

I think the ISO dates are unfortunate, since many (most?) readers won't understand them, in particular whether "1944-07-01" means January 7 or July 1. They also look bad against the publication details that come after them (e.g., "Sess. 2, Pub.L. 78-225, 58 Stat. 8"). It's a bore, I know, but are you interested in converting them to US format, to match the rest of the article? It can only be done manually.

BTW, I think the Congress articles and those on Congressional Acts are an excellent achievement and an important resource. Well done. Tony (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Santa Maria, Bulacan

Hi can you help me editing the article Santa Maria, Bulacan? Pls change Its now conurbated with Metro Manilla to Its now conurbated with Metro Manila? I cant edit bcoz its too long, thanks. Secaundis (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Deprecation

I see no real change in meaning; we intend deprecated to mean "was once considered desirable, but it no longer is." It is therefore redundant; some people will also understand as much stronger than it is. Redundant and confusing language serves little purpose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

{{unicite}}

Since you seem to like the idea of that template, could you take a good look at the various outputs and find specific problems with them and suggest ways to fix them? ThanksHeadbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to have about 50 fields. I haven't a clue what it's all about, and I can't imagine why it's not much much easier just to type out a reference following a selected model. If you want me to comment, I'll need a step-by-step explanation of how you use it, what goes where goes when. I've never used a cite template before, and never will.

Exemplification and an explicit narrative telling you how to use it would be required for me to understand. Tony (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well right now it's not so much about how to write stuff in (documentation will follow), but rather what gets out assuming you've entered the "correct information" (whatever that may be). So basically what the "job" entails is this. Look in the table of outputs, find what's wrong and how it should look. The more specific, the better. Comment in the relevant sections.

As far as using template, it's rather straigthfoward. Say you want to cite a book, its author its year and its publisher, you simply write {{unicite|author=J.Rockefeller |title=How to Kill Mammoths with Rockets |year=1975}} to produce User:Headbomb/unicite and that's all there is to it.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Kenyon College date audit

Hey, sorry, I pretty much had to undo your date/terms audit because it was right after another user had done a bunch of stuff messing up the article (POV, crazy formatting, etc.) and I reverted to an earlier version. So I didn't mean to be reverting you specifically. I will go back and clean up the overlinking and stuff, I just didn't want you to think I was reverting you. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Consistency script

I would be interested in taking a look at the script pair to make the dates consistent. Just let me know what needs to be imported. Thanks, –xeno (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond my knowledge; I'll ask Lightmouse to look into this. Tony (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to 1998 in spaceflight and 1999 in spaceflight

Hi. I noticed you unlinked dates in 1998 in spaceflight and 1999 in spaceflight. WP:MOSNUM states that "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so". The articles in question are parts of a timeline, and therefore the dates are relevant. I feel that this is a suitable reason to make an exception. Do you have any objection if I re-link them. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked at the articles concerned, and I would have delinked them myself. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your objection, but the delinking does not affect the time line in any way, because the dates, times and positioning are all left intact. If perhaps greater emphasis is what you are seeking, then perhaps you should consider putting the dates into bold type. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• • My objection is that since this is a timeline, users reading it should be able to easily access the articles related to dates. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 07:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You want to relink the dates? Why? The dates might be relevant to the article (of course they are), but why are the pages "January 5" or "1981" relevant? Can you provide examples of the claimed relevance? Tony (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • We link to the places where the events happened. Why not link to when they happened as well? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We link to where only where it will significantly add to the reader's understanding of the topic. We do not link to the names of commonly known countries, cities, oceans, etc. Please see WP:CONTEXT. Again, can you provide examples of date links that do this? Tony (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• 2007 in architecture, 2007 in art, 2007 in poetry, 2007 in music. Need I continue? Also, please can I know why you have decided to continue with the disputed action with regard to similar articles (ie. ones part of the same timeline), en mass, whilst our discussion on the matter is ongoing. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that the "year-in-X" links were part of that script function, and will check with Lightmouse. But there is a recommendation against hidden links that look like a trivial solitary year-link. Is that what you're referring to? If so, it would be much better to let the readers know what it's actually linked to rather than concealing it. Tony (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, my point is that the "year-in-X" articles should contain links to dates, as they are articles about events in a period of time. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Um ... there's a large nav box at the top of each of those articles with links to more year-articles than you could poke a stick at. Why do you want to clutter the inline text with redundant links? Tony (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not the issue. I give up trying to explain it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • No, please do persist. I'm keen that we work out ways of improving the formatting of year-in-X and, particularly, timeline articles. I have in mind an extra facility in Lightmouse's monobook script that would format the date fragments that so often open each factoid. And I really don't understand why we need 2007 in the opening sentence at the top, when the link is adjacent in the box. Tony (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • My position is that while it would be inappropriate to link to dates in articles discussing a specific subject, articles which relate to time, including chronologies and timelines, should link to dates as they are relevant to the passage of time, and particularly relevant to the times and dates when events occurred. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but right at the top in the opening sentence as an unvarying formula, with the nav box just under? That's my particular issue here. Are you aware of this? Tony (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Delinking script

Hey Tony, I have a question about that date-delinking script. I'm not sure if you're the original writer of it, but anyway, the script seemed to mess up this edit, adding stray "x"s around the dates. Can this be fixed? Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, the 'xx' was not intended. A new feature was being added to the code and that bug crept in. The bug was only present for a few minutes. You were just unlucky to be using it at that time. Fixed now. Feedback like that is always welcome in case something hasn't been spotted. Lightmouse (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dash check

Is this title correct? East-West Schism SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Read fully

Where did that come from? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

I remember now that I had edited the introduction after the rest of the article was copyedited by another user. I was wondering if you could give the rest of it a brief skim and tell me if the same problems that you had with the lead (as you stated in the FAC) exist elsewhere in the article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Philip Larkin

If you've time please could you take a look first at Philip Larkin and then the discussion here. Thank you! almost-instinct 13:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FSC

I think it's equally clear either way, as long as we state one.

But I take it we are approaching this question using different analogies. See WP:RM or WP:AFD for the sort of discussions which do routinely use "as nom". FSC normally does not, like FAC, polish a nomination in many relatively small details; the nominees are sound files, and the most that can be tweaked is to filter out noise a time more or a time fewer. Therefore FSC must usually be an accept/decline decision like RM or AFD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

Please, where was there a discussion with more than twelve editors supporting this change? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Try this for starters, gathered only at the very beginning. Tony (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've actually read this page recently, but many of the supporters seemed to be under the belief that autoformatting would never work for unregistered users. As you may or may not be aware I've recently left comments at WT:MOSNUM offering my services to "fix" this (as well as a comment by a dev with SVN access to MediaWiki indicating such changes would not be hard to do). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You were claiming there was no support for ending DA. As for the scheme to resurrect it from the grave: there are several reasons this will not work. I suggest you join me on trying to make year pages better instead of wasting time on a non-problem. Tony (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly a lot of "support" spread out over many pages isn't exactly the kind of thing you go using to make large changes to the 'pedia. Most changes of this scale require a straw poll of some sorts that runs for at least a week and typically involves over a hundred editors (the more the better). And please be careful when "quoting" me; I never said there was "no support", only that it was not enough for this kind of large change. Date autoformatting is important enough to put a stop to this while the developer avenue is further explored. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the proportion of readers it actually affects, no, it isn't. Trebor (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FSC gobbleygook

Thanks. What do you think of Shoemaker's Holiday's voting proposal here? --Kleinzach 23:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wagner

You edit pages on classical music so you will know the answer to this one, what is the name of the loud piece by Wagner with al the descending scales, not the famous bit from Tannhauser (I know that one) it sort of sounds like sex ought to be, if you know what I mean. Hope you can help. Giano (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Giano—glad to see you around. Hmmm ... Wagner's not my thing, beyond a professional obligation to know the minimum (when I was a musician). Aren't all Wagner's works loud and based on descending scales <grin>. I've completely lost interest in sex, which might account for my larger WP time budget. But even that is about to be severely constrained by RL work.

As compensation for drawing a nil with this musician, all I can offer is two W jokes:

1. The thing about Wagner's music is ... it's better than it sounds.
2. You know the feeling: the Wagner opera starts at 6pm. After two hours, you look at your watch and it's 20 past 6. Tony (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

books to read for 1a?

Hi Tony,

what books should I read (books, not wiki links) to help me be at better judge of 1a? Thanks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ling.nut, let me ask Noetica, the ultimate guru; he's on an extended wikibreak, but I'm in contact with him. Tony (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Noetica says, "alas, there's a shortage of the type of book you want. I'm all for structured show-and-tell exerices, and the instruction that arises by observing the diff from a good copy-editor of your draft text. I guess this shortage is why I prepared my five tutorial pages. Tony (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Player Infobox - Manon Bollegraf

Hi there. I have been idly fixing up tennis players with an infobox when I come across them...but you just reverted the above player. Was it something that I had put in there...or was it because of TennisExpert...whom I notice there is a lot of discussion around...(and had edits in there...)
Could you let me know, if I did something formatically wrong?Mjquin_id (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a faint feeling something might have been wrong in that edit of mine. Can you simply revert it for now? Tony (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Date overlink in aftershock list

Thanks for cleaning up List of 2008 Sichuan earthquake aftershocks. But sorting by date in the resulting table no longer works so I had to revert the change for maintenance work. Please make another try after this round - make sure sorting by date still works. Sillyvalley (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this valuable feedback; thought we had it fixed. I'll let Lightmouse know. Tony (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates in other wikis

As one who is very active in dates per WP:MOSNUM, would you know if the same rules apply to other wikis? For example, should I delink dates in the Simple English Wikipedia, like in this article as I would if the article were in the English Wikipedia? Or should there be a separate discussion and consensus in that wiki first? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Such decisions are taken separately in each wiki; all Wikipedias are independent, and the English one has no precedence or authority over the others. You should find the appropriate venue in the Simple English Wikipedia and raise the issue there. The good thing with smaller wikis is that they are more flexible, and decisions can be reached without the fuss and chaos we are familiar with here. This flexibility can somewhat counterweigh, I think, the general inertia; decisions can be taken, and thus applied, more easily. The de-linking of dates throughout the various Wikipedias will take time, sure, but I am certain that, in the end, selective linking will become the norm throughout the Mediawiki sites. Waltham, The Duke of 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that in the Danish MOSNUM, they seem to advise that full dates should be linked, even though only one format is used in Danish. Crazy ... did someone there mindlessly copy our own folly? Tony (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova

Few of them are linking the dates again and again. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightmouse is linking the dates?. I thought he was on our side?. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah oops. I misread then. I though lightmouse and Colonies Chris was reverting and plus Tennis expert was undoing the changes. If Tennis expert continue it is best to contact an admin or a Bureaucrat. I still don't understand why people want dates to be linked. It looks better when not linked. Is delinking of date finalized?. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It enjoys wide community support, but there is a small band of very loud complainers at MOSNUM talk and a few other places. They're VERY upset that I've told them to stop sniping from their armchairs and do some work, for once. Tony (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you check my talk page. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Halloween Dispatch

... in case you want to look: Wikipedia:FCDW/October 27, 2008‎. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you don't have to work on this (it's very rough still, and both Jbmurray and Awadewit will begin to work on it in a few days), but can you contribute a catchy title? Wikipedia:FCDW/ElectionTFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting dates in templates

In the light of changes made so dates are no longer linked for auto-formatting, I was wondering if there was any kind of application that could run through an article and rewrite the dates in the date= and accessdate= fields... for example, 2008-08-04 to August 4, 2008. I was adding something to Valkyrie and wanted to revise the templates, though the manual update seemed time-consuming. Any suggestions? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The only way to do this would be to write a module for AWB or maybe a java script. Either way its doable. I will see if I can make it work but Lightmouse and Rjwilmsi are better at it than I.--Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, over at the WP:MUSICALS project, we have linked dates in the infoboxes of some of the musicals. Separately, I see that User:Paul A has been linking lots and lots of dates recently. I left him a note, but.... Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MDD

Tony, Major depressive disorder has received a lot of edits since I suspect you last looked at it. Do you have time for a quick look or tune-up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Joel Selwood FA nomination

Hey there,

Given your previous inputs and edits to this article, you're invited to wander down and express your opinion toward this article's current FA nomination here. Cheers! Boomtish (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:HUSH and other important policies

I suggest that you read and become familiar with WP:HUSH, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL, among other important Wikipedia policies that you appear to be disregarding with regularity. Tennis expert (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with those policies, thank you very much. Tony (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle :o --Closedmouth (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pot and kettle, meet water.. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis stub rules?

Hey, can you tell me if you have a preference around placing the Tennis-Stub on a page? I have been placing it at the top - trying to increase visibility...but noticed some are getting moved to the bottom? (I would ask on the Talk:Tennis page, but not sure who actually goes there anymoreMjquin_id (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it Tennis expert who is doing this? If so, there'll be a dispute, since he has serious and troublesome ownership issues with the whole Tennis WikiProject. A lot of people are upset about his attitudes and actions WRT more than one matter. Tony (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lying is an element of incivility, which you have displayed a lot of recently. Have a look at this when you get the urge to trash talk yours truly again. Tennis expert (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So my post earlier today at your talk page, which I see you've scrubbed from the page, was "trash-talking"? Or was it "lying"? It's headed "Conciliatory potential". Please calm down and try to regain a sense of proportion; your behaviour is looking more and more manic. You're seeing everything as an attack on you by default. I'm sorry to see you in this state. Anything I can do to help? Tony (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert

I see he/she removed your warning to them from their talk page. Are we able to take action against his/her edits? - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. To the ANI. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, He has not attacked me but reverting all mine and Chris edits is not every nice. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Baseball Year

stop removing the Baseball year template per WP:CONTEXT#Dates.--Yankees10 16:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminate script assisted delinking

Why do you consider that "Switzerland" should be delinked on List of members of the Swiss Federal Council and Swiss National Library ? Your edit summary doesn't provide much help. In the meantime, please stop this unless you can provide a clear explanation. -- User:Docu

You're right; I've reinstated the link in both articles. Tony (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Format for "external links" and "See also" sections

Tony, I have a question I can't find the answer to in the MoS. I am working with an editor on Acid dissociation constant, which recently failed FAC and is (I hope) soon coming back there. I recommended to the editor there that they place short descriptions next to the "See also" links and next to each URL in "External links". However, I was surprised to discover that quite a few FAs don't do this. One that does is Enzyme kinetics, which uses spaced em dashes to separate the link from the description.

I think these descriptions are useful, but shouldn't be mandatory, since often a link name is all the reader needs to see to understand the value of the link. However, I'm not clear what the appropriate formatting is, or if it should be consistent across articles. I think spaced em dashes is probably OK, but is this specified anywhere in the MoS? Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Day of the year

Please stop de-linking dates on the year pages: they're date pages, so of course the dates are linked. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the ones I self-reverted a few minutes ago? I did them by mistake, having strayed onto them in an adjacent nav-box. Tony (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I would be referring to this, this, this, this, this and this, which you most assuredly did not revert. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Done; thanks for pointing this out. Tony (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course they're done: I did them myself. Are you sure you're paying attention when you edit? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In future, don't waste my time. Tony (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You've already wasted mine, cleaning up after your unacknowledged carelessness: I'm simply hoping to prevent future incidents. So, again, please play closer attention when charging ahead on your peculiar obsession. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad your time was wasted. Next time, express yourself more clearly to save me needless trouble rather than accusing me, and I'll thank you for pointing out my mistake. As it is, I withdraw my thanks expressed earlier. Tony (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I stated myself very clearly. That you didn't understand--twice--reflects on your lack of awareness of your own editing, not any lack of clarity in my simple statements. As for your added 'Aggression usually ends up rebounding, as it has for you in this case'--does that mean you intend on making more and bigger mistakes to take out your frustration? I'd suggest that a little self-reflection would be helpful here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• You can state yourself "very clearly" until you're blue in the face, chum, but that just makes you look like a prize fool. Rather than telling you to fuck off (which I'd never do in actuality—aggression never pays), I advise that you reflect yourself on the time you are continuing to waste. Your welcome on my talk page has been overstayed. Tony (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Script bug

Hey Tony, there is/was a bug in Lightmouse's script and some/all of the 'years in music' articles are now a bit messed up. See this edit for example. See all the "$2"s. I think the articles should be reverted for now. I got to go to work right now, could you take care of it. Thanks. - kollision (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a bug in the script, but a bad fault in the syntax in the first place. Instead of reverting, why not fix up what was wrong in the first place? This will have to be done manually. For example:

[[March 7|7]]–[[March 16]] was displaying as 7–March 16

which was hopelessly wrong. My advice is not to revert at all until Lightmouse advises whether it's possible to tweak the script to "translate" this error into a proper unlinked equivalent. If so, he'll advise whether it's better to revert and then run the script again or whether the script can be re-applied without reverting to correct the error. If not, the manual option needs to be pursued, and since the issue arose from bad syntax in the first place, I think it's the job of the editors to fix it. I'm glad this has been uncovered. Thanks for your vigilance. Tony (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony, the 'messed up' assertion is true. If you search the example for '$2', you will see what User:Kollision means. It was a bug and has now been fixed, see User_talk:Lightmouse#Script_bug. I believe that is all he/she was referring to. Lightmouse (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Lightmouse: before the script,

[[March 7|7]]–[[March 16]] was displaying as 7–March 16

After the script,

[[March 7|7]]–[[March 16]] was displaying as 7$2–March 16

Are we looking at the same diff? It seems that one messed-up version was merely changed into another messed-up version. Tony (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just run the script again on the example provided by Kollision. Still the dollar signs:

[10] Tony (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cache

Some thoughts:

• If you add the script page to your watchlist or check my contributions you will see if the script has been changed. You can then clear your cache.
• Alternatively, you could simply clear your cache at intervals. For example, before you start a long session using it.
• You can set your browser to clear temporary files when it closes. I am not too knowledgeable on such things but that will have the same effect as clearing your cache at the time the browser is next opened.
• Some people like to reboot their computer from time to time e.g. once per day. That doesn't necessarily clear the cache but it can be a good idea for other reasons.

In most cases, the cache issue isn't something to worry about but it can be a nuisance sometimes. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/WrestleMania XXIV/archive1

Hey, do you have time to look over this article and give it a review? iMatthew 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid not: 10 at top of this page? Just looking in briefly each night. Tony (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

*To the musical strains of a Heavenly oratorio…*

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_1 Greg L (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well… that was interesting… Greg L (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I thought you’d be fascinated by this complaint Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#More questionable behavior from WT:MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, Tony1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Review. Thank you.MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Decade article

In response to your post at the years project, would you like to help out with our 1340s draft? Wrad (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed, and have bookmarked it. As you may have seen, my RL work-stress is on 9.5 out of 10. By Friday, it should be downs to something more manageable and I'll take a proper look. Tell me, to what extent does it borrow from 1345? Tony (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, bits from 1345 are in the Americas and Africa sections, the Reconquista sections, and the Black Plague section. Other sections have dwarfed whatever they borrowed. Wrad (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Beta testing needed

I think I have fixed the comma issue (and made the code much more efficient) but I need feedback from beta testers. All you have to do is go to your monobook replace the current script with:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test_script.js');

The two scripts won't work together. Lightmouse (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Beta testing complete. Use the normal script. Lightmouse (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

SS Carl D. Bradley and DYK

Noticed your recent contribution. Because of the impending 50th anniversary, I thought this might be a good DYK. I was told (on my talk page) that we are about 5000 bytes away from the cut off -- there already have been some substantial updates. So I'm recruiting help. If you can find the time, it would be appreciated. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Stan

I'd love to help, but I have to be parsimonious with my Wiki time budget at the moment. End of next week I might be able to do a fly-by on it and suggest things. Tony (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll review it and lighten up Tony's load. Give me 2-3 days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WT:FAC

Have you abandoned FAC and FAR? There's a discussion here, following on the withdrawal of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Speight/archive2 that you might want to participate in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Wow tony. After delinking the dates tennis expert and his crew is reverting and linking dates and that person says in the edit summary "There is no consensus to delete existing date links". Iam not sure if that person should be taken to ANI or RFC for simply reverting. If i may ask how long do you think we have keep on delinking the same page over and over and over again?. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Better than most of us, Tony knows that the right answer per WP:BRD and WP:3RR is "once, then discuss" after the first revert.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

August 1, 2003

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [11]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced comment?

MOS-issues make my head spin, but this comment seems out of place? I thought that section was about dashes not dates? Shenme (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 12 hours for edit warring on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). On November 10 you were warned for edit warring and you acknowledged that warning here and here (although those acknowledgments weren't too promising). Unfortunately, you continued today with further reverts. Please review WP:EDITWAR during your block. If you wish to contest it, please place {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Slow edit warring is still edit warring.

Given you have never been blocked, your block will only last 12 hours. I trust that you will pursue dispute resolution in the future rather than edit war. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• This is just about one of the most absurd blocks that I've ever seen, and I've seen some pretty daft blocks. This is an outrageous abuse of power on Rjd0060's part, and I hope he will reflect on whether he is fit to continue as an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you feel that way. All three users who felt the need to continue edit warring were blocked. No exception here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Am I expected to congratulate you because your abuse of power was even-handed? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Question: how is this block absurd? – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Do you mean "Why is this block absurd?" If so, see below. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
          • No, I mean what I say :-) – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
            • In which case I don't know what you mean. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Was there some reason not to simply topic ban?LeadSongDog (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that needs community consensus or an outstanding arbcom sanction, something that I am sure it would not give. This would also need to be more than his first block. I don't think it was an abuse of power, very heavy-handed, but not an abuse of power; it was an edit war and it had been dragging on forever. Personally, I was about to fully protect the page, or asked someone else to, it would have achieved the same goal but without alienating editors. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Protecting the page would have been the rational thing to do. You call dishing out these blocks "heavy-handed". I stick with "an abuse of power", which will inevitably lead to alienating editors and may well cause more damage than it was intended to prevent. A grave mistake, which is why I question Rjd0060's fitness for the role of administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Full protection was applied for a week earlier this month. None of the parties attempted to resolve their conflict during the week of protection and resumed the edit war as soon as protection expired. MBisanz ^talk 17:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • (ec) Exactly what damage was this so-called edit war causing to the encyclopedia? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Ideally, the page should be protected until parties can agree not to edit war over it. If people continue to edit war, violating policy, what can you expect? I don't think Rjd was that heavy handed here. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I am firmly of the opinion that it was an abuse of power on Rjd0060's part which demonstrates that he does not have the judgement necessary to be an administrator. Your mileage may of course vary, don't much care frankly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

            • Malleus, have you lost your way? When did you acquire the notion that judgement was necessary to become an administrator? Wake up and smell the roses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

              Yep, I got a bit carried away there Sandy. Won't happen again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)#

              Obviously people who pass adminship with over 100 supports and no opposes whatsoever have very poor judgement. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

              Well, I certainly do. I'm still trying to figure this one out, though. The tag was changed from disputed to under discussion. Would I dispute that, or would I merely strongly discuss it? --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

              Well I don't think it matters now, hopefully Tony will do the right thing and stop edit warring. The return of the old boring "admins all have poor judgement and are abusive" meme here is simply distracting the issue at hand though. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

            • Hmm, per Bishonen below, I have to agree with you here, sadly. Though I would disagree with calling it abuse, probably a mistake is more accurate. But as you say, our opinions will differ. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• What the...? Tony has made one further edit to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) after MBisanz' warning. That's a war now?? I've taken this to WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

I've unblocked you, Tony1, and Locke Cole as well, per the growing consensus at ANI. I strongly encourage you to pursue dispute resolution and not to revert each other anymore. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What I strongly encourage you to do I will leave for others to guess. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just come into this. I will pursue action against this blocker for breaching tenets of the admin policy. The action is akin to the worst kind of fascism (random, sudden, arbitrary, unreasonable). Tony (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) PS And unfortunately my RL work does not allow me to take this action for a day or two. I simply have no time. Tony (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW I will be 100% behind you when you do, for exactly the same reason. This kind of admin bullying has got to be nipped in the bud. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I believe it is high time that a centralised noticeboard be created to document and monitor admin abuses of editors. I've been advised that complaining through the "official" channels is a waste of html, because they all band together to support each other. It is also apparent that the removal of adminship requires an act of both houses of parliament. I'm thinking through the design of such a noticeboard, for creation in my userspace. If WP has failed to provide a balanced system of discipline and demotion, it is up to the people (us) to do the best we can to apply pressure through such documentation and monitoring to put an end to bullying and arbitrary, out-of-proportion punishment that is being handed down. Feedback here is welcome; when the plans are more concrete, I will publicise them. Tony (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm, just coming into this, and hesitant to dig too deeply into the issue. However, I will say that it is quite surprising to me to see Tony accused of "edit warring." Tony has been bold (as required by Wikipedia policy) and civil (as required by Wikipedia policy) in every instance in which I've encountered him. He's been pursuing a change that has a lot of support, but is very significant -- affecting nearly every article on the encyclopedia.

I find it hard to imagine how the thoughtful, well-intentioned editor I have come to know could suddenly be guilty of an offense so severe that it require a block. Tony has always been responsive to my comments, and flexible in his approach.

I want to address the noticeboard issue separately. From where I sit, the ongoing discussion about which admin did or didn't abuse his power is one of the more damaging dynamics in an otherwise healthy community. I believe this type of endless chatter generally results when there is no effective way of airing concerns -- when bureaucracy and red tape become more of a factor than simple justice and mission-driven decision making. A central noticeboard seems like a reasonable proposal for how to deal with it; though I have some doubts whether a recently-aggrieved party will be taken seriously as a champion for an idea like that. I am generally supportive of the idea, and I do hope that it goes somewhere.

In summary, to tie these two thoughts together a bit: bold behavior and innovative ideas are often difficult to distinguish from fairly routine problems; efforts to treat policy as something that needs to grow and change often conflict with the equally-important notion that rules ought to be followed. So it's unsurprising that bold editors are often dealt with in ways that seem "random, sudden, arbitrary, or unreasonable."

We need to be able to sort these conflicts out in a way that is respectful of all editors' desire to do good work, and that promotes good encyclopedic work.

(Disclosure: I am an administrator, but I'd rather you didn't call me that to my face. I usually try to avoid fancy buttons; too much content-building to do.) -Pete (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between administrators and non-admnistrators needs to be be symmetrical. An admin makes a bad block; black mark against the editor but not against the blocking admin. Is that fair? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to quit Wikipedia? There's so much slapstick. This is far, far better than a rerun of Seinfeld. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• But wait: there's more to come. This has sparked a new movement to put an end to this extraordinary asymmetry, and the self-perceived freedom by a minority of administrators to abuse editors. The majority of admins—good people who work within the policies and the expectations of the populace—are likely to support a reining in of the bad apples, I suspect. Tony (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some merit to your vision here, Tony. In particular, content editors who are held to a standard of civility when content quality is at stake. It's much easier to block a user for calling another a name than it is for an admin to step in and try to understand the content issue and take a stand. The dispute resolution on content does not appear to be very effective. --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My only two cents, before bowing out: similar to Moni, for many reasons I suspect that blocking for an isolated edit war [NOTE: Not saying that Tony was edit warring; am making a general point] is often profoundly counterproductive... though blocking veteran edit warriors (e.g., nationalist POV pushers, etc.) may have virtue. As per Moni, the correct answer is a discussion among ladies and gentlemen. I now disappear. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments. What I propose is a citizen's forum/noticeboard where we can try to make up for the sham that is the official disciplinary/grievance process—that appears to be a pretend process to fool us editors into thinking that there are procedures for keeping the behaviour of admins in check, and for ensuring that they do not breach the community's policy on admin behaviour. Importantly, we need to gather support for the establishment of an official process that is bona fide. At the moment, it's akin to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, etc, in the Soviet Union. Tony (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Calm down already. The admin made a mistake, but others protested immediately and you got unblocked before you even noticed the block. I don't see any big conspiracy here. Actually, the only reason this started up a little storm is because you have so many friends here. Anyway, the issue is over. Get on with life. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if that board begins on your talk page, Tony, it would be a valuable service to have, and anything that takes place should have no other purpose than to watch admins. It will inevitably become a bitch session where some editors who have been blocked complain, but with some moderation and understanding of the purpose, hopefully that can be kept in check. My idea was a bit broader, to incorporate a process or some kind of something that encourage admins to respond to content disruptions as swiftly as they do name-calling. Swifter. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It will need to be properly coordinated and filtered (I envisage a few volunteers). It will need to be procedurally fair to admins, and will have to be prepared to dismiss or postpone notifications that are deemed to provide insufficient evidence of a breach of admin policy, or that are frivolous. Users who are blocked or otherwise punished tend to be emotional about it; that is going to be difficult to deal with; but the absence of a real procedure forces us into designing and implementing a procedure ourselves, whatever the challenges. My immediate agenda is to:

• encourage admins to abide by the policies that govern their behaviour, use of tools, etc.;
• offer an outlet for users who are abused, and if possible, to make available users who volunteer to act as advocates for them;
• act as a rallying-point for those who want to lobby for systemic change; and
• expose the bad apples for our own protection.

I welcome feedback from (i) civilians and (ii) the majority of the police force who are bone fide in their role. When the design of the page becomes clearer, I'll seek specific comments. Tony (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is idealistic. We do have existing noticeboards where you can air grievances, though I accept they are far from productive or useful in their current form. All this will do is to create another waste of html and turn into a witch hunt against those who, I hope, are only trying to help. I wholly understand how you are unhappy about this, and I understand about your need for retribution, but this is not the way to go. This will only serve to exarcerbate the perceived divide between admins and editors. I don't think there has to be a divide, you can be both an admin and an editor. I think some of the problems come from admins who are solely here to be a "police force" and who have never edited articles, who aren't used to disputes about content. I don't think there is any way of remedying that problem. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not this is the appropriate way to go about it, there is a problem that needs to be solved. There are a lot of good administrators. There are also a lot of uncivil, hotheaded ones without a firm grasp of policy (not implying that any of the ones who've posted on this thread are in the latter group). There is no effective way to discipline administrators or even to document mistakes. There's a lot of leeway in most administrative tasks (it's easy to restore a wrongly deleted document) but there is much less room for error in blocking. Blocking has the potential to drive off valuable contributors and/or to cause those contributors to be viewed negatively for an inappropriate reason. We need a more simple way to recall administrators. We need a more simple way of showing an administrator that "hey, you've been a bit heavy-handed on the blocking, why don't you go on blocking probation for a few weeks and run all your blocks past someone else" or "hey, you are being uncivil and you might need to stop using your admin tools until you learn to control yourself better." Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's idealistic. You seem to accept the problem, Woody, but to be pessimistic about the prospects of creating a more effective, fairer system. I'm not; nothing could be worse than no alternative at all to the pretend system we have now. Too many editors have grievances about abuse to ignore it for much longer. Widening the gap between police and citizenry? I don't think so. The aim is to help a fairer system evolve that will not see itself as a police force. The goal is to narrow the gap by removing bad behaviour from the equation and encouraging police to focus on the policies that govern their behaviour. I don't want WPians to be cynical about their police force, but they are. You have to start somewhere. Karanacs, I agree with all your points, and we will engineer such changes only by exposing and publicising bad behaviour and policy breaches, and by acting as a forum for lobbying for systemic change. Tony (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not denying that there are some problematic admins, I think most of them belong to the "police force" group described above. There are also problematic editors who hide behind the gold stars on their userpage and their good edits and then use them as a big stick. I can see two trenches being dug and everyone on both sides is digging in. It is not helpful and it is not productive. I don't think setting up a board where people can complain about them is any different from what we have already. It will soon become watched by the same cabal who watch the other pages. There is no way from blocking editors from pages, or indeed from blocking admins from editing a page, there is always a need for recourse. I agree that the block tool is the most dangerous tool that an admin has, it is the one that can cause the most damage. I have always advocated a mandatory recall system, but I don't see it being passed anytime soon, especially by those who already hold the big sticks. I agree that there is a need for some system of recourse, an area where this things can be discussed, I just don't see how it can exist without turning into another witch hunt/drama magnet. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It will be a drama magnet and some people will complain because things get blown out of proportion. However, systems on Wikipedia work until they don't. It's time to address the problems between heavy-handed admins and content editors, and there are faults on both sides. The only way things change anywhere is by folks noticing and making a big stink about it. Where you wrote above I don't think there is any way of remedying that problem I disagree. It is impossible that this is impossible. We are, after all, thousands of people whose behavior can change if enough of us can come up with a creative and productive solution. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice that there has been discussion for a long time about splitting up the admin notieceboards but that has just become stagnant, ANI is broken and does not in reality, serve its purpose. It is my eternal cynicism shining through in my response above, but if you feel you can change it, good luck to you and I hope you achieve your goal. The majority of people here are resistant to change, stuck in their ways, and that is to be expected. I know that there needs to be a new system for recall, for discussion about admin actions but I worry that it will descend into the bitter sniping that permeates the current areas for recourse. My cynicism is not a reason for abandoning hope though... Even in your reply above you talk of heavy-handed admins and content editors, two sides against each other. I don't think this has to the case. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well, ya know, I keep seeing talk about it, I mean the whole mainspace v. projectspace thing. It seems to be a meme that's building a head. Something or other will end up happening, even if "something" is huge amounts of discussion with no tangible result. Wikipedia excels at that, BTW ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Apoc2400's statement above:

Actually, the only reason this started up a little storm is because you have so many friends here. --Apoc2400 (talk)

Thank you for demonstrating exactly why we need a new process that brings admins and civilians together by providing strong motivation for admins to adhere to WP's policy on their behaviour. If a user has to rely on having lots of friends for support against arbitrary, unreasonable punishments handed down by the police, the system is plainly broken. Woe betide the user who does not have such support. Systemic change is now an urgent priority, and I predict that ArbCom will be addressing the matter over the next six to 12 months. Tony (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• This recent proposal at the Village Pump by User:jc37—him/herself an admin—is a fine attempt to reform the admin system, but was bombed out of existence by ... you guessed it, fellow admins. This is further evidence that the system won't change unless ordinary users take pro-active measures. Tony (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that this block was unjustified. Tony1 has nothing but the best interest of the encyclopedia on his mind, and his track record is superb. A single edit does just justify an edit war. Sometimes, edits are a part of debate -- Wikipedia has gone too far down the goody-two-shoes path and away from the bold, down-and-dirty style that got so much accomplished in, say, 2005 and 2006. The question is this: what would the block actually help to resolve? — Deckiller 06:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)