User talk:Antoine Legrand

Usage of _ (underscore) in the text label of links

A basic rule in typography and typing is that certain words and/or numbers cannot be separated because they are tightly tied (units must always remain close to their numbers, titles (Mr. or Mrs.) cannot remain alone at the end of a line, you also need pay attention to dates, addresses, abbreviations: "Dr Smith" and numbers in general, etc.). The aim is thus, to have two adjacent words or a word and a number appear on the same line as each other.

By default, computer softwares (word processors such as Word and LibreOffice Writer, browsers, etc.) always introduce an automatic line break (at the end of each line) between two words and/or numbers. By itself, the computer software cannot "see" which words are tightly tied.

For example ("article 6" = tightly tied word and number; "article" cannot remain alone at the end of a line): "...please take a look at article 6 that refers to Internet usage monitored by the IT department..." Of course, automatic line break could occur after "article", but it is even worse when the end of a line occurs together with the end of a printed page and thus "6 that refers to Internet usage monitored by the IT department..." would be alone at the top of a new page.

The solution to avoid improper automatic line break, in the middle of "connected" words and/or numbers, is to introduce a non-breaking space. On macOS, you simply press: Option+Spacebar between words (instead of just pressing Spacebar). See also non-breaking space table for other OS.

When writing an Article or a Project page on Wikipedia, one can use Visual editing or Source editing mode to add non-breaking spaces or _ (these are specifically used in URL links). In general, a very limited number of _ (like none or one underscore) is required per text label for URL link.

In Visual editing, on macOS you simply press Option+Spacebar and automatically, a special vertical white bar is shown on screen to remind you that a non-breaking space is there.

In Source editing mode (non-breaking space HTML code is: &nbsp;):

...please take a look at article;nbsp;6 that refers to Internet usage monitored by the IT department... 

This solution is acceptable for normal text, however in case of tightly tied words in a URL, the more usual way, is the use of: _ (underscore).

In Source editing mode: URL link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_129#New_usergroup_with_autopromotion_to_implement_arbitration_%2230-500%22_bans_as_a_page_protection

In Source editing mode: text label for URL link (clean)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 129#New usergroup with autopromotion to implement arbitration "30-500" bans as a page protection

In Source editing mode: text label for URL link (using: @nbsp;) 

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive&nbsp;129#New usergroup with autopromotion to implement arbitration "30-500" bans as a page protection

In Source editing mode: text label for URL link (using: _ ) 

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive_129#New usergroup with autopromotion to implement arbitration "30-500" bans as a page protection

Computer, tablet and smartphone screen size and window resizing can affect readability and, more specifically legibility:

Note 2: on my computer screen, there is a "lost" digit 2 (belonging to "policy 2") at the beginning of line 2.

Note_2: on my computer screen, no "lost" digit 2 because "policy_2" is at the beginning of line 2.

You can experiment "lost" numbers by slowly reducing your browser window here. The two columns of notes will eventually jump to a single column layout (when window width becomes quite narrow, like a tablet or smartphone screen).

Printed pages have different formats (A4, Letter, etc.) and several custom settings such as Margins, Print orientation: Portrait/Landscape, Scale (zoom factor), etc. that greatly affect the width of the lines and thus the places where automatic line break could occur!

In conclusion: non-breaking spaces and _ (underscore) are beneficial both for screen output and print output!

Antoine Legrand (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors/contributors

Hi Antoine Legrand.

I've noticed your edits popping up on policy pages on my watchlist of late, and I'm wondering what's going on.

I've read some of the edit summaries but I'm not sure I understand.

Could you please clarify? - jc37 05:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37:certainly, but first please follow the centralized dicussion link Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#contributor=editor=Wikipedian to read more about this topic. Feel free to read the second link Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy and click "Show" Extended content, as I have developed my way of working there. If you still have questions, please ask them there and I will be glad to answer them. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Template'

Hi there! I appreciate the changes you're making to clarify some WP-space language. I think either construction is fine:

use a {{xyz}} template, or
use the template {{xyz}}

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Slightly related: you might consider abbreviating your edit summaries. If you make a few 'template'-related edits in a row, many editors might say something like "per my previous edit summary" Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop doing this stuff (inserting the word template, and attempting to stamp out synonymy). You've been reverted right and left but press on nonetheless. Cut it out. E Eng 22:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of having been ever reverted for having placed the word template next to {{...}}, if you have found such a revert, please provide me a link here. My only intent is to clarify things for newcomers and it has been done like that by other editors all over [[Wikipedia:]] and [[Help:]] — Antoine Legrand (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers Hi, some of the editors have reverted my changes (even deleting some useful info for newcomers like: HTML tags). I just found this link by chance. Do you still think it is useful to be precise for newcomers: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style entry:30 The_word_"template"_after_TemplateName ? From my experience, many pages on Wikipedia always put "template" but not MoS (maybe because the page is extra long, but anchors/shortcuts are overall so the readers can land in the middle or end of the page). — Antoine Legrand (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The link shows some early consensus against your 'template' edits. Edits to policy and guideline pages often have (rightly I think) a high bar for consensus. In making mass changes without affirmative support of other editors, you're going against the culture a bit. I would slow down and try and make the case to the others. I won't participate in the WT:MOS section you linked to so as to avoid the appearance of canvassing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to project pages and Wikipedia-related articles

I noticed that you're still replacing words "user" and "contributor" with editor after many other users told you to stop, so please refrain from doing this before it gets disruptive and you get topic banned by an admin. There are many ways to be helpful on Wikipedia but this isn't really it. Perhaps try contributing to the Wikipedia project itself by creating or editing articles about things you're interested. Or, if you want to keep making minor edits like these, a more helpful way to do so is by helping out at the disambiguation pages with links fixup project. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, until all the reverts done by EEng, there was only 1 (one) of my changes that was not kept (WP:Dispute resolution reverted by Johnuniq). Some of my changes, that were firstly reverted by an editor, were later restored by another one (for example: WP:Article titles by Born2cycle). Not to mention all of my changes that were not reverted at all...

Furthermore, I started a centralized discussion on (Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedians), after starting multiple "local" discussions (sorry for that but as a newcomer I didn't know from the beginning that I had to start a general discussion) and only 1 (one) editor mentioned that he was against these changes (I gave him a precise answer on my way of working, see Wikipedia_talk:Protection policy). And EEng already knew from his discussion with Lembit Staan that "nobody seems to care to discuss the issue" (see centralized discussion). And yes, not all visitors know that "contributor" status is identical to "editor" status. Not all newcomers and readers (even more those that are non-native English speakers, see Merriam-Webster Thesaurus: [contributor] and [editor]) know that it is "de facto" an informal standard on Wikipedia ("de facto" meaning "written nowhere").

Fortunately, this "mass" revert is not being approved by fellow editors (two of my changes have already been restored by other editors: WP:List of guidelines by Philoserf and WP:Consensus by Butwhatdoiknow).

All the cited editors are paged in my text. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I am mentioned here, I will add my 2€. I have not seen any commentary mentioned by @WaddlesJP13:. I have a few WP articles on my watchlist. I saw the edit come in, reviewed the change, and approve of the improvement. I was stunned by the revert. I cannot imagine what the problem with this kind of edit can be. I approve of the edits I have seen by @Antoine Legrand: in the WP namespace. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Philoserf: Many users commented at here regarding this topic. Antoine Legrand is also making similar edits to pages outside of the Wikipedia space, such as at List of Wikipedias. I reverted their edits there because "user" refers to an editor with a registered Wikipedia account, not a general editor. EEng said "Discuss how many angels dance on the end of a pin all you want, A.L., but stop mass-changing pages to fit your idiosyncratic impulses." I can agree with this; the majority of these edits have either been problematic and causing more confusion or just unnecessary, with the addition of sentences explaining the differences between editors and users or what they mean usually straying away from the topic explained on the project page. Antoine's edits are being reverted left and right and users have told them to refrain but they persist and are going to new extents with this by, with great detail, explaining these minor/nonexistent issues and how to fix them when everything is fine just as it is. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the context WaddlesJP13. And yes, it does seem that some editors are dancing on the end of pins. I have better things to do. Also very trivial things, but better because they are what I wish to do at the moment. I remain in approval of the edit I reviewed and stand by my revert of a revert. In my view the noise didn’t come in the edit I saw but in the revert of an edit I approved of. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

?? Liyabona voia (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Legrand

Hard to follow because of misplaced punctuation marks and ambiguous use of words and phrases.

Too many parentheses make writeups hard to follow. Sunabel 73 (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Like I said in my first edit summary at Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), WP:SPAM applies even if you're spamming for the WMF. Do not insert donation links into articles. If you think there should be an exception at that article, discuss on talk rather than edit-warring. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I will start a new discussion on the talk page. Antoine Legrand (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]