User talk:D'Ranged 1/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:D'Ranged 1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

2017 posts

Orphaned non-free image File:Liliane Montevecchi 1985.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Liliane Montevecchi 1985.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cite DVD notes/testcases2

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Cite DVD notes/testcases2, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Liliane Montevecchi 1985.png

Thanks for uploading File:Liliane Montevecchi 1985.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Moves

Hi. I took care of your move request, but just want to let you know, in case you don't already, that you can move pages yourself over a redirect, as long as there have been no additional edits to the redirect and it points to the article you want to move. Station1 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Station1: A Thousand Thanks! I didn't know that, or I would have done it. I'll try to remember if the occasion arises again. Your help is greatly appreciated! —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 22:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Cite parameter spacing

You're gone again! Semi-retired? Re-retired?

I've become aware of a script that conveniently allows one to bollox the parameter spacing in an entire article with a few clicks.[1] I don't think people can be prevented from using it (it doesn't violate policy AFAIK). The case I linked was undoable, but many won't be. What's needed is a counter-script to restore our convention, but I don't do JS. Do you? Also, do you remember where the convention was discussed? I wasn't involved in that, but I remember you were.

Please ping me. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - To the best of my knowledge, there is no actual "convention" when it comes to spacing in citations; however, most, if not all, of the CS1 documentation lists full parameter sets this way:

{{cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |author= |author-link= |last2= |first2= |author2= |author-link2= |date= |year= |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor= |editor-link= |editor2-last= |editor2-first= |editor2-link= |editors= |department= |website= |series= |publisher= |location= |page= |pages= |at= |language= |script-title= |trans-title= |type= |format= |arxiv= |asin= |bibcode= |doi= |doi-broken-date= |isbn= |issn= |jfm= |jstor= |lccn= |mr= |oclc= |ol= |osti= |pmc= |pmid= |rfc= |ssrn= |zbl= |id= |archive-url= |archive-date= |dead-url= |access-date= |quote= |ref= |postscript= |subscription= |registration=}}

and examples are illustrated this way:

{{cite web |url=http://www.example.org/ |title=My Favorite Things, Part II |last=Doe |first=John |publisher=Open Publishing |date=April 30, 2005 |website=Encyclopedia of Things |access-date=November 16, 2017}}

My preference has always been to put a space before the pipe as is done in the template examples; gadgets such as refToolbar don't add any spaces; others put a space after the pipe; and some do both. So, to the best of my knowledge, there are currently these variations in major usage:

{{cite web|first1=John|last1=Author|title=Title|date=April 1, 2017|access-date=November 20, 2017|url=www.website.com}}—no spaces—used by RefTools

{{cite web |first1=John |last1=Author |title=Title |date=April 1, 2017 |access-date=November 20, 2017 |url=www.website.com}}

—space before pipe

{{cite web| first1=John| last1=Author| title=Title| date=April 1, 2017| access-date=November 20, 2017| url=www.website.com}}

—space after pipe

{{cite web | first1=John | last1=Author | title=Title | date=April 1, 2017 | access-date=November 20, 2017 | url=www.website.com}}

—space before and after pipe

The only place I ever see spaces around the "=" signs are when the templates are rendered vertically, as in infoboxes, where enough spaces are added before the "=" to align all of them, with an additional space after the "=" before the value of the parameter:

{{cite web
|first1      = John
|last1       = Author
|title       = Title
|date        = April 1, 2017
|access-date = November 20, 2017
|url         = www.website.com}}

Rather than trying to create a counter-script, perhaps its author, Waldir, could be asked what prompted his creation of a totally unnecessary script that adds useless space and size to articles? It's beyond ridiculous, but I'm not up to tilting at windmills at Wikipedia at the moment. I'm actually copyediting a book due for publication sometime soon and it's taking more of my time than I thought, so WP has been put on a back burner for the foreseeable future. If you're up to the challenge, I suggest posting something at Help talk:Citation Style 1 that includes the link to the article you provided here, along with queries for the script's author, User talk:Waldir and the editor who used it on the linked article, User talk:Checkingfax.

On a side note, I disagree with the removal of all the |archive-url= parameters that were added to the citations with the argument that it made an already long article too long, but I don't have the time nor energy to tilt at that windmill, either.—D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 10:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I mistakenly thought there had been discussion about the merits of the space-before-pipe format, having to do with line breaks at "natural" points or some such. I was looking for a better articulation of those merits than I'm able to produce myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Sorry, I don't know of any such discussion; there's certainly never been a consensus on how to space citations, nor do I think there will ever be one. However, I think a valid argument can be made that using the script adds unnecessary size to an article, as a start. I don't see that it adds any readability or other positives to citations, either.—D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 11:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Some editors will claim that it adds readability. But I'll likewise avoid that windmill if I can. BTW added pings don't work, as described at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Echo#Technical_details. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, D'Ranged 1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)