This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jonesey95. 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.
Well, I almost knocked off another set before the new year came in, but four errors in Table tag to be deleted (User Talk) are beyond me, and I can't go further.
User talk:Icelandic Hurricane/February Archive (2x). No idea. While I understand how their menu comes in, I get lost with the infoboxes behavior and they wig out when I do things to fix the table errors and I've given it enough tries in preview. User talk:JoeNMLC I'm not really "stuck" on how to fix, he just reverted me as he didn't like how something moved a little bit, so I don't want to go back in. User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 9 Not fully sure what's going on. I'm tempted to <pre> that table it since it seems more a discussion on how to do a size change rather than showing the size change.
I fixed the first and the third pages. The first one still has two pairs of mismatched div tags that may have been created in my edit, but the page displays much better and I ran out of energy. If you can fix them, be my guest. I made a minor edit to the middle page that did change the display a bit, so we'll see how that goes over. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
A couple of mismatched divs is fine given all the busy syntax on that page. Thank you greatly.
Hope so, thanks.
????? That was what I tried first, but the table didn't appear and Linter said it was missing a bold tag, so it didn't feel right given I wasn't familiar with lsth (and doing |{{#lsth:Roger Federer career statistics|Singles</b>}} which fixed it from linter's perspective felt wrong). No bold issue today for some reason and the table displays, so guessing when I tried it the called table was broken and missing a bold. I can't explain it. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Re Roger Federer and #lsth, yeah, that's pretty obscure. It is transcluding a section of an article. I went to the article and fixed the two Linter errors it had. One of those errors was being transcluded on the talk page, so it got fixed there automatically. In general, when I come across a Linter error that I really don't get, I leave it for others. You did the right thing by asking for help instead of applying a workaround. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Cleanup request
Happy New Year! I was wondering if you might be able to help with a bit of post-page move cleanup based on this discussion. I am also looking for a bit of help here with Template:Article history and ClueBot archiving, if you're familiar with either. If not interested, no worries! Just seeking help someone a more technically inclined editor than myself. Happy editing! ---Another Believer(Talk)20:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This is not my main area of expertise, so I didn't do things in the most elegant way, but I think I have fixed everything. If not, contact me again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jonesey95, Thank you for your encouragement and offer to clean up my article on Bobbie R. Allen. I understand your cautioning me about COI and have been conscious about providing citations throughout the article. I'm complete except for a document to be provided from the Harry S. Truman library and your comments and edits are much appreciated! Wdallen49 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
"or from Wikipedia's Visual Editor"
Is there a way to clarify that a bit? I don't use VE, so I'm not certain exactly under what circumstances this might happen. Might be worth covering in a footnote rather than directly inline in the guideline text. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I've seen that from time to time you remove <small>...</small> tags from infoboxes and templates citing MOS:FONTSIZE. For example here. Do you remove them on sight, or only when you feel the resulting text is just too small? There are hundreds of pages using small tags in {{Speciesbox}} and related templates, for example Suberites ficus. Should I be removing small tags from those templates? —Bruce1eetalk11:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I remove small tags when the resulting text is too small, i.e. below 85% of the default body text font size. The default text size in navboxes and infoboxes is 88%, so adding small tags is invalid (except in some title parameters in infoboxes, which are larger than the default). As far as I know, {{Speciesbox}} has a default font size of 100%, so using small tags and templates inside that template is fine. Your browser should have a "Developer Tools" or similar menu that allows you to inspect the actual font size of rendered text and compare it to the default body font size in a rendered article. This size will vary depending on your computer and browser settings, but in general, rendered text should not go below 85% of the default body font size. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm using Firefox and it has a "Web Developer Tools" menu, but I need to play around with it first to see how it works. —Bruce1eetalk17:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Click the little arrow in a box on the far left, then click on an element in the page. Then go to the Computed tab on the right side of the very busy toolbar and look for "font-size". Click first on normal body prose text to see your browser's normal font size for Wikipedia pages. Then click on some infobox text, and you should see a font-size number that calculates to 88% of the body prose size. The hardest part is clicking on the element that you want, since every page is a bunch of nested elements and you might not be able to click on exactly the one you want. If you get close, you may be able to click on the item you want in the left side of the toolbox, where it shows the HTML for the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I tried this on Draft:2024 Auburn Tigers baseball team. Clicking on the normal body prose gives a font-size of 14px in the Computed tab. Clicking on "Jacksonville, FL" in the 5th row of the table gives a font-size of 10.7398px. If the normal text is 100%, then the reduced text would be about 76%, noting that the table font-size has already been reduced to 95%. Since the small text (Jacksonville, FL) is below 85%, the small tags should be removed. Am I on the right track? Also, is there a way to get it to show the font-size in percent, rather pixels? —Bruce1eetalk23:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
When a table uses both "font-size:95%" (or anything less than 100%) and <small>...</small> tags, I usually just remove the "font-size:95%" declaration from the table's style rather than mess with a bunch of small tags. Other editors may choose a different path. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I think I've got it now. That the tool gives the font-sizes in pixels isn't a problem. Since the default font-size shows as 14px, which is 100%, the threshold of 85% is 11.9px. So any text lower than 11.9px should be questioned. Thanks for all your help with this. —Bruce1eetalk08:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Check for unknown parameters
You were right about Template talk:Paid contributions.
Why you reverted Check for unknown parameters that I added to templates?
On your edits you said refer to editor's talk page. But you don't mention any technical reason. Why the code is not working? Have you ever tried it? Shkuru Afshar (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
What is the difference between
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{Main other|}}|preview=Page using [[:Template:Infobox film]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|showblankpositional=1| alt | animator | background_artist | based_on | budget | caption | cinematography | color_process | country | director | directors | distributor | distributors | editing | gross | italic_title | image | image_upright | language | layout_artist | music | name | narrator | narrators | native_name | producer | producers | production_companies | released | runtime | screenplay | starring | story | studio | writer | writers }}
and
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|}}|preview= Page using [[Template:Infobox weather type]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_" | ignoreblank=y | name | image | imagesize | alt | caption | area of occurrence | season | effect }}
There is already consensus in the discussion that the whole thing is a waste of everyone's time. I do not think that anything I could contribute there would improve the discussion. It would just be wasting more time, including my own. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Template query
Hello, Jonesey95,
A very new editor created Template:Draft-stub and I'm thinking that it was just a cut and paste of an existing template. Does it look familiar? If so, I don't know whether it should go to WP:TFD or turned into a redirect. What do you think? Thanks! LizRead!Talk!20:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
You mean the possessive apostrophe? I'm happy with it, thanks, unless there is some WP guideline, WP policy, or external usage manual you would care to point to that would help me understand your concern. Happy editing! P.S. I am honored that you chose my talk page for your twentieth edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I will admit the colors are not particularly inspired but it looks basically acceptable to me for a technical page :( jp×g🗯️11:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Thanks for the link. Red-tailed hawk, I do not find the above message helpful, since it provides no context and does not help me find the edit in question to know whether I should be concerned. Even though the above message says that it "does not imply that there are any issues with your editing", the mere presence of the message presents that implication. The "topic" called "post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people" must comprise thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of articles; are you saying that if I fix a syntax error in such an article, that edit is treated or viewed differently from the thousands of other error fixes that I make on a monthly basis? That seems like a dubious premise, or maybe I misunderstand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
No; if you fix syntax errors in those articles and continue to make good edits (like those hundreds of thousands of gnomish edits that you have made), that isn't viewed differently. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This seems contrary to assuming good faith to me. You should assume that I will continue to make good edits, just as I assume that you will make good edits, unless there is evidence to contradict that assumption. The above warning message should not be necessary unless an editor is making questionable edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, not a warning message, and the instructions at WP:CTOP and {{Alert/first}} don't assume fault here. In any case, I continue to believe that you will be a productive editor; I don't see where I'm stating otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Again, as noted above, the notification does not imply anything wrong with your edits. It's just a notification that you've edited a page related to Post-1992 U.S. politics, and something you should be aware of, even if edits in the area are minor. The notification of a good number of editors comes after an AN thread where additional admin eyes on the topic area were requested. Admittedly, it would have been better to do this as new editors came in, rather than all at once, but I had been a bit too busy to track that. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The confusion is that the edit I made was clearly productive and harmless, and had a clear edit summary, and yet I received the above scary-looking warning message. The message says that it is not a warning, but it clearly is. I just don't see the value to anyone of posting that notification here based on the content of my edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand why the formatting, etc. might come off as a warning at first glance, but I can assure you that this isn't a warning; the template is regularly given to productive editors; it's merely making one aware of the existence of the whole WP:CTOP system and how it interacts with American Politics. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Wow, what a nest of confusion. This is why I try to stay away from drama in nearly all of its forms here on Wikipedia. I'll go back to my gnoming. I encourage you to limit your delivery of the above message to editors who make substantive edits to the prose or references of articles and ignore editors who make gnomish, productive, or otherwise harmless edits. As you can see, it just stirs up concern when misapplied. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jonesey95, I saw your stylesheet changes to reduce blank spaces on the page, but it goes a bit too far for me. I'm just hoping to reduce the amount of blank space to the right of the pinned tools menu and expand the article width by a corresponding amount, maybe 40px at a time until it seems too wide. I don't want to reduce the amount of blank space on the left. Is there some minimal set of common.css changes that would do that? I have been unable to figure this out. (I have "Enable limited width mode" checked in my preferences and I don't toggle to use full width. My screen is 1440x900 if that matters.) Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Have you tried the section of my common.css that is preceded by the comment "Vector 2022: Fix excessive padding when page tools are in the right sidebar"? You might also want the section after "Vector 2022: Fix font size of items in Tools (formerly More) drop-down menu". Basically, I used my browser's Tools/Inspector feature to point at different parts of the page to identify the CSS selectors that they used, then adjusted my common.css to try to shrink or otherwise change those sections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I didn't want to reduce the font size, but I finally found a solution for the method I'm using. One or two more lines were needed in .mw-body in addition to the grid-template. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Since it sounds from the template talk page that you will not be following through, I thought I'd get your thoughts on me filing review of our mutual acquaintance's conduct at AN, with the view to potentially pull their TPE access. You and I both suffered through the {{marriage}} nonsense, but is that enough to merit removal? Some of their responses in this last discussion would lead me to pull any other TPE's access, but since I'm involved I'm trying to be a bit more cautious in proceeding. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I strongly support removal of template editor for them. They keep doing the same thing over and over again: making far too many edits to live templates that are widely transcluded, doing so before and during discussions, making errors, not acknowledging that the behavior is disruptive, and then doing it again. It's not appropriate behavior for a TE. The editor will still be able to edit the sandbox and testcases and documentation if they want to improve templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Primefac, for your posting to AN. I try to stay away from AN and ANI boards, having had a few bad experiences there, and from drama in general. I always appreciate the editors who are willing to take the time to make valid reports on those boards. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm deeply sorry for any disruption my actions may have caused. Reflecting on the {{marriage}} situation and the recent discussions, I ought to have been more cautious and collaborative in my approach. My intentions were always to contribute positively but I readily acknowledge that my methods weren't the most effective. I will commit myself to being more mindful and consulting with fellow editors before undertaking significant changes in the future. Regarding the review of TPE access, I respect the process and trust in the community's judgment to decide the appropriate course of action. On a personal note, I'm grateful to you, Jonesey, for the way you have conducted yourself over these past several years, and I believe you've helped me become a better template editor, even as there's still much I need and will endeavour to learn. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The links to the new China-related article and category use the capitalization for those pages. If you think those pages should have different capitalization, suggest that at their talk pages. Or do I misunderstand your request? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the code in the templates is the same as the code you requested, except for the typo I fixed. If you have suggestions for changes, or if you see errors, you can make changes in the template's sandbox and view them on the testcases page. You can also edit the documentation page. I recommend that any further discussion happen at Template talk:Designation, not here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Annual report notes
Hi Jonesey; re your notes on the GOCE annual report here, the figures you flagged as possibly inaccurate are for requests submitted from 1 January to 31 December, inclusive. The figures above that line refer to those processed from 1 Jan to 31 Dec, inclusive. The percentage you flagged in the header refers to these stats (I've now corrected the latter point). Does this make sense or am I wrong? Math(s) was never my strong point!
Also, what to do about the unwritten "Closing words" section? Would you or Miniapolis like to write some closing text? If no-one's bothered, I can remove it before sending. I don't want to tread on any toes, particularly those of the Lede Coord, which is partly why I've left the report alone for a week. But if I leave it too long, nothing gets sent out, which is sad. Thanks for your input there, btw. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab06:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Mattythewhite: Motion denied (or some other legalism). The /doc subpage contains a category, which is the normal place for template categories to live. When you stopped transcluding it, the template page no longer had a category. I'm fine with your edit; just remember to move the category to the template page (inside the noinclude tags). – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
For the record, all that was was me trying to figure out - by looking at the differing source code between the mobile and non-mobile sites - why they acted differently. Ended in figuring it out and finding this fix, which fixed the bug. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.20:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad you found that fix. If you scroll up on the page, you can see that I worked on a fix in 2022 and made some progress, but if you have fixed it the rest of the way, that is super. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's the most efficient fix: I wasn't sure if the first div that only exists if Location=center was actually necessary after the change (it even adds a </div> at the bottom only if Location=center to accomodate it), but just in case that was fixing some other use case, I went with the minimal change. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
By the way, what do you think of my new template for making CSS image crop a little easier to use, {{Easy CSS image crop}}. It doesn't do Annotated Image stuff, but that's pretty advanced and rare functionality, and I don't really want to have to learn enough Lua string handling to make Module:ImageRatio work with an annotated image as the input. I'd imagine something like |[%s]*image[%s]*=.[|}] since it returns the shortest match, and then strip everything before the = from that, but ugh. And I'm not sure if I even escaped the | or } correctly. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.06:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
About the broken syntax, i copied it from the earlier versions of the (section about the participating clubs in the) 2023 Emperor's Cup i retrieved by accident. After further inspection, i believe this mistake was corrected by someone else after i didn't took notice of the "coding error" (i don't know the right term), as the syntax does not present any error in the current version of the (section of) article. I don't think it damaged the article from a visual perspective, though, so i'm relieved. ~~ SoftReverie (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I have seen this syntax more than once, so I figured it was being copied from somewhere. There are still more than 80,000 "missing end tag" errors in articles, of which this was one. Once they are all fixed, there shouldn't be anywhere for editors to copy from, at least in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Query
Hello, Jonesey95,
What do you think Template:Nearest meighbour for whole page/style.css is for? Misspelling? I also don't understand how this editor moved this template without leaving a redirect. That usually only happens if the editor is a Page Mover. But since you know so much about templates (and when pages are mistakenly placed in Template space), I thought you might know. I just happened to spot it on the Move log. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!22:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I have sorted it, I think. When I moved the .css page to the correct name, I noticed that "Leave a redirect behind" is grayed out, as is the checkbox to the left of that option. My wild guess is that CSS pages can't be redirects or targets of redirects, so the normal page mover rights do not apply. A bigger WP CSS nerd than I, like Izno or Redrose64, might know something like that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavin's Milkshake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
It looks to me like I added closing p tags in that edit. I try not to yell at editors, but the MediaWiki software does sometimes complain a bit on the "Page information" page if there are unclosed p tags present. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education (OJMCHE), in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host an International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Sunday, March 10 from 11am-3pm PDT. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter Jewish women artists into the canon. An experienced regional Wikipedian will provided will be on site to teach, support, and guide the process. Participants can select artists ahead of time or on site.
Why? It's an in-line cleanup template that assigns a tracking category. Putting all of the extra stuff directly into a page does not make sense to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Because I don't think it's automatically dated by a bot, and it's easier just to type {{subst:ISBN?}} rather than having to go to the documentation and copy the full code. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 14:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This conversation should happen at the template's talk page. Since the |date= parameter does not appear to do anything, and it does not appear to be used often, why not just remove it? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, mildly interesting. I had put in the date myself, so there was no change. Anyway, it seems pointless if a bot will fill in the date later, and irrelevant to {{ISBN?}}, where the date does nothing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
You have not edited the testcases page. Which test cases show that your proposed changes actually work? That's what "relevant" means in this context. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Where is the test case showing multiple positions that shows the "(s)"? If you have a conditional statement, you need to test at least two possible conditions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll be frank. Your track record means that I can only trust your changes if you show your work. Add a test case to the test cases page that shows your new code working when all of the modified labels should be pluralized. Add or modify another that shows all of the modified labels as singular. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I've reverted the change to the live template, as I think we've miscommunicated. I assumed that, since I had consulted with you and you voiced no further objections after two weeks, as well as the fact that I had both successfully sandboxed and testcased the changes, that it would be OK to implement the changes. Primefac seemed to confirm that the change was OK, before later reverting himself on the same grounds. You haven't provided any further clarity on this, and I feel as if I'm being given the cold shoulder. If you're not interested in mentoring me on sandboxing/testcasing, I'd appreciate if you could clarify that. I've responded to your message on my talkpage regarding my promise, which I did not in fact breach as I clarified, but I accept that I ought to sandbox/testcase all such changes in future regardless if the template is protected or not, and I can promise to do so going forward. I hope you can try and bear with me here, as I am trying. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't see this discussion before I reinstated the edit, which is why I reverted. The edit looks fine to me, but it seemed like part of a "test first before implementing" scheme and I didn't want to get in the way of that. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
No worries, Primefac. I am washing my hands of this one. Anyone who wants to enhance that template should make some sandbox edits and then start a thread on the template's talk page explaining what they propose to change and why. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Help with TFD
Hello, Jonesey95,
I wanted to nominate the template at the bottom of Coptic Orthodox Church in South America for consideration at TFD but I can't find the page that it is on. When I click V or E, it takes me to a generic template page for templates about the Americas. Can you either point me to the right, specific template page so I can nominate it or post the nomination yourself? It's just a collection of red links for a small church that is highly unlikely to expand throughout a large region in the coming future. Thanks! LizRead!Talk!18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That navbox is generated using a sort of meta-template that creates a navbox for any topic provided. There is no guarantee when you give it a term that there will be a collection of articles on that topic. The template documentation provides brief guidance: Examples of inappropriate articles for these templates are .... I could create a one-off navbox instance called "Blue-faced species of bananas in the Americas" by transcluding the template at the bottom of a page, and it would be all red. In this case, I think your only option is to remove the navbox from the article if all of the redlinks bother you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
There is so much I don't know about how templates work. That's why I rarely ever venture into TFD. Thank you for the explanation. Since there is no existing template for this subject, I think I'll let it be since it likely only exists on this page. Thanks again. LizRead!Talk!19:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I have boldly moved all of the pages to Wikipedia space, since they are single-use project pages that don't really behave like transcluded templates with parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Edit notice
Thank you for this; it makes an immediate and positive difference. I have to say that while i don't remember if we've actually interacted previously, i know that i have learned from your technical ability and have, as in this case, taken information or tweaks you have suggested and used them. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello08:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
In response to your query "Why does this keep happening?"in this edit, the problem is <small>...</small> tags spanning multiple lines in Module:NewDYKnomination here:
<small>${STATUS} by ${AUTHORS}. ${NOMINATED} at ~~~~~.
Number of QPQs required: ${QPQS_REQUIRED}
Post-promotion hook changes [[User:GalliumBot#darn|will be logged]] on the talk page; consider [[Help:Watchlist|watching]] the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.</small>
I could fix it myself by bracketing the three lines with {{smalldiv}}, but I'd rather leave it to someone with more experience with modules than me. —Bruce1eetalk08:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I had already worked around it with an explanation and a link to more information in my edit summary, but my edit was undone by SD0001, who did not appear to understand that the invalid syntax was causing errors in every new DYK page created with that Module. I have implemented a different fix with div tags. {{Smalldiv}} would probably also work, but I am never sure whether I can use templates directly in a Lua module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you please assume good faith? This was an edit I did manually when I saw that new nominations were now including irrelevant text in full size rather than small. I did not see that was because of your lint-fixing edit. Also, if you are going to make such edits in templates, can you kindly ensure that the presentation remains unaffected? People put effort in formatting templates to ensure the necessary details catch attention and others don't. It's not acceptable to change the formatting to make a lint error go away. Using the div tag looks like the correct fix, thanks! – SD0001 (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I usually try to preserve the appearance, but sometimes the original editor's intent, especially when they use in-line tags to span multiple lines, is not clear. (A variant of the above assertion could be that it is not acceptable to introduce a syntax error just to get a page to look a certain way.) It looks like I guessed wrong this time. I'm glad we ended up with mutually acceptable markup. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
That edit of mine you fixed...
At some point after that edit, I realized stuff like that was happening, and cleaned up most (I thought all) of the instances where that occurred. However, you obviously found one of the instances where I did not fix the issue. I have since added a "[^']" into my search regex, making my search "[^'],'''''" instead of ",'''''" so it doesn't return pages with an apostrophe before the comma. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That formatting was bizarre before your edits, so it is understandable that strange things happened. Thanks for trying to prevent it in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
West Bengal Film Journalists' Association Award for Best Actress
You removed a {{border}} from West Bengal Film Journalists' Association Award for Best Actress, with edit summary "Please RTFM. Template:Border is for wrapping text. It uses span tags, so it can't wrap div-based elements." This article had a bunch of {{border}}'d [[File]] calls; the one you removed was a {{border}} around {{CSS image crop}}, which was the only one causing a div-span-flip. Another user reverted you; I reverted that user, but that left all images but the cropped one with borders, so I removed all of the borders. It's strange that {{border}} generates div-span-flip lint errors around cropped images but not around regular images. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Anomalocaris: Regular images don't use <div>...</div> elements any more. They used to, but the MediaWiki software was altered at some point in the last few months so that images are enclosed in <figure>...</figure> elements. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you and User:Frietjes are skilled with templates. At Template:US Census population, would it be possible to add an option so this template could also lay horizontally, or in columns?
I mostly edit US city articles, and very often this lengthy template pokes deep into the bottom of an article, such as Hamilton, Georgia.
It looks like the latter template is usable for US settlement populations. I don't know how to program in Lua, so I would not be able to modify Template:US Census population in this way. Personally, I think the pure horizontal layout inhibits comparison of the numbers from year to year, but I see your point about the length of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Frietjes: That would really help with those short articles that have a long history of settlement. Should I leave it with you, or open a discussion on the template talk page? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, very minor question. You offered advice recently on Miniapolis talk page, re: resolving dispute over c/e, and mentioned "the wrong IMO". What means IMO? I checked WP Abbr, Glossary, and Edit summary legend page, but couldn't find, and google had too many high freq irrelev hits. Context was: sentences with awkward usage, one w/ verb tense, the other awk serial semicolons. Thanks! — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk)00:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.
Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC).
Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here.
Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
I can't figure this divflip error out. Template:Letter A few hundred issues due to the two errors on the template, and I don't want to just hack at it with test edits. Cheers, Zinnober9 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
One trick is to look inside the templates being used. Nowrap is a span template, and Smalldiv, which I created to solve thousands of misnested small tags back in 2018 or so, uses div tags. So this worked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Nowrap... of course. With template code not triggering when passed through LintHint, and all the code looking tidy but so very nested, it's just not as easy to read as some other errors. Thank you again! Zinnober9 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. It looks to me that the easiest way to handle this is to get the list of pages, check each page section for the "Why can't I edit Wikipedia?" part that seems consistent between them, and simply replace that ection with the corrected version, which should take care of any variations. Are there any issues with doing this? I'd need to make sure to keep the signature and anything below that, but that should be doable, especially if the <!-- Template:Uw-spamublock --> is always present. — Qwerfjkltalk14:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I have found that using the regexes I linked to does the trick for me. If you have another method that you like and that is reliable, that seems fine to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the first one is valid but incomplete, and the second one is a complete, valid edit. In the first one, a p tag was missed. It looks like an additional or modified regex is needed. Replacing the whole section might be valid; I prefer to make as few display changes as possible when fixing these syntax errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Great work! I checked all of the remaining pages, and about half of them were false positives. I fixed the rest. This task is complete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Template display
I'm going to suspect that you'll get reverted on User:Airtransat236/sandbox/template as that's essentially the same edit I made. I think they want it to appear as {{{text_1}}} left half, {{{text_2}}} right half, as seen here and objected to the corrective edit which for some reason made both appear as 25% width, both on the left half of the page, but they didn't outright state such. I haven't thought of how to keep the 50-50%. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The remaining few table errors, other than User:Halibutt/Archive 15 (which I'll see if Primefac will assist with), boggle my brain at the moment, so if you understand them, all yours if you want them. Thanks for getting a number of other pages the last couple of days; I had gotten to a point where the remaining set of pages were a little puzzling and weren't as intuitive. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been chipping away at them. They were mostly easy to medium until these last dozen or so. Some of them required digging through and modifying User subpages, which is always fun. I spent a few minutes on each of those lsat few and decided to work on something easier, and now they are all that is left. I know that I'll be able to fix at least some of them. It may take a few days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I asked Primefac about it and some other Full Protected pages that appeared on Wikipedia:Linter/reports/Protected pages by Lint Errors, so one of the three of us will get Halibutt/Archive 15 sometime soon. I don't mind who.
While I'm here, Portal:Maine got its layout malformed on Feb 24th. I've poked at it a little with edit preview, but haven't sorted it out if you want it. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Portals are the spawn of the devil. I fixed a few hundred or thousand (I have blocked out the memory) portal page errors back in 2022, getting the count down to a reasonable value, but the pages appear back in the report over time even when they are not edited. I became convinced, without any real evidence, that in order to fix Portal pages, we need to get article space down to zero errors first. I've mostly left the space alone since then. That said, I cleaned up a bunch of sloppiness at Portal:Maine. Editors, including myself, should use Preview more and inspect their edits after saving. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Now I remember one thing about Portal pages: the stripped tags often appear to be spurious or false positives. Most other errors can be tracked down with the help of the ExpandTemplates page, although it can be tricky to read all of the nested divs and tables. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
It was the big empty space and the stuff shoved to the left I was hoping you saw the fix for, but Portals are certainly evil from the code standpoint, and it's fine if you didn't. Feel like reverting to WOSlinker's revision is a bit too overkill for the layout issue so far, but might come down to it if it's still wonky later. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The big empty space actually has some images in it for a quarter of a second, and then it goes blank. I can't be bothered if the primary maintainer of the page doesn't seem to care (and there are no Linter errors). – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I am moving this to your talk page, since you are the one not acknowledging an error. Happy editing indeed.
Your edit summary gave me a smile. Unfortunately, I used the word "bogus" in a neutral, objective way in my edit summary. See Special:LintErrors/bogus-image-options. If you have a problem with your edits being associated with that word, your beef is with the WMF staff, not with me. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Awww and here I was hoping it was "good-faith patroller" that gave you a smile. I do think that that's you, but wasn't there some sort of decision after the last time not to edit people's work as they are working it? It's pretty disruptive frankly. I dunno what dialect of English that developer speaks -- and I carefully say this in the most neutral way possible, as a translator who deals with dialects -- but I agree with this here and with all due respect, it is an insult and I have not given you cause to insult me have I? Recently at least?
I just looked you up and will try to be a little less colloquial, but frankly, I thought you were British when I wrote the above. This is the problem with automated edits. It dehumanizes other editors. In case you hadn't noticed the article is complex and referenced within an inch of its life because it says that due to regulatory capture indigenous Mexicans with a life expectancy of 39 years are subsidizing US agriculture through a peonage system. I am surprised I haven't seen paid editors appear yet to call me a bleeding heart liberal. I would have fixed that caption ten minutes later. The fact that they are crawling on soil that has been pumped full of carcinogens is why the image is there however.
I am not trying to fight with you or give you a hard time. It's just that if you hit Random article, what you get will almost certainly need you more than this article does, and it is being actively worked.
SO. come tell me jokes or funny stories or gossip or, whatever, but if you really really must patrol my work, half a dozen people have done so this week without calling it bogus, and most of them got a thank you.
I would greatly appreciate it if you and your attitude fixed lint errors on some other article thank you very much Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
No attitude here. I just fix errors. I don't patrol the work of constructive editors like yourself. I usually work from this report. If an article pops up there with an invalid image option or any other high- or medium-priority error, I do my best to fix it. You appear to be manufacturing drama where there is none to be found, which will not help either of us. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
You appear to be refusing to process my best attempts to civilly explain to you that "bogus" is an insult and you should not use it. With reference to me in particular in this case, but it would be a violation of the CoC civility policy when applied to anything but (possibly) obvious vandalism. "Manufacturing drama" isn't great either, so I beg to differ about the attitude, which continues to shine through. Please take this constructive criticism on board. If the incivility is caused by software, stop using the software. You and only you are responsible for what you say and do on Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
User_talk:Firefly#Request_for_wording_change is my attempt to resolve this. Possibly you could work on the attitude as your part in that. And maybe check to see if someone has edited a page in the prior few minutes before making decisions about what the photo captions should be. I am unsubscribing from this section. Elinruby (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Your verbose ire continues to be misdirected; I will, of necessity, be verbose in my reply in order to communicate thoroughly. User:Firefly is not responsible for the wording; their report just matches the word that the WMF staff chose.
I understand that you perceive the WMF's use of the word "bogus" as a synonym for "invalid" as an insult, even though the Wiktionary entry you linked to shows "(computing, slang) Incorrect, useless, or broken." as one of the definitions. That is the meaning used in this context by the WMF. "Bogus", with this meaning, was a 100% accurate description of the error I fixed in this case; there was an Incorrect, useless option provided in the File: invocation.
I have no control over what words the WMF staff choose. I linked you to Special:LintErrors/bogus-image-options (you can also see the word used on the MediaWiki site at mw:Help:Lint errors/bogus-image-options) with the hope that you would understand that I did not choose the word. I have made thousands of edits with an edit summary using that word; the definition as I am using it appears in its Wiktionary entry as a computing term. I used the word "bogus" to match the WMF's choice of words so that the meaning behind my edit was as clear as possible. The edit summary described the error I was fixing using the same words that the WMF uses.
However, out of respect for your delicate feelings about this valid word that I did not choose, I have changed the edit summary that I use in fixing these errors so that it uses the word "invalid" instead of "bogus". No doubt I will now get someone complaining on this talk page that I am using a different word from the official verbiage chosen by the WMF, but such is life. I can't please everyone, but I hope this change can at least please one editor.
If you object to the WMF's usage of the word "bogus" to mean "invalid", Phabricator is the place to file a change request. I apologize for the excessive length of this reply, but it is clear that a brief reply with explanatory links was not proving effective. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, Elinruby, since we are taking offense at the use of words, I see that you used the pronoun "his" when referring to my talk page and that you used the pronoun "he" while talking about me on another editor's talk page without notifying me. I urge you to refrain from assuming the gender and preferred pronouns of people whose pronouns you do not know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
{{they|Jonesy95}} I stand corrected; I thought I remembered someone who would know calling you a "he". For that I do apologize, especially since I too am a deliberate "they". Apparently either that person was wrong or I remembered wrong. In any event it was lazy of me not to use the template and I should have done so. See easy it is to just acknowledge an issue that needs acknowledging?
I do appreciate the change to "invalid", actually. Thank you for that. As for not notifying you, I didn't mention your name over there because I was trying to leave you out of any drama, but will be sure to ping you in any further mutual drama that arises. And apparently there may in fact be some, because now we have to debate whether posting a link to your talk page that points to a section where a discussion took place constitutes notifying you of the discussion. Say it ain't so. (sad trombone noises) I am still describing you as a good faith patroller, btw, but you should probably apologize for "manufacturing drama". PS: if anyone gives you a hard time about the change, ping me and I will come over and explain it to them nice and slow. Happy editing! Elinruby (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I was hoping that you would think so. I was alerted to it because it showed up on a report of new syntax errors; I do not normally edit random editors' pages. Let me know if you want help with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Edit Space
Thank you for help fix my edit space! I actually was wondering how do you get that square space around your own profile that contains the about you section? Thank you again! Arberian2444 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I see you were the most recent person the edit the res 51 volleyball template. So I wanted to if you had any idea how to put a attendance section (either permanent or optional) in it because I have struggled to do it? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for all your work fixing Linter errors. I wonder: have you considered using a bot for the task? I'm not normally someone who gets distracted by semiautomated edits in my watchlist, but your fixes resurrect old pages of interest (old AfDs, for example). They always attract my eye in a way they wouldn't if it were a bot making them. There are so many of the edits, over such a long period of time, that it seems rather well suited for a bot task. Curious if you've considered it. Thanks. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not have the programming skills to (1) create a bot or (2) ensure that it would edit in a fully automated way without errors. I check every edit before saving and frequently abandon edits without saving due to either failure to fix enough problems (hence requiring too many return visits, mucking up your watchlist even more) or script-proposed changes that would not actually be improvements. I wish there were bots that did Linter fixes, but the good ones have all gotten tired or been blocked for non-Linter-related bad behavior. I apologize for the noise in your watchlist; if there were bots out there, I would definitely prefer that they did the work instead of me! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Infobox election row
I've no idea what happened there. I checked it in both the testcases (before implementing) and on a mainspace article afterwards (to make sure I hadn't messed something up when transferring the code) and the default 'Party' showed up... Thanks for fixing. Number5722:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes reloading a page does not thoroughly reload every template that is used in the page. I have no idea why it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Editing and previewing a page or section, in my experience, always shows you the right result (although saving that edit with no changes sometimes still doesn't, which is frustrating). – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I did actually edit/preview as I'm experienced this glitch, yet it still worked fine at the time... Number5722:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This category keeps being tagged for CSD C1 because it's an empty category and it shows up on Empty Categories list as a category that should be tagged for deletion. If it is a category that is occasionally empty, you need to tag it {{emptycat}} so that it no longer shows up as an empty category. It's that simple. LizRead!Talk!01:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The speedy template instructions said to remove the CSD template, so I removed it, but then the speedy template was reinstated. That seems contrary to BRD to me. I linked to a relevant discussion in my edit summary. I think this category may have been emptied accidentally. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
We have database reports and Quarry queries that list all empty categories. Regardless of BRD, we can't have categories keep appearing on these lists daily and ignore one indefinitely. I just tagged it for you so this would stop happening. LizRead!Talk!05:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
It wouldn't be indefinite, just until it the problem is resolved. We have similar situations in many other reports with things like redirects that are taken to RFD and so show up on unused template reports. We just put up with the temporary annoyance, knowing that those discussions are open for only a week. Now that {{emptycat}} is on there, it seems possible that this currently bogus but possibly valid category could be ignored forever. Maybe that sort of thing shows up in a different report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what a Linter error is but I don't want to make any
Hi Jonesey. Are you still up for taking a look at and/or helping me with a mass message? I need to send one for an LA Wiknic and I don't want to do that Linter error thing again. Thank you! Julie JSFarman (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate it! It's here. I think the error may have something to do with the signature. (?) I know it can be wonky on mass messages. And! Will you add the the ? Every time I try to add an image I mess up the layout. (I know, shocking.) Thank you x 100000. JSFarman (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I just sent the message and the only mistake I made (as far as I can tell) is that my user name isn't included, which is fine for two reasons: a) there are editors who find mass messages very annoying and b) I would prefer they not direct their annoyance at me. Thank you again! (The categories still look like they're here, on your talk page, but I have been known to hallucinate.) JSFarman (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Kruger until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Election news: Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our mid-year coordinator election are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.
Blitz: Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.
Drive: 58 editors signed up for our May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are here.
Progress report: As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
I don't understand your reasoning about linking to templates rather than template doc pages. I'm content to accept your preferences on these edits. Daask (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I have made them all consistent. Linking to documentation pages is confusing for readers per WP:EGG; those subpages generally exist to support template pages and are meant to be viewed in the context of the Template-space page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, some template doc pages are shared by several templates, and vary their output according to which template they are transcluded to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Lint error on Threadripper
What!? I specified the "div=yes" parameter in the collapsed infobox section begin template so that lint errors wouldn't occur, according to the template's documentation. Yet it still did?!
Also, I know hiding content generally goes against MOS:HIDE; I put those collapse templates there because the "transistor count" section was taking up an awful lot of space in the infobox. On the Ryzen article it was especially bad where the infobox would extend down more than an A4 page worth of length below and push down images, so I collapsed the cache and transistor count sections. Intel Core has a big enough such problem that there are complaints on the talk page there about it. — AP 499D25(talk)01:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay I didn't know about the page information containing lint error info, thanks for the tip. I looked at the Linter MediaWiki extension and I had no idea how to install it.
I have ended up deleting the transistor count section anyway, if someone wants to (re)add it later it should be added to some table or section in the article, rather than in the infobox IMO. I have given the Intel Core article the same treatment, just deleting outright trivial info (e.g. bus width and speeds), and trimming some stuff down like the brands, rather than hiding them all in collapsed sections. — AP 499D25(talk)05:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
HBLR (possibly River Line?)
The signs in the infobox - the text is too large (to compare to real life sign). That's why I was doing that to decrease the size.
Sorry if that caused any trouble. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The infobox sets the size, and it is standard for all similar articles. There is no reason to make it smaller. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense to me. This version before your edit and this version after your edit show only a small difference in the header size. The "real-life" sign labeling the station will be multiple feet across, not a few centimeters or inches like the infobox title. Meanwhile, all other railway station articles use a standard size. Deviating from the standard size introduces inconsistency among similar articles for no apparent good reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Just a little FYI, the gallery pages of Charlesjsharp that you edited in April (Insects and Frogs) in a similar corrective way to my May edits for their Mammals and Birds galleries have a few undesired display issues based on last night's discussion on my talk page. I take comfort in seeing that we made the same assumptions in regards to the intended display of these pages with the thought of "User wrote it this way, so it's presumed intended display is this" with how the captions of each image display. Unfortunately, this is not how the user wishes their pages to be, and they (as I understand it) wish for the captions to be centered, and for them to display with black text for all image captions (other than the countries' names which are blue), and for any white lines crossing the page to be nonexistent. And they do not want the three images at the top (under the star) to have a white box encircling them (so don't make it two tables). End result desired is essentially a "do as I had originally displayed, not as I had written".
Would you adjust these two pages sometime when it suites or makes sense? I don't think Charles would be too happy to see I'd edited them all. You may wish to wait until after we know whether or not I've gotten the Mammal page all squared away for him and there are no additional issues found. That way you have a one and done with no back and forth and everyone's pleased.
Thanks for the note. I adjusted the pages. You are welcome to copy my edits if the editor is happy with them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm mad at myself at letting it occur and ticked off that such a simple little thing tripped me up. I appreciate you greatly today. Hopefully I'll sleep it off and tomorrow will be a better day. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both for attempting to resolve this. Looking at the Charlesjsharp/Featured pictures of reptiles and frogs on English Wikipedia: Revision history page it was Jonesey95's edit on 29 April that removed the align center layout not Zinnober9. The error has not been fixed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
And thanks for putting up with our edits (so far). I have tried five different things to get the snake gallery at User:Charlesjsharp/Featured pictures of reptiles and frogs on English Wikipedia to be centered, and I have had no luck so far. It looks like a bug so far, but I am going to try to make a simpler case to figure out what is going wrong. The documentation clearly states that mode="packed-hover" should center the gallery images, and copying that gallery to my sandbox results in centered images, but somehow, within the rest of the layout, the images are aligned to the left. It's frustrating. I'll keep working on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Does this give you the desired outcome? I added the statement text-align: center; to each gallery's style parameter, like I had with Birds and Mammals and that centered things up.
A small side note: I see the page has some duplicate style="color:black;" statements in some of those galleries (you may wish to clear those up). Zinnober9 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah, that works too. Kinda figured there was something external to gallery dictating that, but class="wikitable" would not have come to mind. I kept running into centering needs with the removals of the tons of obsolete <center> tags used to center tables when I was clearing fostered content the last few months, so got used to using text-align: center; fairly often. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Just a quick question for you - a couple of days ago, you made this edit to {{AmFootballScoreSummaryEntry}}. I recently was looking over 2022 Liberty Bowl and saw that the score summary template's formatting was messed up, specifically in the vertical alignment of the home team's score in every row, making each row of the table significantly wider than it was normally. I didn't want to revert your edit just to see if that would work and so figured I'd just ask. Do you think something in your edit would have changed the way this template is formatted? Sorry to bother and thanks for your help! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
My edit did cause that extra whitespace, even though it should not have. I have fixed it. Thank you for coming to ask rather than simply reverting or freaking out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the remaining few dozen "42" Fostered content errors are beyond me (a little too templatey/functiony), so I'm done with that set. User:CaPslOcksBroKEn/sandbox (11 FCs) I know to be clean (Of all errors) as I've tested it in my sandbox twice in the last few months by saving it in 2-3 sections, but it's too damn big and won't purge or null edit for a clean result. Do you have any other ideas for clearing these ghosts? I've been aware of it for a few months, so not sure if waiting it out will allow it to self-correct, or if it needs to be pushed in some other way that I'm not thinking of.
Happy to have another bothersome error type pretty much eradicated from the list otherwise! Thanks for getting all of the pages you got to, hope you have a great weekend. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
That was a fun project! I will poke at the remaining 42 every once in a while. Sometimes I have to sit and let ideas come to me. We can probably get it down to a dozen or so with a few tricks. I cheated on a few by wrapping the offending template code in <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags, since the code was working when transcluded. That trick will probably work on a few more pages, but it fails when there are already includeonly tags inside the code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks like today's new set of fostered content errors all seem to be related to <onlyinclude> or <noinclude> tags, either on the page themselves, or calling the {{Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OR/Blank}} template. I'm not making heads or tails out of any of them at the moment. These tags *shouldn't*? be causing these issues. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Me neither. I have seen those starting in the last few hours. They look like false positives. Post a new subthread at WT:Linter, in the "dark mode" thread I started at the bottom. I don't know if they are related to dark mode error detection, but something appears to have changed in the Linter detection and I think it might be a bug. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok. I had changed this page Opinion polling for the 2020 Polish presidential election due to this, but only since they were so oddly added with 5x of them at the start of every? table, and the other pages looked like legitimate usage of these. I've seen this popup on a few pages before, but they always cleared up before I got bothered enough to deal with them/ask about them. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
CaPslOcksBroKEn is now removed from the list. Might have been the two small templates that weren't closed correctly. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. Thank you, not sure why they didn't appear problematic in my tests. Huge pages are ripe pain. Appreciate your efforts.
As for User:Wtmitchell/Draft1 where you replaced all {{!}} code and the like with |, |-, etc ... my understanding is when things are transcluded, they have a habit of interacting with the calling page's code in odd cases. Using {{!}} tells it to stay in its lane and not mix and create mutants with the calling code. @Jonesey95 is there a better way to explain this since you have a greater knowledge of the more template-y language than I? Zinnober9 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
When pipe characters for table layout are used inside of #switch or #if statements, they can trigger the statements' logic instead of acting as table layout. The hazard of using the same character for two important functions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Wtmitchell seemed to have known that as well, given they had written a note stating "NOTE: The templated aliases (e.g., "{{!}}") are needed for transclusion. Don not disturb them", and Gonnym changed the page to use pipes and removed that note. I feel that's against the user's intentions, and since it is likely possible to clear the lint and keep the {{!}}, this was the wrong way to fix the page. Had there been no way to fix it with {{!}}, or justification (beyond "I checked all the transcluded pages and they are fine"), I'd be more supportive of this correction. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I just checked both of the places where that Draft1 page is transcluded, and the transcluded page looks fine in both places. I assume that Gonnym checked those pages as well and would have self-reverted if they had found any trouble. The page is three years old, so it appears to be no longer in active development. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Infobox
Hello, Your last contribution to Infobox royalty have made a major change to the template. After the edit, the infobox looks very ugly on Mobile app. I suggest you to revert it because from desktop, the above (name) text in black however, in mobile app it is white and does not match with the background color. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Your mobile view is on light mode? It works on light mode. Mine is on dark mode it's because of that. No worries. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Cite ****ing Q
Hi Jonesey95, I come here because you are one of the people who know everything about references and templates. I'm looking at Gwendolyn Grant (activist) where the {{sfn}}s are broken because the references are using {{cite q}}, which is rendering the references with |author= rather than |last= and |first=. I would like to fix this by substituting the calls to cite q so that I get the call to {{citation}} that they're producing, and then fix them by hand, but I can't work out how to do that – simply substing the calls to cite q just gives me the invocation of the LUA (?) module, which isn't helpful. Do you know a way, or does this have to be fixed in a different way? Thanks in advance, Wham2001 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
{{cite Q|Q126281915|expand=yes}}
{{Citation|id=[[WDQ (identifier)|Wikidata]] [[:d:Q126281915|Q126281915]]|language=en |publisher=Urban League of Greater Kansas City |title=Urban League of Greater Kansas City - Our Team |url=https://www.ulkc.org/our-team-xxx}}
That is citing a website so |publisher=Urban League of Greater Kansas City should be changed to |website=Urban League of Greater Kansas City.
Yeah, there is a bug in the expansion; |url= should not include the template's closing }}.
Thanks TtM. Cite Q is junk. Expanding it so that articles can comply with CITEVAR is usually a good fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, my general experience of Wikidata has been "this is a good idea which has been implemented so badly that it's a giant net negative", and cite q is a major part of that. Meanwhile, the article's author has reverted all my citation fixes 🙄 Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments; they're helpful. Yes, I know that my changes weren't strictly defensible given CITEVAR – I was half expecting the revert, tbh. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Jonesey95! You recently made an edit to another editor's user page despite the presence of a notice instructing otherwise. Please be mindful of page notices when contributing to Wikipedia — especially in another editor's user space.
Yes, I did make this minor edit, as indicated and explained in my edit summary. I fixed ten syntax errors, including one high-priority error. Please let me know if I broke anything, and I'll be happy to fix it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Times Top 100 Graduate Employers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
This diff was really confusing but I was reading it backwards -- don't know how the hell I managed to leave out the closing tags for those. Anyway, thanks for letting me know, I am currently reworking the render script so I will make sure to get this cleaned up. 👍 jp×g🗯️05:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad you figured it out and didn't get grumpy with me. It's all teamwork. It would be great if you could fix that script; it would fix hundreds of missing end tag errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, Jonesey. We are watching Reno 911! lately so I think of that when I see your name. I'm sorry your computer is sad but I thought I'd let you know I posted you a message here. FYI. Is Template:Format price supposed to start with a big red error? Thanks! — Smuckola(talk)20:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I've run across a slight quandary with a page due to Template talk:Infobox journal and the lint error on American River Review. The Website parameter does not allow "extras" to be written, just the website address and nothing else (a common theme of delinting for me the last few days). The stated website for ARR is now a dead link, so someone logically just added the {{Dead link}} template, but that is triggering a Link in link error.
The easy thing to do would just be to comment it all out, but I was wondering if a parameter like current_status = Active/Inactive like that on the {{Infobox website}} template would be beneficial, or if there was a better way of handling this one. Thoughts? Zinnober9 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Had seen that site in the external links section, and thought that it was a supplementary link or a mirror and not the official. I see now that it was just added by Scott Crow in the edit prior to Conkaan (changed from a Facebook link) so possible Conkaan had the same thought I did. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Your question
" Brazilian Romantic painting diffhist −4 Jonesey95 talk contribs (Fix Linter obsolete tag errors. Where are people finding this invalid syntax? It has been removed from all articles.)" I expect the answer may be that this is an OKA machine translation from pt:wp. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. Some Wikimedia sites are doing better than others at removing obsolete syntax. We still have three million total errors here, but only about 65,000 left in article space after six years of consistent work. German Wikipedia is essentially free of errors, of course. I did some work over at Commons a while ago and fixed a few million errors by editing a handful of templates, but there is a lot of bot work that needs to happen if that site is to get cleaned up. Other sites are even more neglected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you!
I just wanted to give you a massive THANK YOU for correcting the issues on my User Page, and for leaving such a kind comment. You are a fantastic user. Thank you. - Mike Longfellow (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Nearly there
The remaining few link issues in Userspace (minus Marine 69-71's that I'll get to) are cases I'm not coming up with a clean solution for. They are predominantly a userbox situation that doesn't accept linked text, but the user has dictated a different pagelink instead. The quick and dirty answer would be to just remove the user linking, but I was wondering if you know a way to cleanly keep them the way the users intended. For Jtmorgan's three pages, it's a difference scenario and is related to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form. There are also three Wikipedia:Teahouse pages with similar issues. Feel like it's probably at the template and not the end user, but it isn't apparent to me. And for Disco's errors... well, who knows if there really was a cat at all. As for the remaining 550-some in Talk, I assume they won't put up much of a fight, but we'll see by the end of the week. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This fix usually does the trick for pre-linked userbox parameters where the editor missed the documentation or the template is not documented well enough. I fixed a couple of other pages. I posted a note at User talk:Discographer about their too-large page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
A little surprised it was only Various–Music on that list since others of theirs I've come across have been too big for linthint unless I view the page in sections. As for the Good Article userboxes, thanks. That's a nice fix. Zinnober9 (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Any idea why this bot's addition of a correctly written parameter is triggering a link in link error? The bot is adding it correctly as stated on Template:Infobox radio station, so I don't feel the issue's at the bot/page's end of things. Suspecting the template needs a minor adjustment given the language used in the descriptions for the |licensing_authority options all stating links. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I think the majority of these are actually the FCC ID field being filled in incorrectly (and this can now be blanked, as the bot is adding the relevant data to Wikidata so it should also be pulled through). I think technically these fields containing values other than a number should be a linter error anyway in these cases, just it's not flagged up by the template.
I'm happy to take out flagging the licencing body if needed, however this is what causes the data to be pulled from wikidata, so it's not a perfect solution. I don't want to mess with the FCCID field in the infobox, but may be able to blank this (but with 90% of the task done, I don't know what this buys at this point) Mdann52 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing that a tweak to the template, like using {{delink}} on the facility ID parameter, might help, but I haven't looked at it yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Mdann52-- considering I've seen only 3 or so pages popup this month while you've been running this task, and I've been focused on this Link in Link error type for the past few weeks and fully eliminated it yesterday (had been 900 some userspace pages completely unrelated to you or Radio Stations), I don't see any need for the bot to stop or be adjusted at this point. Since it's a single run task with a limited population remaining, and very few popup cases, keep going and we'll address any few that do pop up (if any).
Jonesey95 and Mdann52-- Your reply to me, Jonesey95, (in the section two above this) surprised me a bit, but after some testing and thinking today, I've found that I had the culprit parameter wrong last night and it's a two pronged issue (sort of). This error exists in only two states-- If both the FACID and the licensing_authority parameters are wikilinked, or if FACID is wikilinked and LA contains anything. All other states have no error, so yes, delinking the FID parameter sounds like a valid course of action to prevent these errors since LA is intended to be populated and linked.
The only lingering question I had this evening was if there were any pages with FID linked and LA either gone or empty that could be a triggering case later that the bot might have left behind. However, you state above that the bot is adding a populated LA parameter for empty/nonexistant cases, so I believe there won't be any potential trigger cases later on (unless created later on by the random perfect storm editor), and that this bot task will have found all cases by the task's completion (correct me if any part of this understanding is incorrect).
Regardless of the bot, wikilinking of the FID parameter, if possible, should be disallowed or dissuaded in the use of this template. {{delink}} as you mentioned, Jonesey95, looks like a nice solution if it'll work well within this template, but I have no preference of how it is done so long as it's clean and effective, and I trust both of you in this regard. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Reports
The "nonexistent category" report is at Special:WantedCategories. To be honest, I genuinely don't recall ever having asked for it to be made daily; it runs every three days and thus isn't too onerous to get through. A daily version wouldn't be unwelcome, but isn't nearly as pressing as the polluted category reports (Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories for userspace content and Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories (2) for draftspace), because those only run once per week — I do recall having asked for them to run more often than they do, because running only once a week means that they feature hundreds of pages by the time they update, and thus require me to set aside hours and hours to get through, whereas a run of the redlinked category report rarely takes me more than 30-45 minutes to clean up.
But the draft report is currently broken, so I've been working around it with an ad hoc report that I can regenerate on the fly, and might keep using because that makes it better than the official report. (Wikipedia:Database reports/Drafts with categories helps somewhat, but I've found that it isn't consistently reliable at catching all categorized drafts, so it's never been my primary tool for that job, while the version I was given at WP:VPT when I reported that Dannybot hadn't updated the official report in weeks seems to work better.)
So, I mean, a daily version of the WantedCategories would certainly be appreciated, but it's never been the #1 thing on my wishlist; it's the polluted category reports where I've been more outspoken about wanting more frequent updates, while WantedCategories running every three days has been tolerable. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I saw. I fixed a few typos in the user name, to reduce confusion among any admins who might be checking things before deleting. Copy and paste is every editor's friend, but sometimes we forget about our friends.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok. I saw you had touched the China Template related to that, so thought it was worth mentioning the nuke conversation before you got invested in clearing the other pages. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
They are gone now. BTW, the fostered content bug has been fixed, so there are a few new errors to fix now. I found a lot of junk edits that needed reverting in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh good, it was ticking me off that I had just cleared those off to 10 "unfixables", for it to balloon over 1000 on non-errors. I'll join you with those in a few moments. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Pendennis Club fixes
Sorry, accidentally rolled back your reversions.
Fixing references; please leave for the next 15 minutes while I fix them!
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
The changes in and of themselves were fine, but next time you do things to someone's user page, give them a heads up. Just a courtesy thing, as people usually consider their user page as more of their personal space (as much as one can have here anyway.) Vjmlhds(talk)17:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind message. You received a heads-up in your Watchlist, and possibly in your notifications. I and other editors are fixing syntax errors in tens of thousands of User pages; it is simply impractical to notify every editor, many of whom are no longer active. Talk page notifications would create far too much noise for the affected editors as well as for anyone who is watching their talk pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I did some cleanup there. I don't have all of the tools that I need on sr.WP, but my edits may have helped a bit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I can't tell if you are trolling me, but I will assume good faith. I marked some claims. It's a verb. If you are curious about the {{full citation needed}} templates that I added, it may help you to read WP:FULLCITE. Linking to a page where someone can do a search does not count as providing a verifiable citation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
No. It just said "Template:Ronnie Wood". I come across stuff like this in the template space a few times per week. I have no objection to a real template at that location. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Its funny, I have been using Wikipedia for over 20 year, but there are still so many things I don't know how to do. I'd like to add some user boxes and make my page more informative, and to organize my images better. Would you be willing to help me or to make suggestions? Needsmoreritalin (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I would be happy to help you. Post a note on your talk page and link to userboxes that you would like to include, or you can just say "I want the userbox about chess that I see at User:Example's page". I will see what I can do for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Edit count data. No show.
My edit count data for August 2024 has not registered on my page. Been editing since the beginning of the month. Seems odd. Can you explain? Lord Such&Such (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
High replag means that all sorts of stuff that should update will not update until the replication lag goes back to zero. That is my first thought. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It's slowed by a server update task that is taking far longer than expected (T367856). Once that ends, the server traffic should start catching up. Nothing we can do about it in the meantime. I'm waiting for something to display updated data that hasn't changed since the wee hours of Saturday also. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello there @Jonesey95. Thank you for fixing the lint error that was introduced while welcoming a new Wikipedia user. Just to clarify, I used the automatic welcome tool in Twinkle to do that. I was unaware of any lint errors. I also chose not to send a standard welcome message beause the editor that I welcomed has an apparent interest in physics. Currently I have scarce knowledge about what lint errors are; would you be willing to explain that to me? Also, can you please check if using the {{welcome-phys}} tag produces a lint error. If so, then it should be fixed in the template's source. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk)20:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Raydann: As I expect you know, in HTML, each element has a opening tag and a closing tag, they normally occur in pairs like <b>...</b>. For some elements, the closing tag is optional (as with <li> or <td>) or even invalid (as with <br /> or <img />). But for most elements, the closing tag is mandatory; and moreover, when one element is nested inside another, each element must be closed in the opposite order to which they were opened. That is, <b><i>Some text</i></b> is valid, whereas <b><i>Some text</b></i> is not. Lint errors are, generally speaking, cases where a required tag is missing, or where closing tags occur in the wrong order. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
<br /> was, to my knowledge, the preferred, and correct, usage of the break tag. If I am incorrect, I'll stop my usage of it. (I also know </br> appears in red with the editor's syntax highlight tool on, while the above appears in green, and </br> can interrupt some tags causing strippage). Break is one of the rare clean cases of a tag written as <foo/>. Nearly everything else written this way is a self closed error (and all known cases of self closed errors on en.wiki have been addressed).
While closing <li> might be optional, leaving off a closing </ol> is not, and it's just safer to be in the habit of closing everything. I've seen and cleaned up enough table errors that I strongly object to the suggestion of not closing <td>. If they don't automatically cause a fostered content error, they often contribute to this, or other errors when things are not properly closed.
@Raydann I see how you did that, and it was with the expected actions, so there's something broken here that needs fixing. @Jonesey95, Do you know why going to the Twinkle Welcome menu, selecting/sending that template creates this Fostered content error? I see it does not cause an issue when the template is written manually as {{welcome-phys}} for some reason, but I also see that the Menu route writes the full text, when it could just add the shorter {{welcome-phys}} and get the same display result for less text on page and no error. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Zinnober9: I didn't say that <br /> was invalid, I said that a closing tag is invalid for that element: that is, it is incorrect to write <br></br>. I'm not getting into the "<br>-versus-<br />" thing here, that's way off-topic.
I didn't mention the ol element at any point: of course </ol> is mandatory, it pairs with an opening <ol> tag. It's <li> for which a closing tag is optional - whilst a li element is explicitly closed by a </li> tag, it is also implicitly closed by (i) a <li> tag within the same list; (ii) a </ol> tag; (iii) a </ul> tag.
@Redrose64 Oh... I didn't read it that way and thought you were saying <br /> (by itself) was an issue. My mistake. I agree with you on this then, so I've struck it above. I have no real opinion on "<br>-versus-<br />", just against the usage of </br> for the odd cases where it strips something. I mentioned <ol>, since I often see cases where the people who left <li> open left <ol> open also, and not closing OL is an issue. I just think the habit tends to cause some unintentional collateral damage in forgetting in which cases things are optional. Similar thinking behind my <td> stance. The people who I've seen leave them unclosed tend to not to close other tags that are important/required, or forget they need <tr> in addition to <td>. The other reason I close them all is it's also easier to identify where something went wrong when looking at linty pages using syntax highlighting turned on; pages that did close the optional closer tags don't have trailing correct tags displaying in red. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Offensive edit comments
Jonesey, I'm sure you mean well with your edits, but I really find remarks like "Fix Linter obsolete tag errors and restore noinclude tags. Where are people finding this invalid syntax? It has been removed from all articles and templates." distinctly off-hand, indeed offensive, made none the better for the knowledge that you sprinkle these remarks semi-automatically to all and sundry. There's really no need for semi-automated rudeness on Wikipedia. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I wrote that because I am legitimately curious. How did it occur to you to use obsolete <tt>...</tt> tags in that page? There should not be any valid examples of that long-obsolete syntax anywhere on Wikipedia. If that tag is documented somewhere, I want to fix that. Hence my question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Template:Constitutional law of Wales/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC) by using the Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants list.
Special:Diff/1207765901 ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Template:Cite GREC has been nominated for merging with Template:GEC. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
BRFA filed. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
? Every time I try to add an image I mess up the layout. (I know, shocking.) Thank you x 100000. JSFarman (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Jonesey95! You recently made an edit to another editor's user page despite the presence of a notice instructing otherwise. Please be mindful of page notices when contributing to Wikipedia — especially in another editor's user space.