User talk:Jonesey95/Archive3

Elected!

Hi there. You da boss now! I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Happy New Year! --Stfg (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party, but congratulations! I'm sure you'll do well. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 05:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I appreciate all of your contributions, both past and future. I stand on the shoulders of giants. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jonesey95!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Jonesey95: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Refs

Please do not shorten the refs like you did here [1] again without clear consensus. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not shorten refs like this without clear consensus or arbitrarily. There is clear consensus that citations should be formatted consistently. I made the citation formatting much more consistent (e.g. adding and correcting doi and pmid values, adding titles to citations with raw URLs, adding many links to pmid and other identifiers, and making author name formatting match more consistently from citation to citation) and in the process eliminated many citation errors. Before my edits, the article contained 32 CS1 citation errors. After my edits, the article contained just three CS1 citation errors, each of which was not yet flagged by a red error message (the edit was completed in October; the messages were added to the CS1 module in November).

And now it appears that you have reverted the article to its previous, error-laden state without first asking why the edits that removed those errors were made. I encourage you to undo your revert so that constructive edits made subsequent to October 19 are not lost. I have no objection to your replacing the shortened refs with filled-in refs, but please do not reintroduce dozens of citation errors to articles when editors have worked hard to fix them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOCE 2014

Congratulations on becoming the new lead! I've been working on the annual report for 2013 here. The bottom section is for you as incoming lead coordinator to fill in with your plans for the upcoming year. You can take a look at the last two years (2012 and 2011) to get an idea of what goes in there, or just say whatever you want. You can also fill in the rest of the details in the other sections if you want. I am working down from the top, so you could start at the bottom and move up. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Matty.007 16:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95 Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Robert Dutton

Hey Jonesey95,

I noticed you recently fixed the unnamed parameter error on Robert Dutton's page. I used a reflink tool to fill in all of the bare urls prone to linkrot and then I received a notification on my talk page saying to fix it, however, I wasn't quite sure how. I tried several times and didn't know what it was asking me to repair. So thank you for fixing up my mistake and I was wondering what you did to fix the error that the tool created, so I could know how to fix it if it happens again in the future. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Meatsgains: "%7c" is a substitute for the "|" character (sometimes called a pipe or vertical bar). When a URL containing "|" is included in a Wikipedia cite template like {{cite web}}, the template interprets the "|" as "alert: here comes a new template parameter" (e.g. "title" or "author"). So a URL like http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14|name-bar|show-yes, which is perfectly valid, looks like this in a cite web template (note that the end of the URL is cut off and the text at the end of the URL generates errors as well):

http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "name-bar" ignored (help); Text "show-yes" ignored (help)

If you substitute "%7c" for each "|" in the URL, the cite template sees the whole URL as you intended:

http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14%7cname=bar%7cshow=yes. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I left the title parameters out of the above citations so that you could see the difference in the URLs. The "unknown parameter" error is displayed for citations when there is a set of | characters without an equals sign (=) somewhere between them.

And one more slightly confusing thing: If you have a "title" or other non-url parameter with "|" characters in it, like "title=Review: Oscar-nominated movies | The Film Geek Web Site", that also leads to the error above. In that case, you need to substitute | for each "|" character. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please check references for James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce and Arnold Lupton

hi there Could you pleaes check referencing for 2 pages James Bryce, 1st viscount Bryce and Arnold Lupton - Cheers and thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.74.196 (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up a few references in these two articles. Here are some tips for your future editing:

• |last= and |first= are used to indicate the last name and first name of the author, respectively. |title= is for the title of the article, web page, or other work within a larger work. |work= is for the larger work within which the article is contained. See the documentation for {{cite web}} for more information.
• Citations, ideally, should be formatted consistently from one citation to the next. You will find many articles in which this is not the case, but that's the ideal. For example, if all of the existing citations use the date format "12 January 2014", any citations that are added should use the same date format. See WP:CITEVAR for more information.
• When you want to add a note to a Talk page, click the "New Section" link at the top of the page. Enter a brief title for your new section, then add your text in the big text field. When you are done writing, add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of the text. That will sign the text with your user name and the current date and time.
• You might want to sign up for a user name and password so that you can participate more fully. Let me know if you need help with that.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. It looks like you are on your way to being a constructive Wikipedia editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Works of Henry Chapu

Thanks so much for your intervention and for fixing the links. I will in future follow your template. Thanks again Jonesey95.

Weglinde (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Have gone through rest of links. So grateful your help. I will now go through all recent articles to make sure I do links properly. Weglinde (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Good work. I fixed a few remaining references where there were line breaks within the references. If you want to be extra careful, click on each of the links in the references to see if they take you to the right location. You may need to delete the period "." at the end of the web address. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

GOCE January 2014 copy edit drive barnstar

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy editing articles totalling 4000 words or more during the WP:GOCE January 2014 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating! Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I... I feel I can talk to you about this...

Honestly, Jonesey, am I being an asshole here? User_talk:EEng#Personal_attack.3F_You_decide.21_.5BSection_heading_not_supplied_by_ChrisGualtieri.5B This guy's been on my case for months. Talk:Phineas_Gage#Tags_are_back

BTW, I didn't notice your edit summary the very model of a modern emigrantical until later -- precious! EEng (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you asked, my opinion: You're both poking and prodding each other and not taking a step back to see if you're here to build an encyclopedia or here for some other reason. My advice to each of you (although only one of you asked) is to take a step back, put away your sword, and read Wikipedia:Humor from cover to cover. It's an age-old chestnut on the internet that humor, especially the various varieites of clever, sophisticated wit, is difficult to convey in writing. One man's humor is another man's personal attack.

Apologize, even if you do not think you did anything wrong, and do not use the word "if" in your apology. Take a break from being clever and focus on the content and infrastructure of this great encyclopedia. Find other outlets for your desire to perform verbal gymnastics and make connections among previously unconnected thoughts and objects.

Since you asked, EEng. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

<slap><slap> Thanks! I needed that!

EEng (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation bot

Hi,

Just a quick note of thanks for seeking out errors that have resulted from the new bot release. Hope to have time to deal with them soon!

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Smith609, I appreciate the thanks. I enjoy finding bugs and seeing them fixed, and I find Citation Bot to be a very useful tool. I worry that others will not be so tolerant of its quirks and will want to block it, as they have in the past.

I will keep reporting bugs as I find them. You're doing a great job with the updates. I hope you can find the time and energy to stamp out the last few big bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I use any excuse to point to User:EEng#.28thumbs_up.29. EEng (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help at Chicago Options Associates. Sorry for the rollback, I undid myself, it was just an accidental click. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Stalking A930913's talk page

I saw you answering a couple of requests about BracketBot issues on A930913's talk page. Thanks for your help! When you resolve a request so that A930913 doesn't need to take a look, please also edit the {{User:A930913/BBresolved|no}} part and change "no" into "yes". That will not only add the "resolved" box, but also mark the section for extra-speedy archival so they won't clutter the talk page (otherwise these sections are set not to be archived for the next ten years or so). Huon (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I remember to do this sometimes, but since the code is hidden, I forget to remember it. I'll see if I can remember in the future. I wouldn't want those things to lie around for ten years.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

February blitz

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for copyediting a total of 4151 words during the February GOCE Blitz! Miniapolis 02:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging articles

Flushed with success (?) in merging Sea star wasting syndrome into Starfish wasting disease I tackled a more difficult proposition. I merged Gorilla gorilla diehli into Cross River gorilla. That is to say I went through the procedure as outlined in the instructions. I basically copied most of the source article into the recipient and there is bound to be quite a bit of duplication and superfluous information. I see you thought some of the source article was a copyright violation so if you feel like helping out in trimming the merged article into shape you would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cwmhiraeth. The GGd article was created over a redirect by students in an academic course. The students added useful information, and they were getting a grade for the project, so I didn't want to bite them and the useful information by simply reverting it. Nice work with the merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE February blitz wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited! Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride, a global campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia during the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. The project is being spearheaded by two organizers with roots in the Pacific Northwest. Meetups are being organized in some cities, or you can participate remotely. Wikimedia Commons will also be hosting an LGBT-related photo challenge. In Portland, there are two ways to contribute. One is a photography campaign called "Pride PDX", for pictures related to LGBT culture and history. The Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, June 21 from noon–4pm at Smith Memorial Student Union, Room 236 at Portland State University. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and cords. Feel free to showcase your work here! Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Pride PDX Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Wiki Loves Pride 2014 https://www.facebook.com/events/804661466218694 If you have any questions, please leave a message here. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list.

citations

Your Autoed edit here seems to be a bit askew, putting a list value to author2. Please consider either splitting each out (author 2, author3...) or even adopting the last2, first2, last3, first3 entry, which would be consistent with the prior use of last1, first1. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, thanks for the note. I have been replacing the "coauthors" parameter in citations where it appears without any author parameters at all. In such citations, no author is displayed, which is a problem. If you scroll to the bottom of the edit you cited, you'll see that sort of fix.

In the first citation shown in that edit, I replaced the deprecated "coauthors" parameter with "author2" in order to eliminate a deprecated parameter. The display of the resulting citation was unchanged, and it would remain unchanged if I used author2/author3 or last2/first2 etc., so I didn't take the time to add these not-strictly-necessary parameters to the citation. Another editor is welcome to do so. I prefer to move on to the next article in Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author and fix citations that are not displaying any authors at all.

I do sometimes take the time to split the authors into individual parameters, but since the resulting rendered citation is usually unchanged (or changed in punctuation and/or name order only), I prefer to focus on citations that are truly broken in ways that interfere with readers' locating of sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. My concern was mainly if this was happening in automated fashion, as these things seem to multiply when one isn't looking too closely. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, I inspect every edit before I click Save. If the script wants to make changes that I am not comfortable with, I modify them by hand before saving or abandon the proposed edit without saving. If you look at the end of the alphabet in this category, you will see that articles starting with the letters Q-Z have about 90 articles remaining, out of about 600–700 articles a month or two ago. Those are the articles that were too complex for my script to fix easily. I will return to them after I have cleared out the easy articles from the category.

You can see my AutoEd scripts here. The "month" script is the one that I am using for these edits. I know the name of the script doesn't really make sense.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Looks like a good way to cut the job down to size. Thanks for explaining. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

When |coauthors= contains the names of two or more authors, please don't simply rename |coauthors= to |author= as you did here, here and here - it corrupts the metadata. Instead, split it out into separate |author1=, |author2= etc., like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See paragraphs above in response to OP. I have been replacing the "coauthors" parameter in citations where it appears without any author parameters at all. In such citations, no author at all is displayed to a WP reader, let alone in the metadata, which is a problem. I have no intention of doing similar edits to the larger Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters, since I recognize that doing so would leave the display unchanged and add metadata problems.

There are zillions of citations with multiple authors in |author= or |authors= already, so I'm not significantly contributing to the size of that problem with a few hundred fixes of authors that are not displayed at all in WP or in metadata. There are also editors who will fight tooth and nail against changing that situation, unfortunately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Data stored in "author" or "authors" parameters is definitely rendered in the displayed citations. It is also displayed in metadata, all though multiple authors are displayed as if they were one author. Storing multiple authors in the "author" or "authors" parameters is not the problem. The problem is that Module:Citation/CS1 does not parse these parameters to produce proper metadata and the CS1 module could easily be modified to do so. We are talking about adding a few lines of code in one template to eliminate the clutter of "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters in zillions of articles. Finally how many consumers of Wikipedia citation metadata are there? I suspect not very many. Boghog (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am skeptical about this "a few lines of code in one template" assertion but willing to be persuaded. How would a few lines of code be able to automatically differentiate between the following, all of which I am sure exist in the wild in WP:

• author=Doe JJ, Smith KT, Brown MR
• author=Doe, JJ, Smith, KT, Brown, MR
• author=JJ Doe, KT Smith, MR Brown
• author=Doe, John, Smith, Kate, Brown, Michael
• author=John Doe, Jr., Kate Smith, Ph.D., Michael Brown, M.D.

And that's just Western names. I haven't delved into naming from non-Western cultures, some of which follow different rules about which part of a name goes where.

Please do not suggest that editors will read the style guides and documentation and provide punctuation that follows the style guides. We have many thousands of citations that provide evidence to the contrary, with more popping up every day. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some editors create citations templates by hand, but many use template filling tools that generate a consistent citation style. It should be possible to identify and parse well-speced author formats that are created by template filling tools (or manually by authors who do read style guidelines) and mark the rest as errors. One example is the Diberri Wikipedia template filling tool. The use of Diberri's tool is mentioned (but not required) in MEDMOS and MCBMOS. Hence this citation format is very commonly used in Wikipedia biomedical and scientific articles. This format is very well defined:

* Patrias K, Wendling P (2007–13). "Author for Journal Articles". The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

In particular, this is a comma delimited citation format. Commas are only used between authors and never within one author. Furthermore semicolons are never used. Hence it is very easy to identify this type of author format with a regular expression and it is very easy to parse. It should also be possible to identify and parse other well-speced citation formats. Author lists that are not formatted using an accepted standard should be marked as errors, similar to the way the "date" parameter is error checked (e.g., "July 2010" is OK and "2010 July" is not OK). Boghog (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

But once the citation exists, how do you tell the difference between these two citations, one of which was created by the Diberri tool and one which was not? There is no flag to say "this is a multi-author comma-delimited author parameter". [date error removed to avoid confusion]

• Patrias K, Wendling P (2007). "Author for Journal Articles". The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Patrias K, Jr., Wendling P, M.D. (2007). "Author for Journal Articles". The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Text in |author= is separated by commas, but how does the error-detection code know what is an error and what is not? I think it can't, but I would love to be wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the documentation, periods are never used except an optional single period at the end. Also according to the NLM documentation, "Vincent T. DeVita, Jr." becomes "DeVita VT Jr", Hence in the example above, "Patrias K, Jr." is an easily detectable error (a third author whose last name is "Jr" and no first name). In addition, the documentation reads "Omit degrees, titles, and honors that follow a personal name, such as M.D." Hence "Patrias K, Jr., Wendling P, M.D." contains two extra periods that should not be there. The code could also scan the text for common degrees (M.D., Ph.D., etc.) and if present, throw an error. There may be a few errors that might sneak through (nothing is perfect), but a large majority of errors should be caught. Boghog (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I am skeptical, but I look forward to seeing a demonstration of such code in action. Here are just a few examples of |author= from a single article, Nuclear and radiation accidents:

• author=Johnston, Robert (one author, one comma)
• author=James C. Oskins, Michael H. Maggelet (two authors, one comma)
• author=Ricks, Robert C. et al. (one author and "et al.", one comma)
• author=István Turai and Katalin Veress (two authors, no comma, "and")
• author=Ball, Roberts, Simpson, et al (three authors, "et al.", three commas)
• author=Jacobson, Mark Z. and Delucchi, Mark A. (two authors, two commas, "and")

I know that they are not internally consistent as they should be within the same article, but that is the real world of WP. If they came from different articles, most or all would be acceptable based on CITEVAR, I expect. I find it hard to imagine code that could render all of those citations correctly based on detection of commas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of the same ambiguities can also occur with "author1, author2, ..." or even "first1, last1, first2, last2, ...". To remove all ambiguities, we would need to add several additional parameters such as "author-title1" and "middle1" (middle name). And as you have pointed out above, there are zillions of articles that already use a single parameter named "author" to store full author lists. A large fraction of these do conform to the NLM author standard. Furthermore the use of a single author parameter has not be deprecated. If it were deprecated (a proposal that I strongly would oppose), a bot would need to go through these articles and convert all the above examples with a similar parser and make similar mistakes. Perhaps the best long term solution is to have a bot replace all the {{cite journal}} templates that do conform to NLM author standard to the {{vcite2 journal}} template (that in turn calls Module:Citation/CS1). Code could be added to {{vcite2 journal}} so that it would parse the author parameter and create "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters that are passed on to Module:Citation/CS1 making everyone happy. The are a number of potential problems with this however. For example, the maintainer of User:Citation bot had declined to support {{vcite}} templates in the past and therefore it is questionable if he would support {{vcite2 journal}} in the future. Boghog (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There are an endless number of potential exceptions and no filter would be able to catch 100% of these, but it is also important not to loose sight that a large majority could properly be identified as not conforming to the NLM standard and marked as errors. Applying the NLM author standard to your last set of examples above:

• author=Johnston, Robert (one author, one comma) – a literal interpretation is two authors neither with a first initial, therefore does not conform to the NLM standard
• author=James C. Oskins, Michael H. Maggelet (two authors, one comma) – periods should not be there, therefore does not conform; ignoring the periods, the literal interpretation is that we have two first/middle initials "Oskins" and "Maggelet" that do not conform since each has more than two characters and the second character is lower case.
• author=Ricks, Robert C. et al. (one author and "et al.", one comma) – periods should not be there, therefore does not conform. Note: it is fairly common to have "et al." at the end of a author string so this should be immediately stripped from the string before further processing
• author=István Turai and Katalin Veress (two authors, no comma, "and") – "and" occurs frequently enough that it probably should be converted into a comma before parsing so that this string becomes "István Turai, Katalin Veress". After the conversion we are left with two authors however the literal interpretation is that we have two authors with first/middle initials of Turai and Veress that do not conform since each has more than two characters and the second character is lower case.
• author=Ball, Roberts, Simpson, et al (three authors, "et al.", three commas) – after stripping "et al" we are left with three authors none of which has a first initial, therefore does not conform
• author=Jacobson, Mark Z. and Delucchi, Mark A. (two authors, two commas, "and") – a period that should not be there, hence does not conform; also after converting the "and" to a comma (Jacobson, Mark Z, Delucchi, Mark A), we are left with two authors (Jacobson and Delucchi) without first initials, hence does not conform. Boghog (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Above, you said "Module:Citation/CS1 does not parse these parameters to produce proper metadata and the CS1 module could easily be modified to do so." I have, with an open mind, asked for an example of how the module could be modified to do what you propose. Now you are saying that the module should be modified to flag citations as nonconformant with NLM, which not all CS1 citations are required to follow. I'm perceiving a drift in your argument, one that ends in a place that appears to conflict with CITEVAR. Please correct me if I misinterpret your words.

What concrete change would you like to make to the module? I am fine with changing the module if it can be done in a way that is concrete and can apply to all citations that make use of the module.

I suggest that this discussion be moved to Module_talk:Citation/CS1 if you have a specific recommendation for a way to change the module that would apply to all existing CS1 citations that use the module. The change would also need to respect CITEVAR, I believe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been no drift what so ever in my proposal. I question the need for metadata in the first place since I suspect there are not very many consumers of this data. However if one wants to generate proper metadata, then one must enforce some standards on how the author data is stored. This is exactly the same situation that we have the date parameter. In order to produce proper author metadata, it must first pass a filter to make sure that it can be parsed. Author data that does not pass the filter should not be parsed and the raw author data should instead be used directly to produce the metadata as it currently does. Marking non-conforming data as an error is not my preference. I am only responding to others that think metadata is important. Marking the data as an error does not violate CITEVAR, but subsequent edits to remove those errors so that 100% accurate metadata can be generated may be a violation. My proposal would preserve the current storage format and display of authors and is completely consistent with CITEVAR. Deprecating the single "author" parameter to store multiple authors is not consistent with CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Essay wp:Autofixing_cites

User:Wikid77 here. I have written more Lua script to autofix (auto-correct) typos when using the wp:CS1 cite templates. When I helped to develop those Lua-based cite templates, during October 2012 to April 2013, the intent was to auto-correct for many typos, not show numerous error messages, and I never imagined Lua would be used to issue thousands of red-error messages when simple auto-correction would have been quite easy. Well, after waiting all year, I have returned to re-focus on autofixing typos in cite templates, and suppress most of the red-error messages. Across Wikipedia editing, many editors are just too busy to nitpick the details and so, autofixing of cite parameters provides a rapid way to solve the problems and make many cite templates almost trivial to use. Last year, I estimated the hand-correction of cites to require over 3 years of manual, hand-crafted edits, and now after another whole year, the backlog is still about 3-5 years if hand-fixed. Although several users are diligently hand-editing the pages to fix cites, many other users are actively inserting invalid cite parameters into almost as many dozens of pages each week. The past year (of tedious cite work) has proven how autofixing is the only hope to rapidly correct the 10,000 pages in the backlog categories. For example:

• Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters (pages: 0)

During early 2014, the unsupported parameters have been fixed at only 100-200 pages per month, as meaning more years of backlog work. I wrote new essay, "wp:Autofixing cites" to explain some simple ways to autofix the major cite parameters and hope people might discuss issues about the autofixing in the talk-page there, "WT:Autofixing cites" where all the complex tactics of fixing URLs and dates could be discussed, in more detail. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for laying this out. I will respond at the Talk page for the essay. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow

Thanks for correcting my typos. What's really pathetic is that I made the same error twice! :p Must have some funny idiosyncrasy when it comes to typing the work "public", or autocorrect did something wonky. Needless to say, THANK YOU! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought you'd like that. I've always thought that "pubic" should be underlined in red by any respectable automated spell-checker. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

… I really don't wish to see a list of pubic art. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Rakesh Biswas page

[moved from Jonesey95 User page:] The matter provided for Mr Rakesh Biswas is genuine and have reference material .Mr Biswas is a famous personality of india , as he is youth icon for us . so kindly due to his respect make his page correct for his followers and researchers. thnks - unsigned addition by 106.219.56.63, 19:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

All I did was get the page moved from Category space to article space. You should post your concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakesh Biswas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Repost of The Yellow Wallpaper (film)

Is there something wrong in a typo or something on this page? It says on your profile you mostly delete for typos, but not sure where the typo is. The page fits every guideline for Wikipedia article, and the article is not the same as the original article, but has been amended. Do you know how to fix what is wrong? You are suggesting speedy deletion, but not sure why. Thanks! Atafirst (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

All I did was fix a syntax error in one of the citations. I did not suggest speedy deletion. As you can see in the article's history, that deletion tag was placed by Wikipedical. The previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yellow_Wallpaper_(film). You did the right thing by clicking the "Contest this deletion" button and posting on the Talk page. An editor should respond to you there with an explanation of why the article is proposed for deletion.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I know it can sometimes be difficult to learn how things are done around here. You might consider copying the article's contents to Draft:The Yellow Wallpaper (film), where you can work on article drafts that are not ready to be in the main article space yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tree

Jonesey, people complain about Christmas tree, section decorations. Something for you? Hafspajen (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, what and where are these complaints? Can I see them on a Talk page so that I know what to address and how to address it? I'll be happy to take a look if there is a specific need for improvement. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the section Setting up and taking down is tagged = This section may be confusing or unclear to readers and Decoration has been tagged, This section may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards - and it might be a little difficult to clean up for me. Copy editing and clean up is needed, possibly grammar problems and confusing formulations. Hafspajen (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, I've looked at these pages a couple of times, and I don't see an easy way to provide a quick copy edit that would fix the section. It does indeed need a complete rewrite/rebalance and a comparison to the main article linked from that section. That's not something I'm willing to do at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well, no problem. Hafspajen (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know coauthors field throws an error message, but . . .

... the coauthors field is a feature, not a bug, when it is used to list the contributors of chapters to a volume edited by editors who are already listed in editor fields. It is an error worse than leaving in a no-op coauthors fields (yeah, I know that that field doesn't display by default) when a book is listed that already has its editors named, as the editors will display in the correct manner for a bibliographic entry in that case. I'm sure you are just trying to help here, and I really need to talk to someone else about the changes in the CS1 parameters, but who? The changes in the CS1 parameters, deprecating parameters that were used correctly by editors like me who read the fine documentation, are wasting your time and mine, and resulting in a whole bunch of changes that are very difficult to roll back to correct. Where is the discussion among editors about which parameters are deprecated, and why? Thanks for your help, and best wishes for much enjoyment and appreciation of your editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As the citation was written, the authors of the book in question were displayed only in the wikitext, not in the article. How does that hidden information help readers locate the book in question or learn who the authors of the chapters in the book were? I believe that readers should not be expected to view the wikitext in the hope that some hidden information will be there to help them.

In any event, I have commented out |coauthors= in Jim Flynn (academic), which maintains your desire (as I perceive it) to have the hidden author information in the wikitext and my desire to eliminate red error messages from articles. I compared the display of the page before my first edit and after commenting out |coauthors=, and it appears to display that citation in exactly the same way. I hope that works for you.

I'm curious about the documentation to which you refer. Can you point me to documentation that shows, or showed, how to use |coauthors= in this way? I am legitimately asking, not trying to needle you. I have found that documentation on WP can be inconsistent from location to location, which can be frustrating to editors.

Most of the discussion about CS1 citations happens at Help talk:Citation Style 1, with some additional technical discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If it is desired to include the names of all authors in the wikitext, but to display just a few, the approved method is by means of the |display-authors= parameter. This does require that |coauthors= not be used, each author being specified separately - either as |last1=|first1= etc. or as |author1= etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed in the approved manner by converting |coauthors= to |lastn= |firstn= format with |display-authors=0 for good measure. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

... and now it is changed again. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

... and another page. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

... and yet another page. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixing coauthors in general

Hi Jonesey. I feel really bad saying this stuff. I know you are trying to help. When I was going through Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author, I generally employed a method such that when I erred, it would keep the error message in. Also, the ones that I didn't touch were generally the ones that I couldn't even figure out what to do quickly. And had already gone through alphabetically up to "H" I believe, so a lot of what was in the category up to there were weird cases. So I think you ended up creating a lot of problems with your method: E.g., all the Fishbase cites like [2], those are the editors, not the authors. Or a funny one like this: [3]. Coauthor named Med Vet? Those are actually part of the sole author's title as a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine! Anyway, maybe we can think of a way to go back through these efficiently and check for issues like that? For the random selection of a run of 17 edits in the "D"s that I looked at that, 9 of them had problems [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. I make mistakes just like anyone. Feel free to fix any mistakes that I have made. I never take it personally. This issue, however, is a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out. I saw a lot of crazy stuff in that category as I fixed about 2,100 articles with this error. The 90 or so articles that are left were the ones that were too complicated to fix quickly with a single script; I expect to get to those in the next few days. As for the citations where editors are now listed in the author field, or multiple parts of an author's name are listed in parameters for multiple authors, welcome to Wikipedia. It's ugly out there.

Please see the first four or five paragraphs of the "citations" section above on this Talk page for more details behind my reasoning.

Thank you for your comments and for your contributions to fixing these error categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	With your extensive work on GOCE and answering of questions in the Wikipedia community, I award you this barnstar. JustBerry (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, JustBerry! – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March 2014 barnstar

		The Modest Barnstar
		This Modest Barnstar is awarded to Jonesye95 for copy edits totalling over 4000 words during the GOCE March 2014 copy edit drive. Thank you very much for participating! Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for judging the GOCE March 2014 copy edit drive! :) Newyorkadam (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the April blitz! – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here. Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles. Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Refn/doc

Hi.

These two paragraphs appear shortly after one another and explain the exact same thing. As such, one of them is redundant:

• Parser tags such as <ref> do not allow the inclusion of wikimarkup such as substing, variables or templates. The magic word {{#tag:ref}} can be used to resolve these issues, but the syntax can be non-obvious. This template uses {{#tag:ref}} with easy to understand parameters.
• Because of a technical limitation, a set of <ref>...</ref> does not work inside another. But they do work inside this template. This is mainly useful for explanatory footnotes that requires a cite using <ref>...</ref>. (For more information, see Help:Footnotes § Grouping footnotes.)

The second is less technical. Oh, and by the way, it is I who is reverting, hence, you are teaching BRD to the wrong person. It is certainly not Bold, Revert, counter-revert and gone for six month to avoid Discussion.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have responded at Template talk:Refn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

AWB

That was a slip of my finger, and I was going to revert it, but it didn't appear to have gone through on my end. Thanks for fixing that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ktr101, no problem. Be careful out there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Invite!

• In case you happen to be in Portland this weekend! --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit war.

Could you please alert someone to the edit-war going on at "Skyhook (structure)" so that it can be dealt with accordingly. -- 79.67.241.231 (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I see an ongoing discussion on the Talk page, so I'm going to decline to get involved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Other than fixing up the duplicate references and their templates (twice!), I am also keeping out of it. -- 79.67.241.231 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

April GOCE blitz

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for copyediting two requested articles (with 2,218 words) during the April Guild of Copy Editors blitz (and for creating the barnstars page :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 22:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April blitz wrap-up and May copyediting drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction alerts

This follows on from your comments at WP:BOTREQ#Alerting users about discretionary sanctions applying to topics which they edit

At the Bot Requests page I am arguing against alerts about discretionary sanctions (DS) being delivered by bots. If you do not want such notices from humans either, then I suppose that you could put a notice on your user or user talk page saying that you are aware that discretionary sanctions are active in <list of topic areas you are aware DS is active in> that includes a timestamp (which you update at least once per year) and a request not to receive templated alerts. This would be taken as a formal awareness of the existence of discretionary sanctions, which means that you could be sanctioned under them without further notice if your editing behaviour is such that sanctions are required (if your editing is good then awareness of the sanctions regime has no practical implications).

Note though that this is just my opinion, and other administrators may disagree with me. The new DS regime, which introductes the concept of "alerts", which explicitly carry no implication of wrong-doing (unlike the "notices" they superceded), is only days old. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. I think I'm done providing feedback on this bad idea at the bot requests page. I think it goes against the fundamental idea of AGF, but I know that my opinion holds little weight. I'll wait to see (1) if a bot operator takes on the request and (2) how the BRFA process goes. I expect that things will blow up somewhere along the way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Typos

Apologies for the typos in Abiogenesis. I didn't run a script. That was a manual edit and I still managed to accidentally change one of the dashes within one of the DOI values. D'oh!

I think citation bot made an incorrect decision on the duplicate parameter marking. I have now reported that as a bug.

I'll be glad when there's some standardisation around using, and not using, hyphens in parameter names. I took a guess rather than go look it up - and got it wrong. Thanks for fixing. -- 79.67.241.249 (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. There is a commonly-used "dashes" script that makes this same error. I just assumed that you had used it.

I believe there was a discussion about parameter names standardizing on hyphens. Barring that, we should at least make an alias for each parameter that uses an underscore (or no space), so that hyphens are valid. Have you found parameters that accept only underscores, or that do not allow a hyphen between two words? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I regularly use |trans-title= and then see people correct it. Will be glad when hyphens are "the standard". I recently read a conversion about that on a talk page somewhere. I'm not sure about other parameter names, and I haven't kept a list. I'll try to pay more attention to this over the next few weeks. -- 79.67.241.222 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Regarding |orig-year=, it's not a valid parameter, and attempting to use it throws the error "". But |trans-title= is valid (provided that |title= is also present) - it throws no error but is displayed in square brackets after the main title. If people are claiming that it is not valid, and using that claim as an excuse to alter it to something else (presumably |trans_title=), it is they who are in the wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra detail. I see many references with a non-English title and no translation, and try to add that back in wherever I can. One reason for the missing data is an editing tool which trashed the translated title if an editor attempted to add one. What's more strange is the fact that no-one ever reported that behaviour and let it continue for several years. -- 79.67.241.222 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Typos @ fighter pages

Thank for correcting my recurring typo (acessdatte) on all thse fighter pages. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for adding content to Wikipedia! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

PMC Citations

I stumbled across the discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 9#PMC error check needed while looking for something entirely different. I think the change that was made might need to be reverted; I found the following at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals: Sample References:

Forooghian F, Yeh S, Faia LJ, Nussenblatt RB. Uveitic foveal atrophy: clinical features and associations. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009 Feb;127(2):179-86.
PubMed PMID: 19204236; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2653214.

Apparently we're not doing it correctly; perhaps the editors who are typing PMC before the number are trying to get the citation to match this style. The full format includes PubMed Central PMCID: followed by a space and then PMC is inserted before the number. The format we're using for PMID is apparently incorrect, as well; note that PubMed precedes PMID: followed by a space and the number. While we might be able to eliminate the PubMed and PubMed Central notations, apparently including PMC before the number is standard. The template will need to be updated and the instructions made clear that the template will add the PMC before the number, all the editor needs to do is supply the number. More examples may be found here that eliminate the PubMed: (List of other PMC articles citing the referenced article) The article at pubmed.gov lists the following at the end of the article: PMID: 19204236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC2653214. I think we may safely drop the [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. There is also a PDF article from the Perdue University Biological Sciences department that specifically states that the PMC is to be included before the number, read the Citation examples section on page 2.
Sorry if I've opened a can of worms; let me know if there's something I can do to help. Thanks.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 21:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Update. I've taken this discussion to Help talk:Citation Style 1#Errors in {{cite journal}}. Jump in if you'd like, otherwise, you're off the hook!—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 22:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the discussion. That was the right thing to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation

I just wanted to say how much I admire your skills and initiative on the May drive. Really amazing work. AbsoluteMack (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Caps fix?

How did you do that caps fix? Is there a tool?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I use a Mac OS program called TextWrangler or a Windows program called Notepad++, either of which allows you to select a block of text and change the case in a number of ways. I copied the whole wikitext out of the Edit window into my text editor program, made the changes, and then copied the text back to the WP Edit window. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Good work. I could do that, too.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC Invite

Hello,

I am inviting you to Articles for Creation. Every day, Articles for Creation receives hundreds of articles; currently, there are only a few active reviewers. Our current backlog contains a total of 1265 articles. We would greatly appreciate your help in reviewing articles.

AfC submissions Random submission

~7 weeks

1,256 pending submissions to update

Wikipedia ads	file info – #69

Review Now!

Not my thing. Maybe someday. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

I thought I was creating suggestions for those parameters since they have none presently. I think suggestions should be available for them; how does one make that happen? Thanks for your patience.—D'Ranged 1 ^VTalk 19:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

When a deprecated parameter is used, a red error message is displayed. That error message is followed by a "help" link that leads to instructions on which parameters to use. I like your idea, but the module does not display suggestions for parameters that are valid, even if they are deprecated.

If these deprecated parameters are eventually marked as unsupported by the module, that will be the time to put your proposed text in the Suggestions list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again for your patience; this whole system is very nuanced and I'm trying to get a grip on it, but it's hard to extract the needed information from what I've been looking at. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. Also, I have no idea why my post was added to the page twice; I must have previewed it, clicked "Save page", then used my browser to go back to the preview (why, I don't know—except that I've been having connectivity issues of late; very frustrating!) and clicked "Save page" again. Please pardon the clutter!—D'Ranged 1 ^VTalk 20:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Working on fixing citation errors has taught me about the nuances of citation syntax more than any of the discussions or documentation. I recommend working on a specific category of CS1 errors for a while. If you don't know how to fix a particular error, skip it rather than implement a bad fix. As you fix more citations, you'll gain a better understanding of the system. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Default error messages

Who decides which error messages display by default for all users? I notice that unless I update my /css page, I don't see the "Cite uses deprecated parameters" message. I would think we would want all editors to see this message to educate them so they could avoid making the same mistake in the future.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 21:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The community decides. See this discussion for details about the current situation. We have two bots, Monkbot and BattyBot, that are periodically cleaning up deprecated parameters and deprecated parameters, but there is no consensus yet that those bots have cleaned a reasonable amount of "bot-fixable" errors. Soon, I hope. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What I've seen demonstrates that use of some of the deprecated parameters is not readily "bot-fixable"; we're continuing to allow editors to create messes that have to be cleaned up by hand. (No one has come up with a good way to parse |coauthors= yet, that I've seen, for example.) There are currently 72,958 pages in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. Long after the parameters themselves have been deprecated, they continue to appear in tools that editors rely on every day. I've been trying to work through some of the articles on that list, but I'm too picky and can't just remove the deprecated parameters and move on in many cases, so I'm not making much progress. (That has led, however, to much-improved articles like Attila, which was a mess, and a moderately-improved article at 1958–59 Ashes series.) I'm trying to balance "maintenance" activities with improving articles activities; I'll get it sorted.

I just realized I'm venting; I'm sorry. This is not a windmill I have the time or energy to tilt at. I just read that Mr.Z-man is releasing a new version of RefToolbar tomorrow that will finally no longer include |coauthors=; that will, I hope, cut down on the number of articles using that difficult-to-fix parameter. I hope to be around the next time someone proposes deprecating a parameter; it should never be done unless there is a plan in place (like updating tools) to deal with the consequences beforehand. Thanks for the information, and for the "ear".—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 02:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Monkbot does an amazing job of parsing |coauthors=. It is taking a hiatus for a while, but I expect it will be back at some point soon. It fixed something like 90,000 articles in a few months. Before Monkbot started work on the category, it contained 164,000 articles. Now it is at 73,000, and there are no doubt more articles it will be able to fix after its break.

Windmills are no fun. I mostly ignore some kinds of errors, preferring to focus on short-term goals and on categories that are harder for bots to fix. I strongly recommend focusing your energy on CS1 error categories that can be emptied out completely. Once a category is emptied, it can be set up so that ReferenceBot notifies editors when they add an article to the category by creating an erroneous citation. Once a category is cleared, it is also easier to look at the list of articles recently added to the category and check each article's history to view and/or revert recent changes that created erroneous citations.

I have been working recently on the "archiveurl" error category, which contains only about 250 more articles that need fixing, and on the ISBN error category, from which I removed about 5,000 articles in the last few months. The remaining article fixes in both categories are usually pretty easy, although they are almost all manual, not scriptable, at this point.

In the last year or so, I have worked with a few others to clear out fourteen of the CS1 error categories. Some of those categories contained many thousands of articles. I'm happy that you have joined the effort. As I said above, I recommend finding a category that you can work on for a while so that you can become familiar with citations and the strange things editors do to them. I spent about six months just on the "wikilinks in title" category, fixing 50 or so a day until I had fixed almost all of the original 8,000 articles (another editor fixed about 1,500 of them). I learned a lot about citations, and about editing WP, while I did that work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

ReferenceBot does not need an empty category to start watching. It just needs the category wordings.

Line Truncated Code

#"Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author", ["Category:CS1 errors: ISSN","an [[:Category:CS1 errors: ISSN|ISSN error]] <small>([[Help:CS1_errors#bad_issn|help]])</small>"], ["Category:Pages with DOI errors","a [[:Category:Pages with DOI errors|DOI error]] <small>([[Help:CS1_errors#Check_.7Cdoi.3D_value|help]])</small>"], ["Category:Pages with OL errors","an [[:Category:Pages with OL errors|OL error]] <small>([[Help:CS1_errors#Check_.7Col.3D_value|help]])</small>"], ["Category:Pages with URL errors","a [[:Category:Pages with URL errors|URL error]] <small>([[Help:CS1_errors#Check_.7Curl.3D_scheme|help]])</small>"], #"Category:Pages with ISBN errors", #"Category:Pages with citations having redundant parameters", ["Category:Pages with citations using unnamed parameters","an [[:Category:Pages with citations using unnamed parameters|unnamed parameter error]] <small>([[He$ #"Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters", ["Category:Pages with citations having wikilinks embedded in URL titles","a [[:Category:Pages with citations having wikilinks embedded in URL titles|wikilink $ ["Category:Pages with citations using translated terms without the original","a [[:Category:Pages with citations using translated terms without the original|t$ #"Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al.", #"Category:Pages using citations with format and no URL", #"Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL", #"Category:Pages using web citations with no URL", #"Category:Pages with citations lacking titles", #"Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs", #"Category:Pages with archiveurl citation errors", ["Category:Pages with citations using conflicting page specifications","a [[:Category:Pages with citations using conflicting page specifications|duplicate pag$ ["Category:Pages with empty citations","an [[:Category:Pages with empty citations|empty citation error]] <small>([[Help:CS1_errors#Empty_citation|help]])</sma$ ["Category:Pages with broken reference names","a [[:Category:Pages_with_broken_reference_names|broken reference name]] <small>([[Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_r$ ["Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting","a [[:Category:Pages_with_incorrect_ref_formatting|cite error]] <small>([[Help:Cite errors|help]])</small>"], ["Category:Pages with missing references list","a [[:Category:Pages with missing references list|missing references list]] <small>([[Help:Cite_errors/Cite_err$

Those were the categories identified ages ago, but only some have the descriptions. 930913 {{ping}} 07:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but I do not want editors who revert bad edits to be notified about creating malformed references. I see that as a form of false positive, which is something that an error-reporting bot should avoid as much as possible. That is why I prefer to clear out the category first.

There are other cases in which the work of clearing out a category reveals a need for an improvement in the citation module code. I like to get those out of the way before possibly notifying editors that they have created a malformed citation that is actually reasonable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOCE May 2014 backlog elimination drive barnstar

		The Modest Barnstar
		For copy editing more than 4000 words in the Guild of Copy Editors' May 2014 backlog elimination drive, please accept this barnstar along with our thanks. And thanks for being such a great lead in your first term. —Torchiest talkedits 18:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Never said it was a typo

that is why the edit exp = "(sp ?)". anyways, a differentiation of a spelling is a [sic] to indicate that it is presented as original.GinAndChronically (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If you go into the article's history, you should see a red error message in that reference. You should also notice that the "sic" link is not clickable, because wikilinks within title parameters do not work when a URL is present. That is the error I was fixing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE June 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone! Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here. Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Accurate edit summaries

Hello, we had some cross editing on Japanese occupation of Nauru. I reverted your edit with the edit summary 'Fixing "Pages with citations using conflicting page specifications" Lua error'. This looks like a generic edit summary for a automated or semi-automated task you are performing. It gives no indication if there has been any thought put into what was actually done, or if it was only accomplished by a semi-automated edit. In this case it just removed one of the two |pages= which were in the citation. My response was to first revert the edit then investigate to see how best to combine the two. As part of that investigation, I did determine that the 314 was the total number of pages and was in the process of reverting myself when I found that there was an edit conflict due to your reverting my first revert.

Your second edit summary said " No. The editor mistakenly put the book's total page count in the page= parameter. Please click through the ISBN and look before reverting." I agree that I, perhaps, should have investigated prior to reverting. However, I would say that I should not have needed to investigate. Your original edit summary should have stated that the 314 was removed as the total pages. If it had, or if edit summary looked like something other than a task-oriented generic edit summary, then I, and any other editor looking at the edit, wouldn't need to guess, or spend their time investigating because you did not bother to make it clear in your edit summary why you were removing information.

I agree that such things should be removed. Just please, take a little bit of time to explain it just a tiny bit so that everyone following after you doesn't have to spend time figuring out why you did the exact thing that you did. We both could have done better here. I will try to do so. I hope that you will also. — Makyen (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. I customize my edit summaries based on the type of citation error I am fixing. Given that many of the edits I am fixing provide no edit summary at all, or something minimal like "expanding section", I think my edit summaries are reasonable. I always AGF and rarely revert other editors' good faith, well-sourced edits (even if they are loaded with citation errors), preferring to fix their citations instead of reverting. That said, feel free to revert any of my edits if you have reasonable evidence to believe that I made an error. I don't take any of this personally; I'm just here to build an encyclopedia that works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Input on image decision

Hi you are invited to vote for the image to be used on the LG G2 infobox page at Talk:LG G2. Thanks! GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

William Gibson errors

Wow, that was ugly. My apology for leaving such a mess. But I did not touch any references. I hope you just reverted, rather than using manual repair. I don't see how I could have left such a mess. At first, seeing your edit summary, I thought perhaps I had been using my iPad, and had accidently touched the screen between preview and save. But I'm pretty sure that I was using my desktop because I had been doing a binary search to find when scoop.it snuck into 'External Links', and using 'find next' to check for presence in each version. I did not check all the way down into the reference section since I'd only removed the sentence and the link. I spent at least 20 minutes on that edit; I still don't see how so many reference formattings got screwed up, but I guess diffs don't lie, do they? - Neonorange (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Neonorange: At first, I thought you had rolled back to a revision before a lot of citation cleanup had happened, since I saw some of that in the history. But as I dug into it further, it looked like you had made a number of constructive edits, so I couldn't figure out what had happened.

Now that I look at it more, with your explanation, it looks like you inadvertently rolled the article all the way back to the 28 November 2012 version. Oops! That's not what you intended. I'm going to revert your rollback and then remove the scoop.it link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Be careful out there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am impressed with your approach to diagnosis and solution. How about this for my excuse: the scoop.it site was so ugly and so filled with ads that my brain locked up. (hmm, that gives me an idea... no, won't go there for a few days) Thanks again. - Neonorange (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So sorry—thank you!

I'm not trying to create work for you, honest. I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't take the care I should have on the documentation for {{cite podcast}}; thank you for the clean-up. I hate to think someone has to follow me around and make sure my edits are made correctly; I'll be more careful in the future. (Like not editing when I know I have to run out the door!) I appreciate all you do; enjoy your day!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 23:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's what Watchlists are for, right? I'm sure you'll have the opportunity to return the favor someday. Anyway, you did all the hard work; I just came in with a broom and swept up the dust.

When I have to run out the door, I usually leave a tab showing the page or diff open in my web browser to return to in a quieter moment. I have one open right now that has been waiting patiently for my attention for about a week. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

May I just say you have a great attitude? I wish it were more prevalent here. Unfortunately, in this instance, I not only didn't leave a tab open, I shut down my computer entirely. I appreciate that you think I did the "hard work"; that doesn't count for much when it has to be cleaned up, imo. I do appreciate the assistance, and look forward to being of help to you in the future.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 02:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Die Antwoord

Hi, thanks for fixing that citation error on the Die Antwoord page. 175.39.38.24 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

175.39.38.24, you're welcome. Fixing these minor errors is my primary activity on WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at user talk: Citation bot

Did you read the top of that talk page? The operator is seldom on wiki. If you seek a response, I suggest you use email. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I also left a message at the operator's talk page, which should send him a notification via e-mail. Thanks for the reminder. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Is that accessdate removal actually a problem? It looks like it's only removing it from cites that don't contain urls. My understanding is that the accessdate parameter exists so that if a link goes dead, it is possible to go look up the link on an archive site and know a date when the link was valid. For citing books as in the article you linked, the accessdate doesn't really apply to anything. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the bot is being as discriminating as you or I would be. Since the bot was not approved to perform this particular operation, and there is no consensus that removing accessdates is the right thing to do (as opposed to commenting them out or adding a URL or eliminating the error message from the cite module code), the bot is putting itself at risk of being stopped altogether for something small that it should simply keep its nose out of.

Here are some links to discussions about this accessdate error: here and here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC on another template with citation references

I know we disagreed regarding Template:Australian Trilobite References but because we recently discussed a template that contained citation references, I'd like your input at an RfC regarding Template:Geographic reference which is another template that contain citation references (as ref tags) but in a similar manner as the Australian Trilobites one. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I put my two cents in. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In regards with Wikipedia talk:Template namespace, I disagree but I've been here long enough to get used to it. For CAstat, Template:Cite WAstat, Template:RussiaBasicLawRef, etc., what do you think of a policy (maybe not policy, more style or something more like suggestion) to always include url or string part. I can imagine a time where WikiSource actually tries to store every single statute or law and, at the very least, I know they are storing some historical biography guides. The current method is for the parameters to be in the citation but if subtemplates are used, that cross-wiki usage would be ideal. I'd rather think it out loud with people who support more than I do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I don't see why some of these templates bother you so much. As you can see, I agree with you in some places (that geography template is a mess!), but not in others (I disagree with your substing and deleting cite doi templates; the citations will fork, and errors in them will be more time-consuming to fix).

I have seen the clear utility and concision of many of these single-source templates in many articles. Where I have disagreed with you, it has often been about issues that may have the potential to arise but are far from coming to pass, such as there being tens of millions of cite templates. I prefer to work on actual problems that are manifesting themselves right now in WP rather than dreaming up solutions to problems that may never arise.

It looks like you've been away from WP editing for a few years. You might consider that some cultural and technological shifts have taken place while you were away, and maybe spend some time hanging out in places like the Village Pump where people discuss basic issues, before you start trying to make sweeping changes to things that have been created and widely used for years.

I do not follow your sentence about the proposed policy or guideline. What does "to always include url or string part" mean? I also do not understand "if subtemplates are used, that cross-wiki usage would be ideal". Sorry if I'm being dense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS question.

Do lead sections fall under the MOS rules as far as avoiding "the" as the opening word goes, or is that just for titles? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi Skamecrazy123, there's no requirement to avoid opening to first sentence of the article with "the"; you should use your judgement to determine a suitable opening. If you need any further help, please tell us which article you're referring to. See the MOS here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Documentation

If it is simply listing parameters, then why does the section say "Usage?" And, these examples/parameter listings previously did contain the date for copying purposes, and the text above the code boxes says "Some samples may include the current date." I don't understand why the date which used to be included here isn't being included anymore. Ben^Yes? 19:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I thought that none of the CS1 cite template docs showed values in these parameter lists, but now that I have looked at {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite web}}, which are among the most used ones, there is no consistency. There should be, but documentation for each template is, at least in part, manually maintained. I don't know how to set them up to share common documentation, or even if that is the right thing to do. We muddle along.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

E T Davies

Thanks in great part to you, the article about E T Davies was keep after its deletion review, but it still needs addition citations to reliable, independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Bejnar, you're welcome. I found a good source via a quick Google search. Looking in Google Books and Google News for terms related to E. T. Davies, such as the titles of his publications listed on his VIAF page (linked at the bottom of the article), should lead you to useful sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE Drive

Hello Jonesey! I see that you are the head coordinator for the GOCE! If you don't mind answering my question, it is if you can rollover words from the June blitz to the July drive... Cheers! WooHoo! • Talk to BrandonWu! 02:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

BrandonWu, welcome to the GOCE! Rollover words from the June blitz will apply to the August blitz, which is the next one. Drives and blitzes are held in alternating months. Rollover words from each drive apply to the next drive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

June GOCE Blitz

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thanks for copyediting a total of 1,386 words during the June Guild of Copy Editors blitz! All the best, Miniapolis 23:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia.

Anabeel12 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Cute. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights: Sign up for the July 2014 Backlog elimination drive Review the Coordinators election results – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Fulham FC - Source feat. Jamie Redknapp

When I originally added this source I couldn't find an author as such. Jamie Redknapp had co-authored it (that much was very clear in the article): Redknapp did not write the article. Is there a way of showing that? Spa-Franks (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Redknapp and "Opta" are the only cited contributors. We do not cite "staff" or "editorial staff" as an author, so after looking at the source, I put Redknapp and Opta as the authors. I think a reasonable person would see that those were the only named contributors to the article. If you really don't like that, you could leave |author= blank and enter |others=Jamie Redknapp, contributor or something like that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

 Thank you very much, Your edits to the monarch butterfly article are appreciated!

bpage (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear...

This wasn't the response I was hoping for from the involved party. Sorry. :-( Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So it goes. We'll see if they can work it out like grown-ups. I hope so. The article is a treat to read and will be a great one if they let us shine it up a bit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:cite doi RfC

Because you commented at this discussion, I would appreciate your views at this RfC on the larger issue of DOI templates. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AutoEd example

Hi Jonesey95,

Thanks for undoing that edit. I should've reviewed it more carefully. In my defence though, the space in the list item and the superfluous line break at the and are fine, right? AutoEd probably shouldn't be modifying content inside <nowiki> either, though. Krinkle (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I never worry about spaces and line breaks. I'm fussy, but just not that fussy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Handling of ISBN errors

Hello, I saw that in this edit you have commented out the invalid ISBNs with comment "invalid; please verify". I think this is a bad idea. The ISBN error _is_ the request to verify and fix the ISBN. I don't think it is even possible to find the broken ISBNs once you've commented them out (a wiki search for "invalid; please verify" finds nothing). I was able to fix the ISBN (diff) but only because I had already opened the page via Category:Pages with ISBN errors before your edits. If your edit had got there first I would not have known there was a problem to fix.TuxLibNit (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well stated. I have fixed a few thousand of these, and I have commented only a tiny handful when I was unable to find the book using Google, Worldcat, Amazon, or other book searches. I don't know why I was unable to find this particular book.

My goal is to clear out Category:Pages with ISBN errors. I have fixed about 5,000–6,000 of the original 8,000 so far. If I run into this situation in the future, I will either leave it alone or comment the ISBN to hide the glaring red error message, and add the {{Please check ISBN}} template, which puts the article into Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs but does not put any error messages in the rendered article. Thanks for the comment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks in URL

Hi! About this issue, then what I will do is not use the "url" parameter at all and instead link to the URL from the "page" field. That way the URL can be clicked on from the "page" WhisperToMe (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be one way to do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... it seemed to malfunction even with the URL in the page field so I for now moved the page links outside of the template WhisperToMe (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing

Don't forget to say support. EEng (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your understanding and help! I appreciate it a lot! :) 001Jrm (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Kilowatt-hour

I'm contacting everyone who has commented but who hasn't taken an explicit Support or Oppose position (or if you did, I missed it). In the interest of bringing this discussion to resolution, it might be helpful if you could do that. Thanks. EEng (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

July GOCE drive

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks, Jonesey, for copyediting a total of 10318 words during the Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog-reduction drive! All the best, Miniapolis 19:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Wagon-wheel effect

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wagon-wheel effect, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 128.211.168.1 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 blitz

Hey Jonesey! The last week of August is approaching. Is that when the August blitz will be, or has the blitz been cancelled? Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, next week. Real life has prevented me from setting it up. Maybe today. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July drive and August blitz

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone! Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Citation Style documentation/editor

The error message for four editors shows only if you have .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */ set in your CSS. It also adds the page to a hidden maintenance category. Not sure if /how to document that. --  Gadget850 ^talk 22:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So it does. I forgot that one was still hidden. I will comment out the note about the error. Exactly four editors still shows "et al.", as you can see if you log out and look at my Sandbox. We may be able to get rid of that holdover feature once the error category is cleaned out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August GOCE blitz

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for copyediting a total of 3,385 words during the Guild of Copy Editors August blitz! Miniapolis 16:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for fixing my error on abacus. I normally view the page after I edit to be sure there are no problems...I guess I did not this time. Thanks again. speednat (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! It's nice to be noticed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

An Odd Issue with Copernicus

I reverted your edit on the Copernicus page because it caused (or seemed to cause) some weird issue where it vanished the images. Don't know the tool you used, but maybe it needs tweaking? -- Veggies (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Veggies, I did not see anything wrong with the page after I edited it, and I still do not see anything wrong when I look at my edited version in the history. Nor do I see anything in my simple edit that could have caused image problems. Did you try to reload the page or WP:PURGE it before reverting? (I recommend one of the purge-related Gadgets.) I find that purging, in particular, fixes many odd display problems. I will redo my edit manually and I will check it again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Very strange. Seems to look fine, now. I'll purge before resetting in the future. What a weird issue. Thanks. -- Veggies (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Correcting DOI error

Could you explain how you fixed this? I see that the DOI error is gone, but I'm not seeing any differences in the dif, just "jeb" highlighted in the previous and current page. Thanks.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There was a hidden character of some sort before the "j" in "jeb". I couldn't see it, but I copied the whole DOI to a text editor on my computer and told it to replace all hidden characters with "zzz", and "zzz" popped up in front of the "j". I removed the junk, copied the remaining DOI value, and pasted it back into the article.

I don't see that problem very often, but I do see it often enough in my gnome work that I knew what was wrong when the DOI looked fine to the naked eye. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How interesting, thanks for letting me know :) AioftheStorm (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

LCCN vs. Library of Congress Classification numbers

Hi. Regarding this recent edit at Georgian numerals — I understand there is a difference between LCCNs and the Library of Congress Classification, and the value you deleted was not in fact an LCCN as intended by the lccn= parameter. However, it seems a shame to discard this piece of information entirely. To the best of your knowledge, is there any legitimate way to include a source's Library of Congress Classification identifier in a {{cite book}} template? And if there is not, should there be? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You could put it in |id=, I suppose. Something like |id=LCC PK9106.H48 1995. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A VERY THANKFUL barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your help in editing the new article - Monarch butterfly migration. It needed your touch and I was really stuck in getting it finished off. Thank you! bpage (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good work on the hard work of writing the article! Expect to see BattyBot stop by the article in the next day or so to clean up some date formatting and do a bit of helpful tidying. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I just don't seem to grasp the intricacies of referencing. I APPRECIATE your work on this article very much. I want to maintain the consistency of referencing. So should I list sources in the bibliography if I refer to them a multitude of times? Do you know how to reference books on a Kindle? There are no page numbers, just funky location nos. Isn't there a bot or something that can set up a reference system for a whole article?

You are my hero,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For the Kindle book, I've never referenced one, but I would use "type=Kindle e-book|at=location ###" or something similar.

If you list the source in full in the Bibliography, like the Pyle and Oberhauser sources, you can use the short footnote (sfn) template, as you have done, to refer to them. You do not need to list the full details of a source in multiple places. Overall, the references in this article are better and more consistent than those in most articles I come across. You have done well. And no, there is no bot to do most of the work for you. There are a few that can tidy up a few things in an existing article, but the real work needs to be done by human editors – it's just like real life. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GOCE September 2014 bling

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for copyediting a total of 10,085 words during the Guild of Copy Editors September drive! All the best, Miniapolis 17:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE drive rollover count.

Greetings, Jonesey95! Since you were the leader of the September GOCE Backlog Drive, I figured you'd be the best one to consult on this matter. In the totals for the participants, I haven't been given a 50% bonus for the August 2013 article I copyedited, even though I specified the month it was from. As a result, my rollover count for the next drive is out by 200. "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will, corrected. Thanks for the note. In the future, remember to add "*O" for old articles and "*R" for requests (see the drive instructions at the top of every drive page). The drive statistics are produced by a semi-automated script that depends on these standard notations. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! :) "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation issues

Please stop fixing trans_title= issues by misusing chapter= as you have done in two articles. See, for example, history on Polynomial interpolation. A title= should usually be matched with trans_title=. Glrx (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a case of garbage in, garbage out. I had no way of knowing if the original editor intended to insert an English chapter title, or if a foreign-language chapter title was deleted at some point, or if the editor inserted |trans-chapter= instead of |trans-title=. I try to make changes that reflect what appear to be the original editor's intent, unless there is a clear error. In the cases you found, my choice was incorrect. Thanks for catching it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights: Results of the August Blitz and September Drive A few changes around the Guild's pages Sign up for the October Blitz Review the Coordinators election results – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Help on Loboc Church

I hope you could do some CE on the article. I already wrote a request on WP:GOCE. Thanks.--Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't work on a lot of articles from the GOCE Requests page, but I will take a look if I have time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the tech edit :) JuliaRobertson (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm just blowing the dust out and trying to keep things tidy around here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October Blitz award

		The Minor Barnstar
		Hi Jonesey95, thank you for copy editing 1,836 words in 1 article during the Guild of Copy Editors’ October Blitz. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistakes

Thank you for correcting most of my citation mistakes at Alfa Romeo 8C and pointing out the one you couldn't correct. I have no idea why I put 1972 in the Vorderman citations; the Hull & Moore citations to another article in the same issue were correct. Thanks again! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It takes a community to build an encyclopedia. Have fun editing that Alfa article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

I've finished the GAN preparation, and you mentioned that you wanted to take a look. All the best, Miniapolis 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Miniapolis: It looks much improved from the skim reading I did a few weeks ago. I will go through it and tweak a bit over the next few days, section by section. You may find that I make some of the same edits and comments I made before; if so, sorry for the redundancy, but if I find the same problem twice, it might be an actual problem (or I might have an actual problem, which is likely). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A few notes on my copy edits, to be added to as I go along. Consider this a pre-GA prose review.

1. "Attitudes towards women" is a title that doesn't seem to fit the section. Perhaps "Relationships with women"or something else would be more appropriate.

Trouble is, Holmes doesn't really have "relationships with women" :-). Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

2. The "Other women" section needs reorganization. The first sentence is out of place. The second sentence of the second paragraph is somewhat redundant with much of the first paragraph.

Reorganized. Keep in mind, though, that this is GA and not FA. 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

3. There are a few places in the article where there is a jump from the fictional world to the real world, jumping from Watson and Holmes's descriptions of events and people to Doyle's descriptions or those of Klinger etc. It is a bit jarring.

4. The section on deduction says that he uses abductive reasoning. The article contrasts abductive reasoning with deductive reasonin, but the Holmes article conflates the two.

The way I read it, he uses both forms of reasoning for different purposes. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

5. Is "sergeant of Marines" proper British English? I have never seen this usage in American English.

6. What does "NCO" stand for?

Changed "sergeant of Marines" (probably a direct canonical reference) to "Marine sergeant" and "NCO" (common in American English) to "non-commissioned officer". Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

7.Replace "his chronicler" with "Watson"? The word "chronicler" appears at least twice; I would replace it with the straightforward "Watson" in all cases.

I judiciously used "his chronicler" (as I did "the detective") to minimize repetition. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

8. The "Pistols" section is just a laundry list. Summarize or choose notable instances.

There may be too much detail for you (or me), but it's reliably sourced. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

9. I found one dead link in the Pistols section. Check for others. I think I was admonished once that dead links do not disqualify an article from being a GA, but dead links should be avoided in general.

Dead links should not be removed (although I'll check the refs and tag any I find), to preserve the possibility of repair. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

10. Wikipedia articles are used as references, in violation of WP:CIRCULAR.

The stories themselves, wikilinked, are primary sources. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

11. Reference formatting is inconsistent (scan the author names, for example). This is not a GA criterion, but it could be cleaned up.

12. The long quotation in the "Knowledge" section does not match the text given at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/244/244-h/244-h.htm. This sort of problem is why I requested citations for each of the quoted sections of text. One could reasonably say "It's from the story, why should I cite it?" There are often differences in published versions of written works, however.

13. The "Knowledge" section contains a bunch of apparent OR. I tagged the ones that stood out to me most vividly.

14. The last paragraph of the Knowledge section should probably be removed or drastically revised. It's all OR claiming to be about Holmes's knowledge of psychology, but the incidents described are just knowledge of human nature.

15. The author is sometimes referred to as "Doyle" and sometimes as "Conan Doyle".

16. "Holmes helped marry forensic science ... and literature." This lead sentence refers to literature, but literature is not mentioned until much later in the section. The first sentence could be left out. In any event, this section also needs more citations, otherwise it appears to be OR that suffers from the post hoc fallacy, e.g. "Holmes frequently laments the contamination of a crime scene, and crime-scene integrity has become standard investigative procedure."

17. I find this whole Influence section frustrating without citations. It repeatedly says "Holmes (or Conan Doyle) did this, and now it's popular", implying that Holmes was the cause, but not stating it explicitly or citing sources. I did not copy-edit this section because it needs major cleanup first.

18. The "Scientific literature" section might fit better in the "Knowledge" section or in a new section of the article that contains out-of-fictional-universe information about the stories and the author. It is again jarring to be pulled back and forth between the real and fictional worlds. This section also uses a different citation style from other sections.

19. "Finances" section is unreferenced. It feels like OR.

It's referenced, albeit with primary sources (the stories). Miniapolis 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

20: What does "provided Doyle with a link" mean? Does it mean he gave him the idea, or taught him something about it, or exemplified it somehow?

The preceding sentence explains its meaning. Miniapolis 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to do the GA review, but I think the article is weak only on the criteria relating to original research and unnecessary detail. I have noted places where I had significant concerns. It passes criteria 1, 3a, 4, 5, and 6 with no trouble.

I'm done. Let me know if you have any questions, dear Miniapolis. Feel free to reject any of my edits, criticisms, or questions. I will not take it personally. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, with all the tags I don't know if it will be quick-failed but I'm going to nominate it anyway. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried to be sparing with the tags (by my count, I added seven tags to this 8,000-word article), preferring to list comments here, because I wanted to give you a chance to rebuild the article your way as a complete piece. The article is well on its way to being wonderful after your work. Good luck with the GA nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't see it not being quick-failed with the tags on it now, and I've already put as much time as I could (a lot) into its improvement. Since you didn't intend to review it, I don't understand why you didn't let the GAN process run its course instead of making it un-nominatable in the first place. Miniapolis 23:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The tags I added would only change the GA review if the reviewer were not competent enough to notice the items that I tagged. As I said above, four and a half of the six criteria have been met with ease, which means the article is much better than it was before your extensive editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(←) See my reply on the article talk page. After almost a month of hard work on this article, I've gone as far as I can. Tagging is a lot easier than fixing. Tant pis—it could've been a GA. Miniapolis 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tags; I'll nominate it soon, and do my bit by reviewing a nomination or two. Miniapolis 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

format oddness

Hi - thanks for [13] but it was odd to me - when I had "date" in there originally it gave me date errors. That's the only reason I tried month/year. Seems to me some odd invisible syntax is going on. I have the same problem with the hyphens. I'm a Mac user and some quality of the - or – does not manage the same syntax. Anyway, just pointing out that there are some challenges I've not found a solution to. And the absolute insistance on a particular syntax tends to be a platform dependent formulation in case you weren't aware. --Smkolins (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know which of the dozens of fixes you had trouble applying yourself. If you give a specific example of a citation you tried to type, I may be able to help. If you get date errors, you should be able to follow the Help link for an explanation. If the Help doesn't help, I'll be happy to assist.

As for your last few sentences, I don't know what you are referring to. I use a Mac too. For a hyphen, just type the minus sign, to the right of the zero on your keyboard. For an en dash (to separate ranges, like 1894–1899), type option-minus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Puzzling! I've done hyphen and option-minus as you say and still have people come up behind and change them somehow. Here's a question - I used the "US Extended" keyboard setting most of the time. I wonder if that changes things. As for the former is the "date" entry have illegal entries? For example distinguishing Jun, June and Jun.? Maybe it is something like that?? --Smkolins (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Follow the Help link in the date error or go to WP:BADDATEFORMAT and WP:MONTH to see acceptable and unacceptable date formats in citation templates. I fixed "March/April" by changing it to "March–April", "Sept" by changing it to "Sep", and more.

In short, don't worry about it unless you're obsessive about it like me. Someone will come in behind you and fix these little things. It's more important to fill the encyclopedia with accurate content than to worry about minor formatting issues. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

that sounds good … thanks. --Smkolins (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You :)

I really appreciate that you took the time to fix my Peoples of the Caucasus template, I hadn't noticed that template breaking error, thank you for fixing it. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. This sort of error was very difficult to notice until a couple of weeks ago, when the Wikimedia developers added new code that checks for duplicate parameters. A few of us gnomes have been fixing the templates and articles with this error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org

hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?

Interesting idea. Good luck with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with my citations on the entry for Eli Siegel. It's been a while since I did any editing. Thanks for cleaning up. Trouver (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! We're all in this together. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the duplication, but your good will is appreciated.

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Another barnstar for the citation wrangler extraordinaire! Thanks for perfecting my mostly-complete cite for the Salmon of Doubt chapter in Functional magnetic resonance imaging. I hadn't done one of those fancy chapter-in-a-book cites before - great modeling! ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for improving the article's content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Parameter name

Hi. I saw your CS1 edit [14] in Template:Infobox hydrogen. My eye catched that you used |chapter-url=, where the CS1 documentation writes |chapterurl= (no hyphen). No CS1 message results, so I guess it might be an accepted variant parameter name. No problem, but in future edits you might want to use the formal one. This is just a note, I have no reason to change your edit. -DePiep (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The two parameter names are aliases, so they function identically to one another. We are moving toward consistency in parameter naming, with all multi-word parameters using hyphens instead of underscores, spaces, or nothing (two words jammed together). We haven't updated all of the citation documentation yet. That will take some time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, so it's the other way around. Is that hyphen-connecting new wisdom? I could use a good standard in this parameter naming issue (any discussion link for that? found). -DePiep (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

For my lovely stalkers: hyphenated citation parameters RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. (Am I stalking?) -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but other people are, and they wanted to know where you found that RFC, so I linked to it for them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For finding "the it" and showing a sense of humor about little stuff. Folklore1 (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning! TemplateData integrity compromised

Hi.

By now, you should have noticed that I have reverted your edits in Template:Cite journal/doc‎, Template:Cite book/doc, Template:Cite press release/doc and Template:Cite news/doc. That's because your edits have compromised the integrity of TemplateData JSON code. (Syntactic breaches are caught on save. But name/alias conflict and lack of care for existing valid usages are not.) I you are willing to make another attempt, you must be careful not breach this integrity.

That said, I am looking at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5 § RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention and I don't see anything about decomissioning existing parameters. This probably means I will have review many of your other edits as well.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I'm afraid I do not understand. I was following up on the part of the RfC that states "The documentation is to show this lowercase, hyphenated version as the one for "normal use". This is to establish a parameter name format that is uniformly available for all CS1 templates."

You mention "decommissioning existing parameters". First, I did not, to my knowledge, take action to decommission any existing parameters. That would require editing the citation module code, which I have not done with these edits. I edited only the documentation. Second, the RfC does mention that "this proposal is not to eliminate any current version of a parameter".

Can you please point me to information about this JSON integrity of which you speak, or explain to me how my edits were faulty? I have reviewed my edits and am unable to find anything wrong with them. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I have read the TemplateData Tutorial, and it does not mention JSON integrity. I copied the template data text from my edited version of Template:Cite news/doc into the validator at jsonlint.com, and it validates.

The only tiny problem I can see with my edit of the TemplateData is that I failed to delete a hyphen in the "author-link" alias to change it to "authorlink". Is that the only problem? If so, can I reinstate my changes if I fix that problem? How can I check my edits in the future to ensure that they are valid? Thanks for any feedback and knowledge you can provide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Your messages almost made me lose faith in humanity! Alright, read carefully from now on, because carelessness of this degree is dangerous beyond all imagination.

Invoking revision #636341239 (pertaining Template:Cite journal/doc), on line 677, you changed "authorlink" to "author-link". Result: VisualEditor no longer acknowledges |authorlink=, which my colleagues and I used on hundreds of articles and is still valid. Same goes for |authorlink2=, |accessdate=, |origyear=, |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, |layurl=, |laysource=, |laydate=, |authorlink3=, |authorlink4=, |authorlink5=, |authorlink6=, |authorlink7=, |authorlink8=, |authorlink9= and |lastauthoramp=. These are totally valid parameters and VisualEditor no longer recognizes them after your edit. All you had to do was to create an "Alias" entry for each of these using Manage TemplateData button in the editor.

This doesn't mean changes outside the JSON area (the area enclosed by <TemplateData>...</TemplateData>) are okay; they are even more kinky. Violation of MOS:STABILITY notwithstanding, you effectively changed the style of examples while leaving the style of syntax alone, effectively making them look different. Necessary changes to the template area and its shared documentations was already done.

Overall, you just did a reckless blind search & replace. Nothing else.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Do these instructions about VisualEditor and aliases exist anywhere on WP or WM aside from this talk page? I'm happy to follow instructions, but it is unreasonable to expect editors to magically know how new features work when there is no documentation of those features. In any event, as you describe it, the TemplateData would not have worked for all citation parameters even before my edits, since the editor(s) who added the TemplateData section failed to include all of the available aliases.

I disagree with your note about changes outside the JSON area. MOS:STABILITY says "editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason" (emphasis added). We have a good reason for changing these examples, and the documentation, as explained in detail in the RFC discussion linked above. Providing consistency among multi-word parameters in documentation and examples reduces editor confusion. Just the other day, an editor wasted time reverting a valid change that I had made because the documentation was inconsistent.

I will reinstate my changes per the RFC outcome, and I will attempt to carefully add aliases where they are needed avoid changing the TemplateData section. If you find any minor errors in the resulting edits, please fix them instead of reverting, since, as you say above, that's all you have to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I have reinstated my original changes to align the citation template documentation with the RFC outcome while preserving the changes made subsequent to my original edits. I have not touched the TemplateData sections (AFAIK, except to remove outdated explanations of how "et al." works). I would be happy to improve them to make them consistent with the rest of the documentation and the RFC outcome, but I would like to educate myself first about how to avoid compromising the integrity of the JSON code. I would appreciate any links to documentation.

I see that Codename Lisa has added aliases to the TemplateData sections, and Tom.Reding has made some helpful changes to update how |date= and |year= are handled. Thanks for those improvements. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It occurs to me to wonder, now that Editor Codename Lisa has added aliases, if we shouldn't exchange non-hyphenated parameter names with the hyphenated alias version so that the first option is always the hyphenated name. Here is a modified snippet from {{cite journal}}:

"author-link": {

"label": "Author link",

"description": "Title of existing Wikipedia article about the author; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors",

"type": "wiki-page-name",

"aliases": ["authorlink"]

},

And here is a slightly related question: what can we do about this duplication of documentation? It seems completely pointless to me for us to be maintaining two different sets of documentation with two different formatting requirements. Surely there's a better way. Who has responsibility for template data?

And I have more questions: Why is it necessary to have separate template data information for things like |lastn= where n is capable of being a very lasge number? Similarly, why repeat documentation in template data for numbered parameters like |last2=, |last3=, |last4=, etc.? |last1= and other |<parameter name>1= parameters are unique because they are aliases of their unnumbered selves.

With so many parameters shared between the various CS1 and CS2 templates why shouldn't we set up a single documentation source, sort of like {{csdoc}} and use that to feed both the human readable template documentation and template data?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Trappist, this might be a good point at which to move this discussion off of my talk page, since it is about the citation templates in general instead of about my "reckless blind", terrible, horrible, "dangerous beyond all imagination", no good, very bad editing skills. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello again. I am not here to teach you stuff that you can find in help files already. (If I could find them and become a user with templateeditor right, you can too.) But the rule of thumb is: The criteria for change to TemplateData is that they must work as intended. Fail this criteria and the result is a revert. You didn't test this criteria, but that's your fault not mine.

But again, I see that you are misread my message and overlooked the word "notwithstanding". Template area in Wikipedia is so critical that cannot afford idiosyncrasies of one editor alone; speak to him/her politely and resolve your dispute locally. An edit that affects millions of editors is not warranted.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I will ignore your insults and non sequiturs and repeat my request: Please provide a link to information about how to determine if changes to TemplateData files will cause problems. I told you above what I had found and that I successfully tested the resulting code using a tool linked from that page. I am politely requesting that you stop biting this TemplateData newbie and provide a simple link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I need some help from my talk page stalkers. The edits I made to a number of template documentation pages have been reverted multiple times by Codename Lisa despite my careful explanations above, my links to the relevant RFC closure in my edit summaries, and my careful attention to Codename Lisa's explanation of the TemplateData section above. As it stands now, the template documentation pages are not in conformance with the RFC closure.

Codename Lisa has also reverted my edits that correctly removed information about the templates' display of nine authors, with no explanation of why that inaccurate information should remain in the template documentation.

I try not to get involved in edit wars, but at this point, I think I'm in the middle of one. In your judgment, am I doing something wrong? What is your advice? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

My friend, God has placed a brain in your skull and Wikimedia foundation has given you sandboxing. Use them! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

November GOCE drive

Just wondering if Awards have been distributed on this drive yet? Let me know if I can help do a few! --Bddmagic (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. Should be today or tomorrow. The stats page is done. If you know any template coding, I'm thinking (but not for this month's awards) about developing a template to make drive award delivery easier. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well-deserved bling

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words during the GOCE November 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 17:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copyediting nine old articles during the GOCE November 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 17:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE coordinator elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Alan Jones

Hi, thanks for the ref fix on AJ's page. I was in the process of doing it but you were there at the same time which produced an edit conflict and confused me! (Not difficult). Regards Eagleash (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. I usually check the edit history before I do an extensive edit, but for quick fixes like that one, I am usually running at a pace of one or two edits per minute, just enough time to check the preview and save. There are so many little errors out there.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem it took me a couple of mins. to spot what was wrong. It's weird when the refs don't show up on preview....so you don't realise you've messed up till after you've saved. Eagleash (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're editing the whole article, refs should show up when you Preview. If you're editing a section and want to see the refs in a Preview, you need to add this to your vector.js file to get an extra button:

//Add button to edit screen to Preview with references
importScript('User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js]]

It works for me, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be very useful. However i have no idea what a vector.js file is... :P Eagleash (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Click on the link above, create the page, and paste the two lines of code into the page and save it. Then go to an article and edit a section. You should see a new "Ajax Preview" button between Save and Preview. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent; got it right the second time of trying too! Seems to work fine. Thanks. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of ref fixes, there's one here. It's ref No 10 (the one with text inserted) whatever I try doesn't work so I've left it as I found it. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I resolved it in the way that made the most sense to me. Another editor may have taken a different approach. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Eagleash (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For helping me out with the preview button, & sorting the ref on the Anglia page. Once again Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2014 Newsletter Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in November's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the {{copy edit}} backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone! Blitz: The December Blitz will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to Religion, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. Sign up here! Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties here. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself! Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE December 2014 blitz

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words during the GOCE December 2014 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 23:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors Late December 2014 Newsletter Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the December Blitz. Of the 14 editors who signed up for the blitz, 11 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. January drive: The January backlog-reduction drive is just around the corner; sign up here! Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015 is now underway. The voting period runs from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. Please cast your vote—it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself! Happy holidays from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)