The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I realize that this was a long time ago, but this edit changed the name of a ref to include a non-breaking space, which seems kind of silly to me. If your script is still doing this, can you make it ignore ref names? I'm not even sure that HTML is "legal" in ref names, so it might be getting processed as just another random six letters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree that it's a pointless change. I see from my script that ref names are now protected from such things as nbsp insertion. I can't remember when it was done, but similar changes to articles' refs ought not to be a problem any more. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!07:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sex141, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the number 1 sex advertising site in Hong Kong was shut down by police in December 2013? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 6 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article LS3/5A, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that up to 100,000 pairs of the BBC's LS3/5A loudspeaker (pictured) have been put into circulation during its two-decade-plus production period? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/LS3/5A. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello Ohconfucius: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you for your notification. I saw your comment earlier on my watchlist. But I guess this nomination set the bar too high. I've once wanted to nominate Giorgio de Stefani for a Good Article and asked for a peer review and didn't receive as much of a feedback as Moore DYK (actually I received none after relisted twice). The article - in my view - doesn't have to be perfect although I still understand your intention to improve it. LajbiHolla @ me • CP11:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your changing articles from mdy to dmy date formats using AWB
I encountered this issue on the DVD-Video page with this edit. That article was explicitly using mdy dates, yet you changed it. Making changes like that requires consensus be formed to do so on the talk page. I know that you are just doing this with a AWB config. Your AWB config needs to be updated to respect the current use of dates in an article.
I looked at very few of the edits you made with AWB using using a similar edit summary. Many appeared to be music album, or song titles. I did not look at these. The one other sample I selected to look at was Evidence (1915 film). That article you also changed from mdy to dmy dates. Unlike DVD-Video, it was not explicitly calling out such format, but it was using them exclusively.
Yes, I apologise. My edit list was compiled using items listed on UK band templates. Somehow these two items (amongst others) got onto the list. Most of the articles treated will have been UK music articles where it isn;t an issue. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!10:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.
What you describe is consistent with my assumptions. Once I had seen your "thanks" of the Evidence (1915 film) revert, which I saw after saving the above note, I considered it quite likely that the issue was as you describe. I am assuming you have, or will, go through all the edits looking for other cases where something similar slipped through.
I just looked at my AWB settings, and I'm actually surprised that the file was not skipped, as it contains the string I specifically excluded – "[[Category:American". But anyway, I'll be on the lookout for any more that appear on the work list that don't belong. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!13:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just discovered a major script mistake of yours from May 2011 at Worcester Regional Airport. You ran your script through this article about an airport in Massachusetts, and had it set dmy and use British English per WP:TIES, which is of course bass ackward. Please re run the script and fix it. Quickly. Don't know how you could have cocked this one up, actually, unless you were making a terrible assumption based on the name. oknazevad (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look and it seems you already have MiszaBot doing the archiving. I don't understand the intricacies as to why it hasn't archived the existing threads on your talk page. I'lllet you know if I find the solution. -- Ohc ¡digame!13:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think the voting bot was intentionally set not to archive, but not sure about the rest. Maybe it will start working now. Neotarf (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the bot won't archive undated threads, and default setting leaves 5 threads there. That explains why it stopped. This has now been changed, so there should now only be one thread on your talk page from now on. -- Ohc ¡digame!14:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see that you have been changing "work=BBC News" to "publisher=BBC News" in various news citations, so that it no longer appears in italics. I was wondering how this fits with WP:ITALICS, which says "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post)". Isn't BBC News a "news site with original content"? -- Alarics (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New media is blurring the distinctions that once existed in the old world. The situation isn't as clear cut as with Huffpo or Salon. "BBC News" can be a division of the BBC that publishes news, or creator of original content, and much depends on the context. If you look at our BBC News article, you will see that we are writing about the organisation that has a number of news channels, of which the BBC News website is one. It may not be the best location for a centralised discussion about MOS:ITALICS, but there's a discussion raging at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 69#Help with template: website that might be of interest. -- Ohc ¡digame!09:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"BBC News" can indeed be "a division of the BBC that publishes news", but I am talking about references to news items appearing on the website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news, which used to be called "BBC News Online" but is now just called BBC News. I think in this case, which seems to me wholly analagous with The Huffington Post, BBC News should be in italics. If it is a reference to "a division of the BBC that publishes news" then of course italics are not appropriate. -- Alarics (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you cannot choose your context. Both fields coexist in citation template, and it makes no sense to populate both knowing that one will render with italics and one without. Whilst you are arguably not incorrect to say that in the case you cited, the italicisation can and perhaps ought to apply, one could equally argue that the reference is to the organisation that publishes it, in which case italicisation would be inappropriate. But it seems to me to be more analogous to CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and Sky News in its not needing to be italicised. In all those cases, the WP article is about the organisation, non-italicised, which has by far and wide better claim to the label than the respective websites, which are but a channel in their operations. It's a stalemate, at best. -- Ohc ¡digame!04:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt(talk)07:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Linn Isobarik you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt(talk)05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your polite and amenable nature with which you've been comporting yourself during responding to GA Reviews, it's a real pleasure!
Don't think it's necessary. I believe this has a strong parallel with Google Books, which we don't cite as publisher. Internet Archive isn't a genuine publisher either, but a repository of archived pages. Anyone hovering over or clicking on the archive link will find out on which service the page has been archived. -- Ohc ¡digame!07:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand some of your changes, though I still can not see a speck of difference (or know why anyone gives a) between the different types of dashes. I can even understand that "easter eggs" as you put are bad, but changing the references? They were standardised, which CITEVAR says is fine. Removing all the links is counterproductive given that references
are viewed in a pick-and-choose manner, not necessarily 1,2,3,4... Oh, and you also changed the title of an article referenced, though I expect that was accidental. I have reverted some of the changes, and shall unhappily accept the others. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck:i believe you are mistaken. There are important differences between the different types of horizontal lines punctuating text, and if yiu don't understand, please don't interfere with those who do give a*). There's been no shortage of discussion, and there's consensus about hyphen, minuses and dashes at WP:MOS, and your revert is therefore disruptive. As to links, there are not meant to be any within |work= and |publisher=. Please refer to Help:Citation Style 1 . Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!09:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS the change to the quote marks is correct and necessary, as |title= renders the string already with a pair of quotes, while MOS:QUOTE requires substitution by single quotes when there are quotes within quotes. -- Ohc ¡digame!09:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not revert the hyphens, at least not intentionally, I went through your edit and picked them out and put them back in. I'm not complaining about quote marks, you changed "half hour" in a title to "half-hour". Again, WP:CS1 says "this style is not mandatory", and that "an article should be consistent in its style", which it was. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm done with the article, and will not undermine its stability. Mattbuck is free to revert me partially or in full, I won't react. -- Ohc ¡digame!12:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay sounds good, that certainly clears things up. Thanks very much, Ohconfucius, for being understanding and accommodating during this GA Review process! Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry for reverting your deletions at Mayu Watanabe and Yuko Oshima. You are not the first who comes and thinks that these AKB48-related articles with very long member lists, election results, etc. are funcruft. But the info is not fancruft. I understand that the articles in their current state somewhat undermine the look of Wikipedia, but what can I do? The articles are very badly written because most contributors aren't from English-speaking countries. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't blame Japanese editors for the poor quality of the articles. Your adamancy in including of fancruft like Momota falling on her butt makes you complicit in the terrible state of these articles. You have taken on the role of promoting the Momota article at DYK, so it has become your responsibility, which you ought not to shirk.
Fans who leave cruft in these articles do indeed make WP look bad, but more importantly it makes the subject of these articles look stupid in the eyes of anyone who reads the article. Just one look at the Momota hook/article will see how depths can be plunged. Her crash-landing isn't zany or interesting. Shit happens. Just because something has wide media coverage doesn't mean it deserves an article, or space in an article. [rant ends] -- Ohc ¡digame!12:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am calling regarding User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js. Sometimes, when I click "Body dates to dmy" or "Body dates to mdy", all dates are converted, including the ISO dates in citations. Please advise.
can you give some examples or diffs? As the script is configured to pick up and convert "loose" yyyy-mm-dd dates, it's possible that such dates outside citation templates may be acted upon. Ohc ¡digame!12:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Example is easy. Take MonoDevelop. ATM, it has no body dates. So, "Body dates to dmy" command should do nothing, right? Well, it changes every ISO date in the citations. Just for the sake of test, I added January 27, 2014 to the top of the article and re-issued the command. Same result: ISO dates in citations go. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I cracked the bug. It may still convert dates not within citation templates, but I've tested it and the "|date=yyyy-mm-dd" strings are no longer turned into mdy or dmy dates. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!14:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Miszabot has archived the previous discussion, so I thought I'd post here. Thanks again for the review. I've had a go at splitting it into sections and arranging the information into chronological order. Hope it still works. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
taking shape nicely. I suggest making the description section a bit more generic at some stage. Also .broadening the last section into "Trends", so that other implications can be considered. Keep up the good work! Ohc ¡digame!12:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to be of assistance. I held back from editing it firstly because I was the reviewer, and secondly, I wanted to allow you and others first crack at it. Now, it is structured according to what I had in mind when I made those suggestion to you. If that is helpful, stick with that structure. If not, by all means change it. I think there is still an amount of material that can be mined from the existing sources. There will be more as the concept becomes more widely known.
Next step, I would suggest making the market data less vague. Put some solid facts behind assertions like "a number of dark stores had been opened by major supermarket chains in the UK, including Tesco and Waitrose, with more planned" and "Jonathan Reynolds spoke of a 'big expansion in this area' in future years". Also, you might like to try and organise or "plot" some of this data in chronological order in prose form. Or plot one source against another to see what gives. They will be publishing aggregated data before long, as well as market shares. Other possible avenues for the future are the online models (special innovative features on website and apps functions) that feed these stores, statistics based on type of online channel.
Hi Ohconfucius, I wonder if I could impose on you to have a quick look at a DYK nomination, please? I noticed you have expressed concern about fancruft type nominations recently, which is not an area I'm at all familiar with. I have also asked the editor who placed the {{DYK?no}} icon on the nomination to re-visit it, although the section they had been concerned about does not appear to have been re-instated. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat12:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this edit of yours from a few months ago broke the Wikisource link to the Dictionary of National Biography; I'd only just discovered it by accident while checking the citation after these edits. I notice that you were previously notified of a similar error, but you didn't seem to acknowledge that message, so I'm not sure if you got it. Graham8702:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, it's the dashes.js script again. It's a nuisance that WS don't follow the MOS:DASH convention; there are too many such named titles to redirect/move. Will try to get dashes patched. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. At this edit, you changed "he graduated BA" to "he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts", and you also changed "and proceeded to MA in 1944" to "and Master of Arts in 1944". The first of these edits is introducing into an English biography the quite strange Americanism of treating "a Bachelor of Arts" as a degree rather than a person; in the British Isles a Bachelor of Arts is still a person, so "he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts" means ""he graduated with someone else". The second of your changes does little harm, except that there is a subtle difference between "proceeding to MA" and "graduating MA", and the link you removed helps to explain it. At most universities a Master of Arts degree is a higher degree earnt by further work after some other degree, but at Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, holders of BA degrees who have graduated with any kind of honours (that is, with something better than a pass degree) simply turn into Masters of Arts by staying alive for a few more years. That is, they proceed to MA by seniority and nothing else. Moonraker (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the education. I thought MA degrees are earned directly through study; I never realised that a Cantabrian BA matures into an MA. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!09:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apricots and worms are far more interesting and unusual than another set of ho hum ships. We're always getting stuff glorifying wars. HalfGigtalk01:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@HalfGig:I tend to agree. I am very favourable to interesting biology – you will note I put plums first in the Prep area 1. I initially put apricots at the top, but then found that the image of the flowers was pathetic at that size. The ship's image is more eye-catching, so I opted to put that one first. We can still put that back, but then I think we would need a close-up image. -- Ohc ¡digame!01:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, nice. Thank you for reconsidering. I'll change the article. Can you change the prep set? Don't you wish all wiki discussions went so cordially? HalfGigtalk
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rega Planar 3 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn(talk)14:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article JBL Paragon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn(talk)14:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ohconfucious, please need your help in understanding how to use the date script you dveloped. I added your script in User:IndianBio/vector.js and even reloaded the page and purged the cache. However, when I go to edit a page, I cannot find it in the left hand side. Am I missing something? Please help. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ]16:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have correctly loaded the MOSNUM script. All you have to do now is to click on the small triangle to the left of the word "Tools" in the sidebar, and the script buttons should appear, as in this diagram. -- Ohc ¡digame!16:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohconfucius! Thanks for promoting the article Boris Gusman. I see here that there are two errors in the hook as written in the queue: "that" is duplicated and a comma is missing after "Boris Gusman." The correct hook can be found at the DYK nomination page here. I'd correct it myself but don't know how! Best, -Darouet (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, do you still want to uphold the no-off topic discussion consensus at that article? The Soapbox on the talk page is getting out of hand. Jim101 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to give you a heads up that I just changed the DYK hook that you had previously approved, for William Joy (master mason). Nowhere in the article, or in the source, did it state that he had used "scissors" to save the building... instead he used scissor arches. Please, ensure you properly review hooks in the future, as it's usually best if we don't put misleading items on our main page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please justify your reverts on edits on this page with breaking news. Specifically why did you remove detail relating to the names of the arrests as cited from The New York Times. There are probably dozens of other major publications with similar citations if necessary. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OhC, Thanks for your attention to our biography Anne McCaffrey. There may be a problem in your script evident at diffs Line 79: "two of the eight extant Pern novels among the 33 "All-Time Best Fantasy Novels", based on a poll of subscribers; Dragonflight was No. 9 and The White Dragon #23." —was #9 and #23. The format should be consistent here.
Understand that I never meant to bully you, it's just frustrating when people constantly add things to categories that are so general and non-specific. If you do need help though, categories are sometimes diffused (if they are too large to be managed by itself) so they get sub-categorized. In this particular case, fictional animals typically go into a subcategory like Category:Fictional horses.
please keep this in mind in the future. Also note that you can go into categories and see how they're subcategorized.
Your graceful apology is accepted. My problem does not stem from not knowing how to categorise per se, but knowing how to categorise this particular beast. And no, I didn't really know about "diffusion categories". I usually put articles in the most appropriate category, but that it was as good a place as any. I couldn't work out any more precisely where it belonged and just thought I would leave it there until someone it figured out. I thought it was unhelpful of you to pull the category using semi-automation without finding a suitable home. Our misunderstanding also proves that edit summaries are not good places to further mutual understanding. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!01:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
our friend moscow is now spending (wasting) (his) time translating reference titles, instead of focussing on the troubles at hand. stop. doing so only serves to expose more holes in (his) already flimsy references, and open himself up to further scrutiny and ridicule. stop. seeing as you requested the translations, &, if you are genuinely interested in assisting (him), maybe you should advise (him) to stop. stop. Japanglish (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed your nomination at {{Did you know nominations/JBL Paragon}}. Its all good but I have justone tiny query. The hook is partially mentioned in the History section of the article but without the citation. I hope you don't mind but I have reused the same citation for completeness. Green Giant (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ohconfucius, I was wondering why you promoted this hook to a prep—it came off the main page a couple of hours ago—as it never received an approval or tick from a reviewer; the active (and only) icon was . Someone building a prep set shouldn't promote a hook they've approved, and that's effectively what you did here. Best, BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a technical issue or is something wrong with it? I know one isn't meant to approve one's own articles or own hooks, but I had had nothing to do with the nomination. I saw the reviewer's comments as being subject to a change to the hook. And that was changed and agreed with the nominator, so I promoted it in the volley. If as you said I oughtn't to have done it, I apologise, and will not do it again. -- Ohc ¡digame!07:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You placed the DYK for Josh Hutchersonhere however there is already a picture on that queue from a different article and the DYK nomination for Hutcherson included a picture. Can this hook be moved to a different queue where the image can be included? Gloss • talk04:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of factors at play here. The lead slot is much sought after, and less than half of all proposed images can be placed; also, there is a quota on US subjects and biographies, and the prep areas are all full and the olympics hooks are coming. I think that Hutcherson's being a very hot star already means the article's MP appearance will receive a lot of clicks anyway. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!04:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. So who decides which images do and don't make the cut? You? I don't mean that in an offensive way at all. But is there something that puts one image over another besides the opinion of the placing editor? Gloss • talk04:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In short, yes. The overall objective is to create a DYK section that maximises the readers' attention. But image allocation will depend on the slots to be filled and the images available to fill them at any given time. The rules state that the article's main advocate is prohibited from promoting and placing the hook in the sets. If you insist that the Hutcherson article gets the lead slot, you may appeal to one of the other regulars at WT:DYK to review my decision. -- Ohc ¡digame!04:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Imelda (film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Imelda Marcos(pictured) claimed in the film Imelda that her extravagant clothing "inspired the poor to dress better"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Imelda (film). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 9 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article JBL Paragon, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the JBL Paragon, the world's first domestic stereo loudspeaker system, was 106 inches (270 cm) wide and resembled a sideboard? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/JBL Paragon. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, Ohconfucius. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You are so quick - thanks could you check Martineau family again and also Arnold lupotn page - Than I will stop leaning on your brilliance!
Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.212.61 (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see no problems with the article. You mentioned in the review that it was "free of issues", but it would be helpful if you mentioned in future specifically that you checked for potential plagiarism, although I found none when reviewing the sources. The article is well enough written, and the hook is really quaint – I love it. Thanks and regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!07:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your feedback! I did check for plagiarism but neglected to mention it. I'm going to try to review a few more this weekend so I can feel more confident about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do let me know if I am asking to much of you
Please can you check the ref for 2 pages - Neville Chamberlain and also Joseph Chamberlain
THanks so very much
Mike (Ted) Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.239.141 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please check the "in-line citiations" on the Joseph Chamberlain page - I don't know what to do to make the page OK. Also is the ref on the FRANK HOLL page OK
Thanks again
mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.239.141 (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you coming here to "annoy [sic]" me, but I think at the same time you might find it helpful to acquaint yourself with Help:Citations, Help:Citation Style 1, {{Cite web}} and its cousins. There is much documentation that will explain why what you do produces these red error messages. In the past, unrecognised parameters were ignored; data input into the wrong fields were displayed anyway. The new Lua templates will parse everything, and unexpected parameters or data are rejected or give rise to error messages. Problems with the Neville Chamberlain refs include duplicated |author= parameters, and a date is expected in |doi= (it stands for "date of insertion"). That explains why it's giving an error message.
What you have put into the |doi= field, I'm not quite sure which parameter it belongs in, I know where it comes from so I know it's not a quote. I'm afraid you've stumped me. :-( -- Ohc ¡digame!12:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with the promotion, and you interfered with the promotion of your own hook, which is not allowed by DYK rules. I have replied at the nomination page. -- Ohc ¡digame!14:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your upload of File:Boc&box.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)13:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the ENGVAR nor the MOSNUM script is working for me (nothing appears in the tool box in edit mode, in other words). I've refreshed, logged out/in, etc. Radiopathy•talk•16:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome back! The scripts are working for me. Try using double quotes instead of single quotes in your vector file, viz: importScript("User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js") -- Ohc ¡digame!16:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can not fathom how anyone would see this as a "news piece", when the substance of the article is really historical in nature. The article is about the history of the invention of a new branch of San Francisco's government, and like most of the articles that I create, it is primarily focused on history.
Once again, history is the substance of the topic and its original form shows that it is tightly sourced to historic facts from newspaper articles. If it was really promotional in nature, then the majority of its text would be without referenced sources. The abundance of sourced references guarantees the essential neutrality of this history piece. The San Francisco Street Artists Program is a public municipal arts program, not unlike the public market in Seattle called Pike's Place. Please read Pike's Place article, and tell me how it is any different than this piece. Does one also think that the Pikes Place Market should also be deleted because it is a "news piece" or is "promotional" in nature? That would be absurd.
The San Francisco Street Artists Program article is also about a part of San Francisco's government, in much the same way that the San Francisco Arts Commission article describes a branch of government. Does one also think that the emerging San Francisco Arts Commission article is also a "news piece" should also be deleted or buried? Again, it would be a mistake to capriciously delete any article about a branch of government, or the history involved in the formation of a branch of government.
When reading the article the way it was written on 9 February 2014, notice how it later received massive edits from an unregistered Wiki user whose IP address is 2601:9:1b00:629:20d:93ff:fe7d:f8c8. The many new entries of the name "Bill Clark" are by Bill Clark himself, and his edits are obviously self aggrandizing, and almost always without sources. He is an obsessive individual with no experience with Wikipedia, no interest in sourcing his statements, and should really be banned from the article. Wikipedia should consider reverting the article back to its original state of 9 February 2014, and ban Bill Clark and other unregistered Wiki users from screwing up the piece any further. If Bill Clark is allowed to continue to anonymously make edits from various IP addresses, then this article will be a non-stop Edit War which will only fatigue the sincere contributors of Wikipedia, and enable the destruction of a historic record.
I created this article because I witnessed an extraordinary sequence of unlikely political events which shaped a new and innovative branch of municipal government, and not because I need to advertise or promote the San Francisco Street Artists Program itself. At present, I am in no way affiliated with the San Francisco Street artist program, nor do I profit in any way by its existence. Do the right thing and let the facts of history remain in the annals of Wikipedia, and not be discarded by hasty and subjective judgement.
Also, to condense the article would be a big mistake. When examining history, we need to see the complete sequencing of events in order to truly understand a phenomena and its causes. Would we really see an advantage in condensing the World War I article? I think not. When it comes to history, more information is better than too little information. James Carroll (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although their names are mentioned, I don't think mentioning them adds any value to the article. WP has a presumption in favour of privacy, and WP:BLPNAME states: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. That is why I removed them. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In your edits to Ratatouille (film)here, you've added boldfacing and made the voice actor much less prominent, both in a manner which looks nonstandard to me (the latter especially, considering the section is titled "Voice cast"). I am just curious why. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect. Thanks! --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first time I've paid any attention to the cast list of a film, but the presentation struck me as being back-to-front when I looked at it.
This is the way I approached it: I'm watching the film, I see the characters and want to find out who played Gusteau, Colette... I have to comb through the list until I see the name "Gusteau" buried amongst the text bullets. Or I have to do a word search with the browser. But this is counter-intuitive. WP:CASTLIST gives no guidance to the presentation of such lists, but I think this role-centric presentation is more logical for films of this type, where you don't see the actor. Bt the film industry takes the same approach to all films (not just animated ones): the credit sequence at the end of any film always shows the role on the left and the actor's name on the right.
By changing the order as I did, and putting the name of the character in bold, it focuses attention on the role and helps to navigate. The brief detail given for each role just after the name of the role is also logical flow. I don't think it detracts from the names of the actors, as these are already prominent by virtue of the bright blue link to the actors' articles. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!14:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about:
Remy (Patton Oswalt). Director Brad Bird chose Oswalt after hearing his food-related comedy routine. Remy was named after director Brad Bird's dog, an American Hairless Terrier.
Alfredo Linguini (Lou Romano), the son of Auguste Gusteau and Renata Linguini
Placing the actor's name at the end of the description, especially when the description is a sentence or two long, makes the name too hard to find in my opinion, and also reads to me like a bit of an afterthought. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ohconfucious, thank you for promoting the Hashem Shabani dyk. Another editor has been making highly questionable POV edits to the page and edit-warring before the DYK goes live. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Con.
regarding the Martineau family page -
please put reference number 12 BESIDE ref. number 16.
I cannot do it! Thanks
Mike
Dear con.
Thanks so much for your work on Martineau family page -
But please could you put the reference number 12 after the line Key Hill cemetary - alongside the reference number 17 - after it. This order makes more sense.
I do hope I am not annoying you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.239.141 (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where there are citations to books, the {{cite book}} template should be used. The book's title would belong in the |title= parameter, which should link the url and italicise it correctly. The other citation templates will link but will not italicise the title. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!08:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 22 February 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marquee Moon, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that although Marquee Moon sold fewer than 80,000 copies in the US, Spin and NME ranked it among the ten greatest albums of all time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marquee Moon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello, you seem to be removing lots of lists of twin cities, describing them as "cruft". Why so? Is this the result of a discussion somewhere? W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While that's an interesting and possibly valid opinion, the fact remains that these relationships do exist and are a property of the city in question. Hence, I also came here in disagreement with the script changes removing this information and would also like to know where discussion happened before this rather drastic and hard to revert change was implemented. prat (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I popped by to thank OhC for his recent edits so I'll comment while I'm here. I, for one, having nothing but praise for the actions of OhC in removing this junk. There is far too much "trivia creep" in what are supposed to be encyclopedic articles and this is a step in the right direction.► Philg88 ◄talk11:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing... for someone's personal definition of encyclopedic. Personally, I believe we should list information where it is relevant, and in this case it's the city page. Your differing opinion is noted but, in my opinion, less valid than my own as it is based on a subjective interpretation of a loaded Wikipedia policy term instead of real world use. prat (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratyeka: Sure those relationships exist. But please be more discriminating of what you want to include in an encyclopaedia entry. "Trivia" is defined as "unimportant, trifling things or details, especially obscure and useless knowledge", and that is exactly the value of knowing what cities Beijing and Shenyang are twinned with in the world. It may be important if you're a city councillor contemplating your potential holiday er fraternal visit locations, but these are nonsense for the average person, who indirectly pays for these beanos. Having a huge section in the city article along with those wikilinks and pretty flags is unsightly and veryWP:UNDUE. I'm still thinking how clever it was of me to eject the lot to a link to List of twin towns and sister cities in China in the 'See also' section – it puts the connections into the correct perspective and with the appropriate weight. @Philg88: I was pretty sure that many other feel that this cancer needs to be nuked, and it's good to have that confirmation. -- Ohc ¡digame!12:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your emotional response to the presence of the content - I hate bureaucrats as much as the next guy. However, cities are inherantly political entities and city twinning is one of the results of that. It's Wikipedia's policy to be WP:NPOV, so we can't just can certain properties we personally disagree with as trivial while leaving others. The information is relevant to city pages, and will not be found in its present location. Therefore I disagree with shuffling it out of view as a sort of fundamental abuse of the wiki structure. If you don't want to read the whole article, maybe instead of moving the information away from eyeballs, you should design a limited view form of article pages where sections you are not interested in are collapsed by default? prat (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The response isn't entirely emotional, but has an emotional basis. It was only in the process of thinking about the importance of these twinning facts that I came out with that argument. It's one that's as old as the twinning moves themselves. As I said, twinning may be factual and verifiable, but their importance has yet to be demonstrated in the vast majority of cases. Ditto the tangible benefits to ordinary citizens. Thus, these twinning sections would be classed as indiscriminate lists of little value. Philip Seymour Hoffman was short sighted, and overweight; these are facts relevant to the actor that nobody would think of including in his biography. I'll let you guess why. -- Ohc ¡digame!12:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the editor above who labelled twin cities sections as "junk". In my view they're on a par with the old "Trivia" sections that used to be tolerated. I've commented at Uzer's talk page. Tony(talk) 13:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had noticed that since Trivia sections were officially discouraged, many have had their titles changed to 'Popular culture'. I should write a script to cleanly remove these. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame!14:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that this information is trivial. At least for smaller towns and cities, these twinning or sister town arrangements are of some notable significance for community life. Though if a city claims to have 20 or 30 "twins", it's perhaps hard to see how all of those relationships can be functional - but if the information is well sourced, it's not really for us to suppress it - someone might want to know, so we should at least keep a link to the list (which I think was done in the cases of removal that I looked at). W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles I edited had ten or more twins. Don't you think it makes good sense to centralise at a single page (i.e. List of twin towns and sister cities in China), where the information for the whole country can be more easily updated? It's information that few people would want – my guess is less than one in a hundred so it should be fine on a separate page.. In case you haven't noticed or read what I wrote above, I put a link from the 'See also' section of each city article, and that seems to fulfil your requirement. -- Ohc ¡digame!16:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that way of doing it seems quite reasonable (not saying I necessarily see it as an improvement - our articles in any case contain a lot of information that only a small minority of readers will be interested in - that's an advantage that comes out of not being constrained by a physical medium like paper - but if others are happy with it being done that way, I won't object). W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about which city is twinned with which other is over-flagged and over-linkedtrivia only of relevance to city councillors. Separate articles containing the relationships exist, and the cruft is easily replaceable by a link to the relevant article, which I have done. Do our cities articles a favour and help install a more sensible and properly weighted approach to the accessibility of this information. -- Ohc ¡digame!03:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is imperative that the editor who claims it is currently normal practice to include these. shows something that actually counters or trumps the over-flagged and over-linkedtrivia issues that are clearly stated. If not his reverts should be reverted - I fail to see how Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities trumps or has any effect upon established MOS that have delineations of flag cruft usage. satusuro10:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uzer, I've been informed that you've been going around adding massive numbers of twin-city sections. Is this true? And could you provide evidence that "these twinning or sister town arrangements are of some notable significance for community life"? At least in the case of cieis in my native country, twinning is a joke—nothing more than a few junket trips and photo ops for local politicians when announced. This is not the stuff of a serious encyclopedia, and please note that we use summary style. Tony(talk) 13:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you've accused me (if by "Uzer" you mean me) of doing something I have patently never done. Are you mixing me with someone else? In Britain and Europe, at least with small towns in my experience, these twinning arrangements do actively involve the wider community over the longer term and not just politicians, though I accept that in other parts of the world they may function differently. See for example this page, which concerns your native land in fact, and shows that twinning arrangements can lead to a variety of events in different spheres of life over many years, involving all kinds of people from a city, and not just politicians. Though there are no doubt other cases where a twin is bagged and then nothing else really happens - I guess that would be more likely in the cases we've been talking about, where a single city claims to have dozens of twins - though we shouldn't make assumptions, and should err on the side of keeping information in rather than throwing it out. (Certainly without the unnecessary flags and country links and so on.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the twinning was based on real relationships, and thus was effective and populist in the very early days. The initial wave of genuine links came and went, and the scale of twinning grew for different reasons. Politics and pecuniary advantage became the drivers although politicians still had to sell it using the same tired old packaging that everybody knows to be insincere. It's now commonly viewed as a joke on the taxpayers and for us represents irrelevance and trivia. -- Ohc ¡digame!16:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some people might consider something a waste of money doesn't make it irrelevant or trivial - indeed, such people might well be interested to know how many such undertakings their money is being thrown away on. You anyway seem to have been removing information about these relationships without attempting to establish which of them might be "genuine". A more productive way of proceeding might be to leave the information on the original pages (so people can find it easily and naturally if they happen to want it), but to reduce its impact by removing the flags and other excessive formatting (e.g. converting tables into text - one long sentence would do for a whole table in most cases). W. P. Uzer (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The waste of money argument is indeed not all that relevant per se and belongs, if anywhere, at Talk:Twin towns and sister cities. What I'm saying is that you still fail to demonstrate importance of these on a universal basis to warrant their pervasive existence on city articles. These matters only get covered in the local press and is of a "Christchurch receives delegation from the other Christchurch" type coverage, and most articles where this stuff exists is otherwise unsourced or sourced to city council websites (primary sources). Another problem is that for pages light on content, leaving often long lists there they would weigh on the whole page disproportionately. On a large page, it's no better than a stand-alone trivia section sitting on the bottom of the article.
Sure, that's another approach to trim it down to a simple line of prose. But then comes the problem of what section it belongs in.
oh, how about 'Trivia'? ... oh shit, these are discouraged...
Having just a link to in the 'See also' section seems to fit the requirement for both big and small articles alike, and doesn't risk flooding people's sensitivities with pretty flags and seas of blue while leaving the information just one mouse click away. -- Ohc ¡digame!02:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One click away is, as I've said, acceptable, but I'm not persuaded it's optimal. For a lot of readers, it's not going to be obvious where to click. Suppose I'm moving to Sunderland, and find from that article that it's twinned with (i.a.) Harbin, China. So I go to Harbin's article to find what other towns Harbin might be twinned with. Do I find this information? No, not any more. I just find (assuming I do find it) the line See also: List of twin towns and sister cities in China. Do I want to click this link? Not obviously - at first glance it looks like a list of arrangements of some kind within China. The list might be better titled "List of twin towns and sister cities of towns and cities in China", or at least there should be a sentence or two rather than a plain link: "Harbin is twinned with 30 cities and towns in other countries. For a full list, see ...". W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much more worryingly, though - I've actually just clicked the link to the page where the information is supposed to have been preserved, and find that it hasn't been preserved at all in Harbin's case. There's just a short list of four twins, whereas the section you removed contained a much longer list, many of them with references. Also with Macau, you removed 13, only 8 are now listed. Am I going to find more cases like this if I keep looking? W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. It depends on how well-maintained those lists are. That's yet another argument for centralising the list in one place so that there is less redundancy and the information more easily updated by our volunteer workforce. I may go through them at some stage to check that they have been correctly included... -- Ohc ¡digame!09:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You "may at some stage"? That doesn't sound very reassuring... If these two examples are typical, it is clear that the "List..." page has not been well maintained, compared with the city articles themselves. Your "one click away" argument seems no longer to hold, unless you're prepared to do the extra work of cross-checking and updating (I'd automatically assumed you would have been doing that). I agree there should not be duplication; my preferred solution would be to delete the list (which is unlikely ever to be properly complete) and to maintain the information on the cities' own pages. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see some Invader love, but I'm going to have to dispute the fair use on File:Invaders map of montpellier.jpg - a handmade copy of the map could "adequately give the same information", and would actually be preferable, given that the street details and key are entirely illegible in this scaled-down screenshot! --McGeddon (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought that with the commentary in the article, its use would be acceptable. I'm open to suggestions, and would love it if you (or anyone else for that matter) could produce such a map. -- Ohc ¡digame!14:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been faced at MOS with the issue of the British English tag offending nationalistic sensitivities, so it's a softening of the language used in the tag although the functionality remains identical; all the underlying rules are identical. So now, the article will be tagged {{EngvarB}} instead of {{use British English}} if you use the "Universal British" button. You can still choose to insert the {{use British English}} template by clicking on the British English button. I plan to eventually phase out the latter tag at some stage, but I'm currently working out the code to do this properly without screwing up the script. -- Ohc ¡digame!01:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:0089 45rpm moving.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:0089 45rpm moving.jpg, which you've attributed to Sean Fretwell. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.jpg)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
; see Talk:Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
. Someone building a prep set shouldn't promote a hook they've approved, and that's effectively what you did here. Best, BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Shadow (2013 film) does not have an edit summary.
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
talk 11:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
talk 14:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
