User talk:Ravenpuff/Archives/2021/November

Protected POTD

I was under the impression that you advocated having the protected version the same as the archived copy of POTD images. However, today you created the protected version and immediately set about altering it by introducing italics for the unit of currency. The italics were fine, but not your perhaps inadvertent introduction of a link to the currently displayed denomination, a fault that I had carefully excluded from the unprotected versions. So the protected versions and the regular versions are now not the same, and the protected version is in some respects less satisfactory than the regular ones. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: You're right that I forgot to update the regular versions – I've now done so. Regarding the inclusion of links to the current denomination: that was in fact partly deliberate, as it has the benefit shows readers at a glance how many denominations there are, since the current denomination is bolded when on that page (e.g. on Template:POTD protected/2021-11-06/1); I hope this should be acceptable, but feel free to remove them if not. On a related note, there appear to be invalid time errors on the protected subpages. Could you help replace {{SUBPAGENAME}} with {{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}||2}}? I can't do so, not being an admin. Thanks! — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your first point, but I had noticed the error message and didn't know what to do about it. It's fixed now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

image titles

Ravenpuff, i had a question about the titles used for tfa blurb images. i have noticed that, when a caption has some kind of markup, you often provide a plain text alternative via the title parameter, as seen here. i have generally been following your example, as seen here, but have been fiddling with similar code today and noticed that, in general, at least with respect to the html that my browser is served, wiki markup appears to be automagically stripped from titles and alt text. this means that, for example, the html i am served when viewing this blurb is unchanged regardless of whether a plain text title argument is provided, because the title argument only strips out the wiki markup used for a wikilink. the same applies to this blurb, since the title argument only strips out the double single quotes, which is wiki markup used for italics. however, there is a difference in the html served with respect to this blurb, since the title argument strips out " ", which is not wiki markup.

does this behaviour vary? i have not tested this extensively, and if this practice does help out users with devices different from my own, i am happy to continue the practice. however, i admittedly have some reservations about doing so if these edits are purely cosmetic, though i do not mind if you continue the practice. dying (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dying: MOS:ALT#How to write alternative text says: The alt text must be plain text (no HTML or wiki markup such as wikilinks) without line breaks. Since the Main Page image templates default to |title= for the alt text, I aim to provide a plaintext alternative if an image caption in TFA (or other Main Page section) includes a link, nbsp or the like, in accordance with the above quotation. That said, I think you could be right in your observation that the HTML alt text generated by MediaWiki from a caption already seems to be stripped of any wiki markup – the quotation might well be out of date, and there might no longer be a need to keep adding plaintext alternatives for TFA captions. Frankly I've been wondering the same myself, and given that there have been zero complaints about this (I suspect that this prescription is hardly ever followed) your hunch could be correct. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

that is good insight. in that case, i will continue to follow your lead, unless i hear of any requests to do otherwise.

by the way, have you gotten a chance to look at the proposal on wt:date yet? i did not want to implement the proposal unilaterally, so would be grateful if you could review it and offer any corrections or insight. i believe i have taken your previous input and suggestions into account. in particular, the text of the crux of the proposal, "use a spaced or unspaced en dash as appropriate to the range if this modifier is disregarded", was basically taken from your suggestion verbatim. (the slash was replaced with " or " as per mos:slash.) dying (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dying: Sorry, I've been rather busy lately – your proposal seems good to go over a cursory glance, but I might take a closer look or make some small changes later. Thanks! — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

no worries, i completely understand. the topic is more complicated than it initially appears, and i admittedly also had trouble finding time to properly analyze the issue. in any case, i appreciate the cursory glance, and welcome any comments in the future.

by the way, do you understand how the images for the blurbs are selected? an upcoming blurb currently does not have one, even though, with my untrained eye, the images in the article seem like decent choices. in particular, an image of the prime minister seems appropriate (not unlike that used in another blurb covering a short-lived government), as well as a map that shows roughly the same territory covered by the subject of the blurb (not unlike that used in another recent blurb about the region).

apologies for asking three questions in rapid succession. please feel free to take your time in responding if you're busy. dying (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dying: To my knowledge, TFA blurbs are typically drafted at the talk pages of the article's FAC nomination subpage (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Operation Grapple/archive1). I presume that image selection forms part of that process, although I'm admittedly not entirely sure. Interestingly, I can't find any such talk pages for the TDFR featured article, so I don't know where the drafting of that blurb took place. Posting a message at WT:TFA (or even WP:ERRORS) might shed a bit more light on this and/or get an image added. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

i've also noticed that images are sometimes chosen by a tfa/r nominator or selected during the tfa/r process, but this blurb does not appear to have gone through tfa/r, since i believe its request would have been here if it had. in any case, i think i will follow your advice and mention the issue on wp:errors. thanks for your input! dying (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

other wikis

Ravenpuff, what are your thoughts on links to other wikis in blurbs? i noticed that you have previously replaced a link to wiktionary with an internal link, which seems appropriate if a suitable internal link can be found. the upcoming blurb for hms hood has a link to wiktionary's definition of "show the flag". i was considering replacing the link with one for Big Stick ideology, Gunboat diplomacy, Peace through strength, or Power projection. in particular, "Showing the flag" is defined in one of the subsections of the "Power projection" article, so perhaps a link to Power projection#Types or Power projection#Hard power would be appropriate. although i am currently unaware of any policy that prevents links to wiktionary in tfa blurbs, i believe there have been not much more than 20 such links in the history of tfa.

i also recently removed a link to fr wikipedia in the blurb for cyclone berguitta. unfortunately, i could not find an appropriate internal link to replace it, but since i do not believe any tfa blurbs have ever linked to fr wikipedia before, i am currently assuming that linking to other wikipedias in tfa blurbs is strongly discouraged. (also, the removed link was to a nonexistent page because the location was misspelt, but a page does exist at fr:Grand Coude.) however, if you feel that the link should have remained, i have no objections if you wish to restore it. dying (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:POTD/2025-04-18

Template:POTD/2025-04-18 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:POTD/2024-03-29

Template:POTD/2024-03-29 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)