User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2009/February

4.5.1

If by the weekend, no major show stopping bugs, make it the compulsory release?

I'm thinking migrate to API seems good about now (editing is slow ;))

—Reedy 23:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixes inside direct quotes

I just reversed a change you made at Anna Laetitia Barbauld. You corrected a date format per MOS, but it was in fact a direct quote, and shouldn't have been modified. Is this something you can easily check for to avoid in future? Anyway, just wanted to let you know why I reverted. Mike Christie (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. AWB was not treating <poem> tags like <blockquote> tags and hiding text in them from general fixes. rev 3593 I've changed it so it does now. Thanks Rjwilmsi 16:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise with this edit to Area bombing directive that is in double single quotes --PBS (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, there's no way to automatically identify items in double single quotes as a quote, as this is the Wikimedia format for italics. Rjwilmsi 12:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

References in William Hazlitt

I appreciate many of the fixes you made in the Hazlitt article, but I have reverted the named references. First of all, if we are to have named references, they should be consistently used throughout. My own personal preference—and I don't deny people will differ here—is to use the simple Shortened Footnote style. I find named references annoying if you are actually trying to read the footnotes along with the article. It is too easy to get confused about whether to click "a", "b", or "c", for example, to get back to where you were in the main text. Apart from my own preference, however, I will point to the following in WP:Reference: "Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it". And if there should be a general consensus to use named references, then it should be done with absolute consistency throughout. Now that I look back at the notes, I see that there are so few instances where the same page is referred to more than once, it wouldn't even make much sense in this particular case. An extra note now and then with duplicate wording wouldn't overburden the article and, again in my opinion, it is more readable the way it is. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected. You didn't even have to reply. :-) I just went back over Help:Footnotes, and I see that use of named references is not a completely separate reference style; it is just a subtype of the Shortened Footnote style. Therefore, I will restore what you (with whatever program you used) did. I may not like it that much, but it is standard here, and I can live with it. Thanks for indirectly pointing this out to me, something I either did not know or forgot after many years. --Alan W (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you're not the first editor, and likely won't be the last, to find the Wikipedia references syntax a bit confusing (though to be fair I don't really see a way to simplify it). Thanks Rjwilmsi 07:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A favor ?

Hello, you seem particularly adept and skilled in reference to formatting repeat references. Thus I was wondering if you could format some of my newly added duplicate listings on Che Guevara in popular culture when you have time (I have yet to master this skill). I saw that you did so in the recent past, and would be grateful if you could again. Irregardless if you do or not, I hope things are well, and thanks for all you do for wiki.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, done using my script. Remaining duplicates are "Che Guevara: Revolutionary & Icon", by Trisha Ziff, Abrams Image, 2006, pg 11 and "Che Guevara: Revolutionary & Icon", by Trisha Ziff, Abrams Image, 2006, pg 12 Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: running reflinks got those. Rjwilmsi 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! You're amazing. Thanks :o). Is it easy for you to do such a thing? The reason I ask is because there are several pages I have been heavily working on that could use such quick skill. If you are willing that is?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just post a list somewhere, it's no problem. Rjwilmsi 22:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :o). Could you please format Che Guevara, Che Guevara (photo), & The Motorcycle Diaries (film) when you have time. The first uses a different formatting system of page #'s and sources separately for books, while the second needs such a delineation. I really appreciate your willingness.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done what I can with my script, but the further changes you mention are the use of the {{Harvnb}} template or similar, which is not something I'm versed in. Rjwilmsi 18:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Che 'Beret'star
		"Hasta la Victoria Siempre" In recognition of your excellent reference formatting on Guevara related articles. Your willingness to assist in this task upon request, exemplifies the collaboration for which Wikipedia was founded on. In appreciation,   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You edited the verbatim quote of the inscription on the Thwing monument?

I have reverted your edit to Thwing in which you changed the format of a date which is cut in stone on the face of the monument. Once again, you've corrected a date format per MOS, but it was in fact a verbatim quote of the inscription on the monument, and shouldn't have been modified (see Fixes inside direct quotes above).

I have put an html comment by the date to alert editors that it should not be changed. Cheers. -- Euchiasmus (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article to use the <poem> so that the text is identified as a quote. AWB will now ignore this text for unit/date correction. Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I removed the <poem> tag because it made the format display weird. It is now in a {{Quote}}. FYI, Lightmouse says that his (and he implied others' too) scripts/bots will recognise quotes and leave dates alone. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, my way avoided manual spacing, but a quote template like that is fine by me (AWB knows about quote templates, double quotes and blockquote/poem, so which is used doesn't matter). I believe Lightmouse uses the AWB logic for ignoring quotes, so don't imagine he actually does better than AWB does. Rjwilmsi 08:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa language article

Hi, can I get you to point AWB at the Ottawa language article to set the references, e.g. "set identical unnamed references to use named refs" etc? You did the same some time ago at Munsee language, an article I work on, and it was greatly appreciated. I am trying to get Ottawa language to GA status, and the reviewer suggested cleaning up the references. I'd try it myself, but that could be dangerous. Thanks. John. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done This is as much as my script can achieve. Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated. John Jomeara421 (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Bottle Rockets

thanks much for setting the references in this article as you have. a slick improvement! bravo.Writeful (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Reordering of references

What is the point of these AWB edits to pages where you just reorder the references? (example) It seems entirely pointless and with no real consistency.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Ref_ordering. Rjwilmsi 21:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My god, there is actually a policy on that? Looks fine in the example but it doesn't bear much meaning where I've actually seen it applied- there appears to be no understand of the content of these articles behind these edits, there are numerous facts taken from this articles and sometimes different ones from the same source. Its not causing any real harm so I won't complain further - its you're time you're wasting. No offence. - _J.Logan`^t: 14:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see on that page where reference reordering is discussed. In my case, I take care to put the footnotes at the end of the sentence in the same order as what they are sourcing, so if footnote 6 supports the first part of a sentence and footnote 4 the second part, I do ordering that may generate [6][4]. This tool is switching them around to produce [4][6]. Is someone's esthetics upset by the 'backwards' numbering? Is there a MoS guideline on this somewhere? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, it's back in Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests/Archive_5#Ref_ordering now. Still don't see a MoS reference for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis_Social_Club

I see you made an edit to the subject. I have taken on the Project of developing and improving it as my 1st effort with Wikipedia. While there is much research to be done, I would welcome suggestions in the Talk if you´re interested. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template: Lifetime

Lifetime template usage specifies that Template:Lifetime should usually be placed after all the categories. This is with reference to your edit of Emani Sankara Sastry. Wanted to bring this to your notice. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Current AWB behaviour is to move {{lifetime}} above categories (as it's treated like a normal template, which would be above the categories). Should it instead treat lifetime specially (on en wiki) and always move it to below the categories? Rjwilmsi 08:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As per those usage guidelines mentioned above, yes. A feedback needs to be sent to team that maintains AWB, I guess VasuVR (talk, contribs) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done rev 4023 Lifetime moved after categories on en wiki. Rjwilmsi 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi, Swastika References Being Purged from Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Need to be careful with AWB

Just to let you know that I reverted the changes you made to Ælfheah of Canterbury. That "Æ" is correct for medieval bishops. [1] --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, edit was correct: From AWB User manual: Removes accents in {{DEFAULTSORT}} tags and category sortkeys so that sorting is alphabetical, not ASCIIbetical per Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_order. Rjwilmsi 00:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not Elfheah, it's AElfheah, if you don't use the Æ. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to change the sort keys on that page as you see fit. AWB will not change them as part of its general fixes once the non-Latin character has been removed. Rjwilmsi 22:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)