Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:26, 12 January 2017

Pervertations

Permutations of Iridescent include Cretinised; Iced Nitres; Recited Sin; Dicier Nest; Cited Rinse; Ed inciters; and Cretins Die; and (my favorite) Dire insect. If you meditate, you might like I is centered. EEng 11:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Great to see that Cretinised is top of the list. Satan Vermin 123 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Happened to be at the top of the list (it's apparently the only result that's a single word). Such exercises make me regret not having a longer name. However, Editor EEng --> I tender ego. Or I rent geode. EEng 16:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Imagine the fun the rest of us could have if you used your real names (not that anyone knows them, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

I did for a short period circa 2007 have a randomising script that made my signature appear as a different anagram each time, until I realised that having a signature which doesn't include your username (or at least the first part of it) was a mildly disruptive thing to do, as it makes it impossible for anyone not in on the code to ctrl-f search for your contributions on a given talkpage and doesn't actually bring any benefits to justify the mild disruption. Are you listening, Muffled Pocketed? ‑ Iridescent 16:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Deaf as a post mate... O Fortuna!   14:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't you get indeffed for that kind of thing, these days?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah—it means signing with a subst-ed template, which is banned nowadays (for good reason). Standards were lower back then, in so many ways. ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Technically, it's signing with an unsubsted template that is banned. Substed templates are OK but very dicey to use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but anyone doing it is an idiot, since there's no legitimate reason to do it and it's an open invitation to vandals. When I see something like this, I'm always sorely tempted to change it to "I am an idiot who left his signature open to every passing vandal". ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Arbitration committee" is "Tame moronic tit-baiter". Just saying. ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Iri. This may be your best ever contribution to Misplaced Pages. I shall treasure it always. Sane Varmint 123 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, it's also Tame, trite, a bit moronic and Motto: bait, recriminate and Motto: recriminate a bit. When I add these to The Museums, do you want me to credit you, or not? EEng 23:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to credit or not as you see fit; I won't be offended either way. (Astonishingly, given that Misplaced Pages has spent the last decade under constant onslaught from every crank mystic imaginable—I just spent a chunk of my life I'll never get back arguing with a guy who was unhappy that Misplaced Pages didn't give due weight to the theory that stars are actually giant light bulbs—Themuru, the well-documented belief that anagrams reveal the true nature of their subject, is still a redlink.) ‑ Iridescent 21:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

And to you—is it that time of the year already? Feel free to retract it, given that I've just deflated the mood of mutual backslapping at WP:RFAP somewhat. (If we're following Misplaced Pages's usual naming convention, shouldn't be RFAP be Requests for Fapping?) ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's that time of year ... again. And I'm not worried about you "deflating" the mood at RFAP - I'm genuinely interested in all opinions. I think I could avoid some of the woodwork-leaving-people that came out at MBW's RfA - at the very least RO is still blocked, I believe? I'm sure I'd get plenty of no votes from Bulgarians though... and some from EC's very favoritist people. I will admit that helping out at DYK was a thought ... as well as possibly opining at AE with what I hope is a voice of sanity at times. We'll see how things go. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If nothing else, I imagine it would save the checkusers a bit of work by flushing all the current batch of Mattisserie out of the undergrowth. If you do run, get someone from QAI (I'd suggest Wehwalt if he's willing) to be one of the nominators, which will at least prevent the infoboxers turning up en masse to oppose and tanking it from the outset. ‑ Iridescent 21:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think I've been that "anti-infobox", have I? I might get a bit more from the MOS-field - I've been a bit vocal occasionally about proper names. What say you, Wehwalt, you up for a co-nom? And I really do have to run and get some pellets for the wood stove before we see Rogue One. At least the ponies are all staying warm in our lovely -14F wind chills....Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's always been about tribalism, rather than about what people actually feel about IBs—as Rexx has pointed out previously, my opinion on the things is actually more hardline pro-box than Andy Mabbett, yet I get filed among the antis. Because you're on speaking terms with Tim, Cassianto etc and don't take the opportunity to denounce them as anti-metadata luddites, the knee-jerk position will be oppose; likewise, because you're on speaking terms with the Dark Lord Corbett, assume the GGTF will be rooting through every comment you've ever made, ever, frantically trying to find pretexts to oppose. This all sounds horribly cynical, but it's a reflection of RFA being a fundamentally dysfunctional process in which any given vocal clique can derail any candidacy. (If you're hunting for nominators, Casliber and Slimvirgin might also be good choices; they've both generally respected by widely different groups, and haven't been particularly active at RFA so don't suffer the "well, they'd nominate anything that moves" reputation which certain RFA regulars have acquired.) ‑ Iridescent 21:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me know if you go for it, Ealdgyth. My participation at this time of the year is dependent on whether or not anything goes kaplooie at work. Risker (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I would be most happy to be one of the nominators.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• I would too. I'm on good terms with nobody, so a nomination by me will carry no faction's taint. EEng 22:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I avoid RfA like the black plague, but would drop in to +S Ealdgyth.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I am an utter failure at even smoking out Mattisserie... I have to admit I'm a bit amazed that I haven't had anything from that department... I fully expected some. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm shocked as well; per my comments at the poll, I'd at the very least have expected Mattisse's socks, the IRC clique and Chillum's cronies to turn up, and if you'd asked me to predict the numbers I'd have said "assume about 40 opposes, so the issue will be whether you get the 120 supports necessary to cancel that out". (See Montanabw's RFA, or even Malleus's.) My only tentative hypothesis—since other RFAs are drawing opposes, the "Misplaced Pages is now a kinder gentler place" theory doesn't stand up—is that because so many people piled in to support right at the start (this is what it looked like one hour after going live, this is what it looked like 24 hours after going live), Mattisse and ItsLassieTime decided they wouldn't be able to sway the outcome so it wasn't worthwhile blowing their current sockfarms' cover, while the Civility Patrol didn't want to damage their credibility fighting a cause they couldn't win. (Misplaced Pages shouldn't operate on the principle that the 'winner' of debates is whoever does the best job at intimidating the opposition into silence, but the reality is that sometimes it does.) ‑ Iridescent 10:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What I find interesting is the sheer numbers of people who don't normally vote coming out the woodwork to take part. If someone had time, they could (at the end) see how many people voted here who are rare to low-level RFA participants. At 208 with three full days to go, this one is already going to be in Misplaced Pages:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported an RFX. To put that into perspective, in the 2015 ArbCom elections, you got several candidates making it into Misplaced Pages:Times that 1000 or more Wikipedians supported something, but only Newyorkbrad broke the 1000-vote barrier this time round in the December 2016 elections. Carcharoth (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The 2015 elections are a statistical anomaly—Kevin's cack-handed attempt to rig the vote meant that (literally) thousands of people who'd never previously shown the slightest interest in Arbcom elections were canvassed to take part. It's also worth bearing in mind that the winning margins in the 2016 contest are artificially inflated—because there were so few candidates running, and one candidate in particular whom I suspect a lot of voters were determined to prevent winning, I'd be fairly confident in asserting that many voters who'd normally only have voted (yes or no) on a couple of the candidates intentionally supported seven candidates to minimise the chance of that particular candidate winning. ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If you mean the vote notifications on talk pages, that happened in 2016 as well. See here. See also here. Rather depressingly, the election feedback page is completely lacking any feedback. Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope—this year the mailshot was quite tightly targeted to only go to people who were currently active, whereas in 2015 they literally spammed everyone they could think of (well over 100,000 accounts)—the impact of the spammings is very noticeable on the voting log (see right), as is the fact that the median edit count of voters drops precipitately at the time of each of the mailshots, implying that the campaign was jolting the socks and sleepers out of their slumbers rather than its purported purpose of notifying active members of the Misplaced Pages community who hadn't previously taken an interest in the elections. 273 of the voters were editors who hadn't edited for at least three months at the time of the vote, which is easily enough to have a significant impact, even though it turned out not to have the impact Kevin wanted. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah OK. To really compare, surely a similar graph is needed for this year's elections? It is possible the more targeted mailing this year had a similar but lesser effect. Wouldn't most of the 100,000+ accounts in 2015 have been inactive? I probably need to refresh my memory about the exact criteria used. Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Paging Opabinia regalis regarding this years figures. Yes, most of the 100,000+ accounts in 2015 have been inactive is entirely the point—Kevin & co's grand scheme was to poke enough inactive editors out of retirement to get his Civility First slate elected, and then use Arbcom as a bully pulpit to launch a purge. It's easiest to see on this version of the chart that those editors voting in the wake of the mass-mailings are virtually inactive compared to those voting at other times. ‑ Iridescent 18:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This may be breaching something or other to say, but I'll also point out that you're an active member of a website which counts among its prominent members a professional statistician with an obsessive interest in Misplaced Pages. If you asked for statistical analysis of Misplaced Pages trends, I suspect your main problem would be getting him to shut up once you'd seen enough. ‑ Iridescent 18:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's this year's equivalent - well, edit counts are from just now, not from right after the election, but anyway.... No little green message dots because the messages all went out right at the beginning this year. I meant to do this when voting wrapped up, but this year's election wasn't quite as exciting ;) You still see the lower-edit-count contingent right at the beginning when the messages went out, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks very like Drmies 5 years ago - friendly likeable editor with massive strengths in content and a clean sheet apart from the inevitable rows on article talk pages. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I got supports from Andrew D, BMK, Carrite, Kraxler and Eric in my RfA and apparently that's unusual. Ritchie333 11:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

So - not a single Matisse sock uncovered. I failed to garner any opposes that I could disagree with. I did get one MOS-regular neutral at the very end but... I'm a failure as a drama magnet. Seriously, thanks to all. And immediately after I got the bit I hit "block" instead of "contribs" on my watchlist ... luckily, block is not immediate and has to be confirmed. Going to take a while to get used to having a third option after editor names on my watchlist... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ayscoughfee House

Per your Spalding Memorial review, I live in nearby Stamford and have often visited Ayscoughfee House and indeed the Lutyens monument. The common pronunciation generally approximates to "esscoffee", and I agree that some guide in the lead would be useful. It's a particularly horrible word for non-native speakers to attempt. Best seasonal wishes. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! I'm aware of the historical reasons for so many British place-names having totally counterintuitive pronunciation, but it still occasionally surprises me just how confusing some of them are. (It was only when Hellingly Hospital Railway was selected to be recorded for Spoken Misplaced Pages that I discovered "Hellingly" isn't pronounced the way every single reader in the world would assume it's pronounced, and it still grates on me that the pre-recorded station announcements on the London Underground pronounce "Plaistow" and "Chesham" as they're spelled.) ‑ Iridescent 14:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll bite. How are they pronounced? I know Plaistow and Cheshem (I think), but Hellingly is a new one on me. I did find some discussion at Talk:Cuckfield. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"Plaah-stow", "Chessum" (for some reason the same announcers never have a problem with "Cheshunt"), and "Helen-glie" to rhyme with fly or sty. If you click the little speaker icon next to the FA star, you can hear a version of it read by our very own Hassocks5489. ‑ Iridescent 13:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed – in Sussex we have the the phrase "Three lies, but all are true: Hellingly, Chiddingly and Ardingly"! But East Hoathly and West Hoathly (which are nowhere near each other, oddly) are pronounced how you would expect...! Incidentally we have a Plaistow in Sussex as well but it's pronounced "Plass-to"... Best regards to all, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Heather and Belvoir, Stoughton, Houghton and Coton, South Croxton. Sinope. Agar Nook. Lounge. I have no idea how "Lounge" is pronounced, nor why there was a "Lounge Disposal Point" there. It's near Lount. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• At least with Chesham there are clues in the location in the Chess Valley of the River Chess, and the spelling of the Chessmount area. No idea why the town spelling went from (presumably) Chessham to Chesham. Maybe it was the other way round, and 'Ches' became 'Chess'? The river name arose from Chesham, apparently (the river had an older name). And then there are the names: . Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• The locals still pronounce it "Chessum"—it's London Transport who announce it as "Chesh-um". It's almost certainly because of its proximity to Amersham, which is pronounced as you'd expect. "Chess" is definitely the original pronunciation—the name in Domesday is "Cestreham". (While Chesham is in fairly poor repair, St Mary's Church, Chesham and Chesham branch contain a very good potted history of the pre-industrial and post-industrial history of the town respectively, if I do say so myself.) ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

And of course Domesday is pronounced "Luxury yacht"... EEng 19:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Brian I had no idea you were in that part of the world. I don't suppose you might be able to take a few photos of the Spalding memorial for me would you? As you can see, the article relies on a handful of very similar (and mediocre) Geograph photos, which are a lot better than nothing but don't convey much detail. I live at the opposite end of the country; I hope to get there sometime in the new year (I intend to get to all of Lutyens' war memorials at some point, but they're scattered around the country) but I ca't guarantee it. It would be worth a pint if or when I do eventually make it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• It might be worth asking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lincolnshire. The project looks fairly moribund, but someone might still be watching it. ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Per HJ Mitchell - sorry for the delay in responding. I am unfortunately immobile at present so unable to get to Spalding. If you do get to Ayscoughfee Hall, be sure to admire the topiary - it's magnificent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• We do have Category:Wikipedians in Lincolnshire, who may be worth pestering individually. One name on that list in particular strikes me as someone who's most definitely still very active (some would say considerably too active) on Misplaced Pages. ‑ Iridescent 20:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• That does work sometimes. I once asked for a picture from Canada, and someone was fortunately in the right location (the user provided this image). I tried the same in Amiens, but ended up going there myself (visiting Amiens Cathedral on the way to somewhere else). Sometimes it is more fun to go yourself if you can, as you will know what to look for and may spot other things as well. But some places are just too far to go... (I currently draw the line at anything that is more than a day's journey there and back). Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Memorial reviews

Commenting here, as I don't want to distract from the review: I am pleased to see you (and others) reviewing those memorials articles (and even more pleased that they are being worked on). They are arriving at a rate of knots! 1 and 2. It has reminded me: (a) that I wrote this set of criteria nearly seven years ago now; and (b) as a rule if one (i.e. me) doesn't get round to writing on a topic, someone else will one day! Though to be fair, my target has always been the big ones in France and Belgium (I don't need to be reminded of the state the Menin Gate and Thiepval Memorial articles are in; and the Vimy memorial got there eventually, though with only a smidgin of help from me). These memorials in the UK are some that I wouldn't even have considered starting articles on back in 2010! On style across an article series, I was reminded by this about various summary and overview issues across similar articles. I tend to agree with J3Mrs that repeating the same things across articles gets boring, but I know you are in the "give the full background in each article" camp. @HJ Mitchell: to keep him in the loop. Carcharoth (talk) Most obscure source I've found yet on Lutyens: here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

As Misplaced Pages grows, the scope of what warrants a full article expands—if you look at Talk:George Frederic Watts, you'll see a 2008 explanation as to why Hope doesn't warrant a full article. Although, as I just discovered following a recent WP:PROD I declined, one of Misplaced Pages's earliest articles (August 2001, pageid=4081) is a spectacularly obscure stub.

How much background to include varies by the topic and in particular who the likely readers will be. For an article about an individual Doctor Who episode, most readers will be fans researching that particular episode, and it's reasonable to assume that the reader will know that Daleks and Cybermen are the villains and it doesn't need to be explained each time. For The Sirens and Ulysses, a significant proportion of readers will be people who know no background at all, have ducked into Manchester Art Gallery to get out of the rain or to buy a last-minute gift for granny in the gift shop, and are curious as to why an entire wall is occupied by a garish mural of rotting corpses and ten-foot-tall naked women (TSAU really needs to be seen in the flesh to appreciate just how weird it is, as thumbnail images don't do justice to the sheer size of the thing) and can't be presumed to know anything about William Etty or the impact the rise of uneducated but wealthy industrialists had on the 19th-century art market.

In the case of the war memorials, if anything I'd say they need more background, not less; remember that a very sizeable chunk of readers will be visitors to Ayscoughfee House wandering around the grounds who stumble across it, people whose great-uncle Bert is listed on it and want to know more about it, and visitors to the area looking through a list of visitor attractions or clicking "point of interest" buttons in Google Maps; none of these people can be presumed to know anything at all about Lutyens or other war memorials. (In the case of anything intended for FA, then bear in mind that at TFA an article needs to be comprehensible to people with no previous interest in the topic at all; for readers in India, Nigeria, Singapore and other places where en-wiki's readership is still growing, you can't necessarily even assume the reader will be familiar with the dates of the First World War, or have more than the haziest idea what actually happened.) ‑ Iridescent 13:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I've always appreciated a healthy background section. The best way I've heard it described is that the article should tell you everything you need to know to fully understand the subject without having to follow any links, or in other words, treat it as though the reader has printed out a hard copy of the article. It does mean that you get repetition between similar articles, but I doubt anyone other than the three of us and the wonderful reviewers at MilHist A-class and FAC is reading the articles about Lutyens' war memorials as a series. I certainly hope not, given the slightly random order in which I've been working on them. I started with the relatively low-hanging fruit and I'm working my way up the tree, hoping that I'll have anticipated all the likely stumbling blocks by the time I get to Southampton and Whitehall. I might go on to do Thiepval and some of the other Western Front memorials at some point, though there are many other fascinating memorials just in the UK, and I want to write an overview article about Lutyens and war memorials and write articles for his various memorials in the Commonwealth. And that's before I even start to think about the cemeteries. I was looking for a project to keep me occupied for a little while but I've been working on this on and off for a year and it's nowhere near finished! They're only coming through at a rate of knots now because I bought the pile of books needed to flesh the articles out and then went on a writing spree a little while ago. That and I'm taking a break from the project space. By the way, thank you both for your reviews on Spalding; I will get back to you in the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the article should tell you everything you need to know to fully understand the subject without having to follow any links, or in other words, treat it as though the reader has printed out a hard copy of the article is a very thoughtful and intelligent position, and whoever originally said that should hitherto and henceforth be bought free pies at every opportunity. (I don't actually subscribe to that position 100%—there are some hyper-niche topics like Interstate 15 in Arizona or Episode 14 (Twin Peaks) where one can reasonably assume that anyone who cares enough to read it will already know the background—but particularly for FAs, one has to assume that a significant number of readers will be in other countries and only have the haziest idea what the First World War was, let alone who Lutyens was.) It occurs to me that for these memorial articles, going into background context in detail is particularly important, as Lutyens is probably better known nowadays in India than in Britain, and I'll guess WW1 isn't a part of the national identity in India to anywhere near the extent it is in Europe, North America or Australia. ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think my favorite comment on a TFA was this one from Hygeberht, one of the more obscure of the many obscure episodes of English episcopal history. It appears that someone out there disagrees that background for a historical subject is a "good thing". (with all apologies for invoking Martha Stewart). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's the middle of the night where I am and I can't be bothered to go hunt for links, but there was a guy went absolutely batshit crazy when Waddesdon Road railway station was TFA over the level of background detail. (By the time I wake up, someone will no doubt have found the link.) ‑ Iridescent 22:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like this, but I remember that as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Found it. I dread to think what he'd have made of the war memorials. As you're probably aware, my attitude towards "core v obscure" is virtually diametrically opposite to his; to take the current example, if Misplaced Pages shut down tomorrow readers would have little trouble finding a biography of Lutyens or a history of the First World War elsewhere, but they'd have great difficulty finding a decent history of Spalding War Memorial. ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes. That was TCO. I remember reading through that powerpoint presentation and being impressed that someone had actually done that. The depressing thing about reading through old threads like that is how active things were back then (5 years ago) compared to now, or am I looking through rose-tinted glasses? Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think rose-colored glasses to some extent. There are still hotbeds of discussion around the wiki, just not on FAC lately. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah—the discussion has moved away from the traditional venues like ANI and the formal processes like FAC and the various Arbcom-related pages, and are fragmented to a much greater extent across individual article and editor talkpages, but they're still going on. (The fact that this talkpage grows by about 150kb per month is itself a sign of something.) As Somey used to be fond of saying, the primary focus on Misplaced Pages has gradually transitioned from addition to maintenance, and with that cultural shift the venues have shifted. (Another cultural change which AFAIK hasn't been commented upon to any great extent, is the fact that most of the regulars now are at least vaguely aware of who each other are. Coupled with the slow death of the "Wikiproject" concept—even former big beasts like WP:LONDON are now dead in the water—that also shifts the venues. If I want to discuss a painting article, I'd be much more likely to post on Johnbod's or Victoriaearle's talkpage, on the assumption that anyone whose opinions are worth listening to will see it there, than I'd post at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Visual arts in the certain knowledge that I'd be attracting every crank and weirdo to the article in question; likewise if I had a query about infoboxes I'd ask RexxS rather than the infobox project, if I had a query about the administration of Misplaced Pages I'd ask NYB or Risker rather than wade into the ANI or Village Pump cesspits…) ‑ Iridescent 16:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hope (painting) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Hope (painting) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 19 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 19, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new at this -- hadn't paid attention to the fact that there's a blurb prepared for the TFAR nominations. I'll remember next time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Any TPWs—particularly in the US—if you're able, head on over to the proposed blurb and take a look in advance. This is going to run on what's likely to be the single most politically sensitive day of 2017, so there's a very delicate balancing act around making it clear why its running on this particular date and what its significance is to the Obama administration, while avoiding any implication that Misplaced Pages is endorsing the outgoing administration, or implying that the incoming administration makes hope more necessary. (Some people will no doubt assume it regardless, but that's unavoidable.) This will also probably get both higher traffic than most TFAs, and within that a higher proportion of vandals, cranks, and people demanding it be changed from British to American spelling, so could likely do with being on as many watchlists as possible. ‑ Iridescent 15:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Iri. Regarding your original point ... IMO the TFAR and TFAP processes could do a little better job of letting people know what to expect. We're going to tackle this and other questions after Mike and Jim have had a chance to settle in on the job, maybe in February, maybe later. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, and sorry for being snappy; it's just that owing to the issues outlined above, this blurb took a lot more time and effort to write as the usual "take the lead and condense it to 1200 characters" approach doesn't work in this instance. (This is an English visual arts article, but we're presenting it as an American politics topic.) To reiterate the comment I make almost every time an artwork is scheduled, this could also do with having the image forced as large as you can without actually bleeding through into DYK, as at {{TFAIMAGE}} size it's quite hard to make out anything more than "girl sitting on an orange". ‑ Iridescent 16:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging David Levy, just in case there's something to resolve here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll see your David Levy, and raise you Fram and The Rambling Man, since if neither of them is able to find something about which to complain, there's unlikely to be much to worry about. ‑ Iridescent 14:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the blurb is fine, but in the past few weeks I've noted a few editorials in the US media with titles mentioning the death of hope. I don't have a link to one at the moment, but can dig around if you're interested. My feeling is that, regardless, running this will be seen as a political statement. That said, I did not know about the painting, the back story to Obama's campaign slogan, all of which is interesting and there really won't be another time to run it. I'll keep an eye on it when it runs. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I couldnt see how anyone on reading the article could *not* see it as an overt political statement given the context. Then I realised I wouldnt actually care if TFA was about Trump's sex allegations on the day. So really I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Except about Trump. Which could not be printed anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was actually planned back in September, when Trump was still a rank outsider—it's not actually a response to Trump's election, although I agree it will unavoidably be seen as a political statement. (Realistically, whatever runs on Jan 19 and 20 will be seen as political statements; I have no doubt at all that Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 20, 2017 on the day of the inauguration itself will be seen as a calculated snub in running an article with no connection to the US, and Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 18, 2017 will be seen as a calculated dig at the Republicans by scheduling an article glorifying nationalized industry and international cooperation, and I dread to think what the lunatic fringe will think of Marilyn Manson and Ayn Rand side-by-side a couple of days earlier. Haters gonna hate, the important thing is not to give them free ammunition.) Because this is probably the only day in which Hope will actually have any significance—I suspect that soon afterwards, it will quietly disappear from display into the Tate's storeroom or on a long-term loan to a provincial gallery somewhere—if it's going to run at all, it really ought to be on 19 Jan (because Misplaced Pages follows GMT and presidential transitions follow EST, Obama actually leaves office on the 20th in Misplaced Pages terms, but having this on the mainpage at the actual time of the inauguration really would generate complaints). ‑ Iridescent 16:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would anyone care about Ayn Rand and Marilyn Monroe being side-by-side? One was an empty headed narcissist, the other was Marilyn Monroe... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson—not quite the same thing. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Am I allowed to blame that mis-reading on excessive holiday alcohol consumption? I can see why the Manson fans might get annoyed though. Who would want to be associated with Ayn Rand? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I am a great supporter of Hr. Trump and this pictorial trbute should show all right-thinking Americans that we at Misplaced Pages are not just moronic nerds. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Hogmanay!

		Happy Hogmanay!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. --John (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you. (If the old saying that the first day of the new year sets the tone for the rest of it is true, I don't hold out any great hopes for this year, as I spent the first twelve hours of it frantically trying to coax an entire network of crashed computers which shut down on the stroke of midnight back to life, but let's give it a chance.) ‑ Iridescent 17:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Iridescent!

Iridescent,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
Donner60 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, and the same to you ‑ Iridescent 17:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any time for a review at FAC?

Hi, I have an article (very) slowly going through the FAC process: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Henry Morgan/archive1. It relates to the 17th century privateer and politician Sir Henry Morgan. If you have any time to have a look, I would be very grateful, but I understand if your time is too limited to take part. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, can do although it may not be for a few days. If you haven't already asked, you want Parrot of Doom and Wehwalt for this one as well, as they're the authors of the two most comparable existing FAs (Blackbeard and Woodes Rogers). I lose track of who's on speaking terms with whom, but Eric Corbett might be interested in this one as well, if you can poke him out of retirement. At a very quick glance, the black picture Exquemelin portrayed of Morgan has affected history's view of the man in the lead introduces ambiguity right from the start, as it isn't clear if "the man" in question is Exquemelin or Morgan. I can also say right away that describing someone from Monmouthshire in this period as "Welsh" without at least an explanatory footnote regarding the ambiguous status of 17th-century Monmouthshire is an edit-war waiting to happen. ‑ Iridescent 16:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

TPS - the Monmouthshirians barely consider themselves Welsh now... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Depends where you go—Monmouth, Chepstow and Abergavenny see themselves as English market towns which have had the misfortune to be occupied by the barbarian hordes from beyond the dyke, but Newport and Caerphilly are as Welsh as anywhere. ‑ Iridescent 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I live in Cardiff ;) The overall view of the 'Welsh' parts of Monmouthshire is that are in fact, in Gwent, not Monmouthshire - despite them being two very different types of 'county'. Its funny, the Welsh in Monmouthshire dont want to be there, and the English in Monmouthshire dont want it to be in Wales. A boundary re-drawing today would make a lot of people very happy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

See also Pembrokeshire, Shetland, Berwick, Oswestry, Saddleworth and even the nascent London independence movement—if the UK ever does break up, whichever bright spark thought twinning Cardiff with Luhansk* was a good idea might one day be seen as some kind of soothsayer. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
*Yes, really.

• Thanks for the advice. I've asked Wehwalt and he will be able to assist once he has got a couple of others out of the way; Parrot of Doom was hugely helpful in the peer review (and the main reason it is in any shape to go through FAC), so I don't want to disturb him any further given the the work he has already done. I'll address the two points ("the man" and the Welshness of Monmouthshire) shortly. Thanks again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to look in tomorrow. But after I take care of the Hungarian king first ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(belatedly) ✓ Done. My comments look worse than they are. ‑ Iridescent 23:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Dead links and autonomous bots

Really a rant about websites that move and don't leave permanent URLs or redirects behind. Government ones as well (well, Canadian government). The story starts here, continues here and has so far ended up here, where I am told that the bot running round doing archiving of dead links at a very slightly faster rate than I am fixing them is 'autonomous' and can't be talked to or it will get an attack of the vapours and fall over. I should still eventually check all the links anyway, and having the template set up will help if the link changes again. I do sometimes think I should pay more attention to archiving/retrieving links that have gone dead on articles that I've worked on. What are your views on that? Carcharoth (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that any situation where a bot of any kind is operating outside the control of its operator to the extent that the operator is explicitly saying The bot is fully autonomous, and I do not control where it chooses to run is grounds for instant indefblocking of the bot, but that isn't my decision to make. As you may already be aware, uncontrolled bots are something of a sensitive topic right now, so unless the bot is actually doing something wrong, rather than just working in the wrong areas, I'd say just leave it alone. I personally don't feel broken links are an issue worth wasting time over, provided the old link and the access date are kept in situ, so that anyone who really needs to see the exact wording at the time can fish it out of an archiving site. We had something similar with every historic building in Wales, when Cadw thoughtfully shut down their old website without notice. ‑ Iridescent 17:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Having such links wrapped in a template does make it easy to make such changes providing the underlying ID is still used in the URL in a way that can be put in such a template. Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For some reason I can't figure out, the FAQ has two questions not answered, including "The Bot left a message on the talk page saying the revised links need to be "checked". What does this mean?". The answer provided is "???". Which is not very useful. I'll have to ask the normal way instead. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That bot leaves messages on talk pages of articles where it adds archived links. The messages have a parameter that allows for editors checking the additions to indicate whether or not the archived links work properly. When filled out, the checked= parameter leaves either a green check mark (type true) or a red X (type failed). The second question looks like it has to do with bot edits to articles that don't use citation templates for references, where it adds a template with the Internet Archive link at the end of the cite. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I got that much by reading the messages on the talk pages of the articles I've been working on. My view so far is that no-one reading that bot-generated message is likely to actually do these checks. If you know how to fix a dead link, you will just do it anyway. If you don't, you almost certainly won't understand what the bot is trying to tell you. It comes across as horribly bureaucratic, which is ironic as I've been an advocate in the past for people ticking boxes to indicate that they carried out a silent check without noting anywhere that they carried out that check. But saying that you've carried out a check needs to take at least as little time as carrying out the check itself, otherwise it just eats up time. All but one of these edits were me either blanking a dealt-with bot notice or adding a note that I'd dealt with it, copying a standard note I drafted for that purpose. I won't be doing any more of that (unless the bot laps me again on its route around Misplaced Pages), as there are no more bot-changes to the links I was tidying up and checking, but I wasn't about to fill in some bot-generated form that is proliferating across talk pages, though some people do. Anyway, there is no indication on the article itself whether the link has been checked by a human or not, which should be the real point. I'm not at all against dead links being identified and archived and fixed - but the way human editors are being asked to interact with the bot feels a bit prescriptive. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes.

You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive case notifications for this case you can remove yourself from the notifications list here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that the request I made to not be notified has been heeded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Its basically because the notification list was created 2 mins before the first notification which provides the link for you to remove yourself from the list. A couple of solutions - clerks create the list at the start of the case and update it as people comment - editors can remove themselves at any point. Or they just create the list, stick a warning at the top of the statement page and in the 'add your statement' editnotice, then its up to individual editors to add themselves to the notification list. That way I suspect you would get wailing and gnashing of teeth for people who forget to add themselves and will complain about not being notified... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with OID here; the sensible course for any clerk in these circumstances is to notify every single person initially, since the problem of mildly annoying someone who has to make two mouse-clicks and three keystrokes to remove the offending item from their talkpage, is vastly outweighed by the potential hassle of someone making a legitimate complaint that they weren't notified and demanding that the whole case be re-run. (My opinion on the existence of "arbitration clerks" is also on record; every other group on Misplaced Pages gets along fine without its own private army.) ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Natalia Ghilascu

Could I ask you to please delete this and protect it from recreation? One deletion via AfD and one speedy deletion for recreation don't seem to have sent a message. - Biruitorul 00:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This version following Nerd1a4i's changes is so radically different from the version I deleted that I'd say WP:G4 shouldn't apply and the AFD should be allowed to run its course. The wiki won't come to an end if we host a slightly promotional article for a week. ‑ Iridescent 07:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

RE But what if I do like talking about doe snot? :P Hasteur (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Unlike some of the save-save-save button-mashers and the people who run unauthorised bots on their main account, I always check the diff for context—as I mentioned somewhere on that workshop page, I always reject well over 50% of its proposed changes. Your doe snot and The The albums are all safe. ‑ Iridescent 07:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In my case...

In many cases I claimed the bug was fixed i.e. Bot returned back to its "normality" while some asked for a complete code reformation. In some cases it was difficult to convenience that I actually dealt with the bug because most of the reports are "It's broken" then I claim fix and some days later a different case may appear but people will complain that "You never fixed it at the first place" while they refer to a different bug. Since AWB deals with so many pages multiple bugs may occur. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure—I know how unstable AWB can be—but the accusations are your using bots for tasks which were never approved as bot tasks; that you disregard it when members of the community raise concerns; and that you run unauthorised bots on your main account to evade blocks on your bot account, none of which really relate to the interaction between AWB code and changes to Mediawiki. While it may look like my proposals at the workshop are harsh, they're actually an effort to create a framework which will give you no more than a slap on the wrist and an "admonishment", and won't end up in you being kicked off Misplaced Pages altogether—not wanting to state the obvious, but you may want to consider what Betacommand, Kumioko, Lightmouse and Rich Farmborough have in common.

It may be because Arbcom's members tend to come from the manual-editing side of Misplaced Pages (either content writing or dispute resolution) and don't really understand the role automation plays—coupled with a general distrust of any case revolving around scripts and code doing unpredictable things, stemming from the general exasperation with the infobox wars and with Wikidata parking their tanks on Misplaced Pages's lawn—but Arbcom's default position in any "bot editor vs manual editor" dispute is going to be that the bot is in the wrong. (Also, bear in mind that those committee members like Drmies who come from an article-writing background are by default going to have a deeply negative view of AWB, as like every other person with a lot of articles on their watchlist AWB to them is "that script which keeps plastering my articles with inappropriate maintenance tags, adding and removing spaces for no good reason, and 'fixing' non-existent typos".) Consequently, what you need to be doing is demonstrating that regardless of why the problems are happening your bots are going to stop causing problems; the committee members have all been around long enough to know that there are plenty of people like MZMcBride who run shedloads of bots with minimal complaints, so the "there will be unavoidable collateral damage to civilians but it's worthwhile if it secures the strategic objectives" argument isn't likely to go down well.

It's not really appropriate for this conversation to be taking place here rather than on one of the case pages or talkpages (and it's certainly not appropriate for you to be providing separate evidence to individual arbitrators); I'd suggest if you do want to discuss aspects of the case, you do so on the workshop page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis as appropriate. While I don't for a moment think you're deliberately doing anything untoward (this is a singularly poor page to post to if you're trying to evade scrutiny), by posting on user talk pages rather than the case pages there's the potential appearance that you're trying to avoid public scrutiny of your comments, and as the accused party you want to avoid even the hint that you're trying to affect the result through back-channels. ‑ Iridescent 11:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm maybe I shouldn't comment here either, but let me just say real quick that yes, I am from a content background, but I don't have a deeply negative view of AWB. I think it is a very useful tool, certainly in principle. Ha, I have a bigger problem with SineBot, which frequently interferes with my attempts to roll back forum edits on talk pages and stuff like that. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

And Magioladitis, please take Iridescent's advice about what to post where to heart. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Drmies Yes, that SineBot thing is a nuisance which Materialscientist also mentioned in the case request as it hampers anti-vandalism efforts. I did find phab:T16211 which is the bug to fix that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

BGBot (or whatever it is) is my annoyance. I remain unconvinced that running a bot whose only change is to move a full stop from outside to inside the reference is a neccessary bot task. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Although I can appreciate the work it does, Internet Archive Bot would be my main irritation at present, especially as it seems the answer to attempting to fix some of the errors it causes is to have yet another BOT (Wayback Medic?) follow along behind it while other errors/bugs languish on Phabricator. I'd also add AnomieBot doing the substitution of templates over and over again on the same page rather than making the changes in one go. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC) At this rate, we'll have managed to list almost every BOT ...

As mentioned elsewhere, ListeriaBot is my pet hate at the moment; it would be fine if it stuck to its alleged purpose of generating internal lists for projects, but it's been let loose on the mainspace without consultation or approval. If I saw a human making edits like these, I'd have blocked them for disruption long ago. While he's not an actual bot as such, the person (whom I won't name, but I'm sure you're all wearily aware of by now) who is using a script to add a comma after every occurrence of "Subsequently" and "Meanwhile" is also coming a little closer to being sent to join Betacommand each time I see his name pop up on my watchlist. ‑ Iridescent 16:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Why? And why United States of America and not United States of America? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

On Wikidata, I can see that enforcing disambiguation of "United States" to "United States of America" does make a certain sense; that has to cater for projects in multiple languages covering a near-infinite variety of topics, and there have been quite a few other countries which have been called "United States" at some point; on en-wiki we can take it as read that the reader will know that "United States" without qualification will always mean the USA, but on a Greek-language biography of someone from Corfu, "he was born in the United States" could reasonably be a reference to the United States of the Ionian Islands. This is yet another problem with the Wikidata tail wagging the Misplaced Pages dog—the way their data is structured makes sense for them, but not for us, but because they've shoehorned their advocates into so many positions of authority once they get their claws into anything on en-wiki they're harder to get rid of than herpes. (Look at how much time and effort the relatively straightforward task of kicking the Wikidata bots off List of women linguists took.) ‑ Iridescent 17:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(adding) If there's anyone who doubts the proposition that "Bot operators are arrogant, out of control, and have complete contempt for the concerns of anyone else, and the BAG just acts as a bunch of cronies rubber-stamping each others' proposals regardless of anyone else's concerns", I advise you to have a good long look at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/ListeriaBot. I'm sure you will all be as shocked as I am to discover who it was that approved that particular bot despite the bot operator himself openly admitting that he was going to ignore anyone else's concerns and run the bot whether or not it was approved. ‑ Iridescent 17:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm rather confused, if a human editor consistantly inserted incorrectly sourced information into a list, after other human editors had removed it for being incorrect, they would be blocked very quickly. As far as I was aware, Bot owners are responsible for their bots. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I certainly would be happy to vote in an RfC on articles auto-created from Wikidata... have any more been created since the AfDs on those two articles? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: You're too late, the RFC has already happened. The issue is that the bot operators are just ignoring it and carrying on as if it never happened. ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

So correct me if I am wrong: A bot is creating a list of (in some cases living) people which includes biographical information, photos, and zero references? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup—the way the citogenesis is working here is that Wikidata imports from Misplaced Pages (any language, and regardless of the quality of sourcing for the information), and then the bot vomits it back out onto en-wiki, and from then on will revert any attempt by anyone on en-wiki to remove or edit it unless they also edit the underlying Wikidata information (which virtually nobody on Misplaced Pages, even the experienced editors, has any idea how to do). My previous thoughts on the matter are here. ‑ Iridescent 17:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(adding) It looks like Fram has just disabled the bot on every mainspace page on which it was operating, but I've no real doubt someone will try to sneakily re-enable it at some point when they think nobody's looking. ‑ Iridescent 18:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Is that code for 'he blocked it' or is there a neat trick somewhere I am missing? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No—he's manually removed {{Wikidata list}} from each of the pages in question, which takes it off the bot's hit-list. That still allows the bot to perform it's intended purpose, of generating "these are things on Wikidata which you may want to consider adding to Misplaced Pages" lists for Wikiprojects, which blocking it outright would prevent. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I am kind of afraid what phab:T152743 will lead to, considering all the issues mentioned so far with Wikidata. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh good—so the commitment to accuracy and ethics that led to this lasting over two years because loads of people had seen it, but because it was on Wikidata nobody knew how to fix it is going to be forcibly imposed on the sixth largest website in the world? What could possibly go wrong? ‑ Iridescent 09:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

For the WMF? I imagine a challenge to their 'We are not responsible' get out of jail free card. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that my comment was about "In the case of complaints against bots, the complaint should be presumed valid by default and the onus on the bot operator to convince the community either that the complaint is baseless or the bug in question has been fixed". The "or" is the problem I think. In all cases I have fixed the bug in question still some community members were still complaining. i.e. to fix the bug in question may be not enough. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent, WTF? Please tell me about the comma--I got a bone to pick with overcommaers, as do you, I suspect. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a result of the string <Typo word="Furthermore," find="\b(Accordingly| Consequently| Even\s+so| Furthermore| In\s+other\s+words|Indeed| Meanwhile(?!\s+Gardens)| Moreover| Nevertheless| On\s+the\s+other\s+hand| Therefore| For\s+example| Subsequently(?!\s+(?:enacted|renamed|told)))(?=\s)" replace="$1,"/> in the AWB regex. (When I said unless and until the nettle of AWB's scope creep is grasped, any remedies will be akin to fighting a forest fire by focusing on individual trees, I wasn't joking; a hell of a lot of what looks like problems caused by individual editors or misprogrammed bots are in fact issues with the AWB devs trying to "solve" issues which nobody but them see as problems.) That means that if if finds any of the aforementioned words with a capital letter, it will automatically put a comma after it, even if it's a fragment like "Subsequently sold" in a table. Most of AWB's users have the common sense to disregard it every time it tries to make this particular "correction", but two editors—both of whom have been here long enough to know better—machine-gun accept it. (You can figure out who the worst offenders are just by looking at the archives of Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos, doing a ctrl-f on "hyphen" and "comma", and looking to see who's squawking the loudest about how this punctuation-bloat is absolutely vital because some page they found somewhere on the internet says that having lots of commas and dashes makes you look clever, and that false positives are just a nasty myth put about by bad people.) I was completely serious in my "nuclear option" proposal at the workshop with regards to AWB, and would seriously consider taking it further and disabling every piece of functionality it currently has and only re-enabling them one by one as consensus is demonstrated for each option, and removing every single entry from the typo regex that isn't an actual typo. (If you have a very long memory, you may recall that I once disabled Huggle project-wide—there comes a point when one has to call the script-coders' "without my tool the wiki will fall apart!" bluffs.) ‑ Iridescent 00:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(adding) Per my comment to Hasteur above, there are quite a few AWB users who just click "accept" to every single suggestion despite the fact that two seconds looking at the proposed change would show that it's obviously inappropriate. (, and those are just the four examples I found immediately and none of them is from the two worst offenders. If you go to WP:WBE, pick any name at random from near the top, and check their history, you'll almost certainly find a dozen more within a minute.) ‑ Iridescent 00:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Minimal complaints? I've been party to at least three cases before the kangaroo court! :-) Focusing on the use of AWB or any other editing tool misses the point, perhaps. After all, we have plenty of stupid manual edits. It's not really about what tool the editor is using, it's about the quality of the edits. A lot of AWB edits should not be necessary at all. An easy recent example I found is documented at phabricator:T154346.

The "ie" --> "i.e." and "Eg" --> "E.g." changes really are quite special. It's easy to marvel at that level of stupidity. It doesn't take a computer science degree to know that blindly applying find and replace across encyclopedia article text is a terrible idea. Sheesh.

Regarding Wikidata, I think this is a bit too harsh. Wikidata still shows great potential, in my opinion, but I agree with having completely lost patience with the incredibly slow development efforts, including the integration, such that it is, between Misplaced Pages and Wikidata. You may find mailarchive:wikitech-l/2016-December/087206.html interesting; it includes a discussion of ListeriaBot. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Weeelllll… This is hyperbole, but I stand behind the sentiment. Wikidata looked great on paper, but it hasn't delivered, and it's long past the point when its enthusiasts can keep claiming "growing pains" an an excuse. At the same point in en-wiki's lifespan, we had 13,000 active editors, and we didn't have the benefit of a top-ten website constantly plugging us. Wikidata is effectively moribund, but the handful of remaining enthusiasts have dug in their heels and insist their concerns take priority over those of Misplaced Pages and Commons. The stats suggesting they have c. 6500 active editors look impressive but are totally phoney. Every time a page is deleted or renamed on any other WMF project, the deletion is logged as a Wikidata edit by the deleting admin, which adds up very quickly over the 820 WMF projects. (I'm shown as having well over 1000 edits there, for instance, despite never once editing there or even registering an account. Even Newyorkbrad, who has never shown the slightest interest in it and I doubt would recognize Wikidata if its source code were tattooed on his inner thighs without anaesthetic, is shown as an contributor there. ‑ Iridescent 11:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)) ‑ Iridescent 11:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Rammstein article

Why you've deleted the "Herzeleid tour"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.222.62 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

For the reasons that you're perfectly well aware of, since you must have read the deletion log entry to see that it was me who deleted it. It consisted in its entirety of a setlist, a list of tour dates and a completely unreferenced block of text. Misplaced Pages is not Wikia; we only host material on demonstrably noteworthy topics sourced to independent reliable sources and not general fan commentary or indiscriminate lists of information. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Concert Tours#Notability for an explanation of the (relatively rare) occasions when we can host an article on an individual concert tour. ‑ Iridescent 21:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree completely, otherwise you have to also delete the other tour, so the article on an important band regresses further information ... Lots of bands have the tour article that are in the same situation (if not worse) of Herzeled tour but were not deleted. I kindly ask that the page is restored, which gives no discomfort. Sorry for my english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.222.62 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll treat this as a contested deletion and restore it and nominate it for an AFD debate to get broader input. ‑ Iridescent 22:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.222.62 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Misclick

Mobile mis-click, apologies. Kuru (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, it happens—I doubt anyone will lose sleep over a misplaced comma. ‑ Iridescent 22:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)