Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:29, 7 November 2008

Template:Werdnabot

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Real-life workload: 9.5

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

Your edits to 1998 in spaceflight and 1999 in spaceflight

Hi. I noticed you unlinked dates in 1998 in spaceflight and 1999 in spaceflight. WP:MOSNUM states that "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so". The articles in question are parts of a timeline, and therefore the dates are relevant. I feel that this is a suitable reason to make an exception. Do you have any objection if I re-link them. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked at the articles concerned, and I would have delinked them myself. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your objection, but the delinking does not affect the time line in any way, because the dates, times and positioning are all left intact. If perhaps greater emphasis is what you are seeking, then perhaps you should consider putting the dates into bold type. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• • My objection is that since this is a timeline, users reading it should be able to easily access the articles related to dates. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 07:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You want to relink the dates? Why? The dates might be relevant to the article (of course they are), but why are the pages "January 5" or "1981" relevant? Can you provide examples of the claimed relevance? Tony (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • We link to the places where the events happened. Why not link to when they happened as well? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We link to where only where it will significantly add to the reader's understanding of the topic. We do not link to the names of commonly known countries, cities, oceans, etc. Please see WP:CONTEXT. Again, can you provide examples of date links that do this? Tony (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• 2007 in architecture, 2007 in art, 2007 in poetry, 2007 in music. Need I continue? Also, please can I know why you have decided to continue with the disputed action with regard to similar articles (ie. ones part of the same timeline), en mass, whilst our discussion on the matter is ongoing. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that the "year-in-X" links were part of that script function, and will check with Lightmouse. But there is a recommendation against hidden links that look like a trivial solitary year-link. Is that what you're referring to? If so, it would be much better to let the readers know what it's actually linked to rather than concealing it. Tony (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, my point is that the "year-in-X" articles should contain links to dates, as they are articles about events in a period of time. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Um ... there's a large nav box at the top of each of those articles with links to more year-articles than you could poke a stick at. Why do you want to clutter the inline text with redundant links? Tony (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not the issue. I give up trying to explain it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • No, please do persist. I'm keen that we work out ways of improving the formatting of year-in-X and, particularly, timeline articles. I have in mind an extra facility in Lightmouse's monobook script that would format the date fragments that so often open each factoid. And I really don't understand why we need 2007 in the opening sentence at the top, when the link is adjacent in the box. Tony (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • My position is that while it would be inappropriate to link to dates in articles discussing a specific subject, articles which relate to time, including chronologies and timelines, should link to dates as they are relevant to the passage of time, and particularly relevant to the times and dates when events occurred. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but right at the top in the opening sentence as an unvarying formula, with the nav box just under? That's my particular issue here. Are you aware of this? Tony (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Consistency script

I would be interested in taking a look at the script pair to make the dates consistent. Just let me know what needs to be imported. Thanks, –xeno (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond my knowledge; I'll ask Lightmouse to look into this. Tony (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Delinking script

Hey Tony, I have a question about that date-delinking script. I'm not sure if you're the original writer of it, but anyway, the script seemed to mess up this edit, adding stray "x"s around the dates. Can this be fixed? Thanks, –Juliancolton 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, the 'xx' was not intended. A new feature was being added to the code and that bug crept in. The bug was only present for a few minutes. You were just unlucky to be using it at that time. Fixed now. Feedback like that is always welcome in case something hasn't been spotted. Lightmouse (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. –Juliancolton 02:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

books to read for 1a?

Hi Tony,

what books should I read (books, not wiki links) to help me be at better judge of 1a? Thanks Ling.Nut 16:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ling.nut, let me ask Noetica, the ultimate guru; he's on an extended wikibreak, but I'm in contact with him. Tony (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Noetica says, "alas, there's a shortage of the type of book you want. I'm all for structured show-and-tell exerices, and the instruction that arises by observing the diff from a good copy-editor of your draft text. I guess this shortage is why I prepared my five tutorial pages. Tony (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

Please, where was there a discussion with more than twelve editors supporting this change? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Try this for starters, gathered only at the very beginning. Tony (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've actually read this page recently, but many of the supporters seemed to be under the belief that autoformatting would never work for unregistered users. As you may or may not be aware I've recently left comments at WT:MOSNUM offering my services to "fix" this (as well as a comment by a dev with SVN access to MediaWiki indicating such changes would not be hard to do). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You were claiming there was no support for ending DA. As for the scheme to resurrect it from the grave: there are several reasons this will not work. I suggest you join me on trying to make year pages better instead of wasting time on a non-problem. Tony (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly a lot of "support" spread out over many pages isn't exactly the kind of thing you go using to make large changes to the 'pedia. Most changes of this scale require a straw poll of some sorts that runs for at least a week and typically involves over a hundred editors (the more the better). And please be careful when "quoting" me; I never said there was "no support", only that it was not enough for this kind of large change. Date autoformatting is important enough to put a stop to this while the developer avenue is further explored. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the proportion of readers it actually affects, no, it isn't. Trebor (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dash check

Is this title correct? East-West Schism SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Read fully

Where did that come from? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates in other wikis

As one who is very active in dates per WP:MOSNUM, would you know if the same rules apply to other wikis? For example, should I delink dates in the Simple English Misplaced Pages, like in this article as I would if the article were in the English Misplaced Pages? Or should there be a separate discussion and consensus in that wiki first? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Such decisions are taken separately in each wiki; all Wikipedias are independent, and the English one has no precedence or authority over the others. You should find the appropriate venue in the Simple English Misplaced Pages and raise the issue there. The good thing with smaller wikis is that they are more flexible, and decisions can be reached without the fuss and chaos we are familiar with here. This flexibility can somewhat counterweigh, I think, the general inertia; decisions can be taken, and thus applied, more easily. The de-linking of dates throughout the various Wikipedias will take time, sure, but I am certain that, in the end, selective linking will become the norm throughout the Mediawiki sites. Waltham, The Duke of 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that in the Danish MOSNUM, they seem to advise that full dates should be linked, even though only one format is used in Danish. Crazy ... did someone there mindlessly copy our own folly? Tony (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wagner

You edit pages on classical music so you will know the answer to this one, what is the name of the loud piece by Wagner with al the descending scales, not the famous bit from Tannhauser (I know that one) it sort of sounds like sex ought to be, if you know what I mean. Hope you can help. Giano (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Giano—glad to see you around. Hmmm ... Wagner's not my thing, beyond a professional obligation to know the minimum (when I was a musician). Aren't all Wagner's works loud and based on descending scales <grin>. I've completely lost interest in sex, which might account for my larger WP time budget. But even that is about to be severely constrained by RL work.

As compensation for drawing a nil with this musician, all I can offer is two W jokes:

1. The thing about Wagner's music is ... it's better than it sounds.
2. You know the feeling: the Wagner opera starts at 6pm. After two hours, you look at your watch and it's 20 past 6. Tony (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

I remember now that I had edited the introduction after the rest of the article was copyedited by another user. I was wondering if you could give the rest of it a brief skim and tell me if the same problems that you had with the lead (as you stated in the FAC) exist elsewhere in the article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Philip Larkin

If you've time please could you take a look first at Philip Larkin and then the discussion here. Thank you! almost-instinct 13:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FSC

I think it's equally clear either way, as long as we state one.

But I take it we are approaching this question using different analogies. See WP:RM or WP:AFD for the sort of discussions which do routinely use "as nom". FSC normally does not, like FAC, polish a nomination in many relatively small details; the nominees are sound files, and the most that can be tweaked is to filter out noise a time more or a time fewer. Therefore FSC must usually be an accept/decline decision like RM or AFD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FSC gobbleygook

Thanks. What do you think of Shoemaker's Holiday's voting proposal here? --Kleinzach 23:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova

Few of them are linking the dates again and again. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightmouse is linking the dates?. I thought he was on our side?. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah oops. I misread then. I though lightmouse and Colonies Chris was reverting and plus Tennis expert was undoing the changes. If Tennis expert continue it is best to contact an admin or a Bureaucrat. I still don't understand why people want dates to be linked. It looks better when not linked. Is delinking of date finalized?. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It enjoys wide community support, but there is a small band of very loud complainers at MOSNUM talk and a few other places. They're VERY upset that I've told them to stop sniping from their armchairs and do some work, for once. Tony (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you check my talk page. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Player Infobox - Manon Bollegraf

Hi there. I have been idly fixing up tennis players with an infobox when I come across them...but you just reverted the above player. Was it something that I had put in there...or was it because of TennisExpert...whom I notice there is a lot of discussion around...(and had edits in there...)
Could you let me know, if I did something formatically wrong?Mjquin_id (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a faint feeling something might have been wrong in that edit of mine. Can you simply revert it for now? Tony (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Date overlink in aftershock list

Thanks for cleaning up List of 2008 Sichuan earthquake aftershocks. But sorting by date in the resulting table no longer works so I had to revert the change for maintenance work. Please make another try after this round - make sure sorting by date still works. Sillyvalley (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this valuable feedback; thought we had it fixed. I'll let Lightmouse know. Tony (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Halloween Dispatch

... in case you want to look: Misplaced Pages:FCDW/October 27, 2008‎. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you don't have to work on this (it's very rough still, and both Jbmurray and Awadewit will begin to work on it in a few days), but can you contribute a catchy title? Misplaced Pages:FCDW/ElectionTFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting dates in templates

In the light of changes made so dates are no longer linked for auto-formatting, I was wondering if there was any kind of application that could run through an article and rewrite the dates in the date= and accessdate= fields... for example, 2008-08-04 to August 4, 2008. I was adding something to Valkyrie and wanted to revise the templates, though the manual update seemed time-consuming. Any suggestions? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The only way to do this would be to write a module for AWB or maybe a java script. Either way its doable. I will see if I can make it work but Lightmouse and Rjwilmsi are better at it than I.--Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, over at the WP:MUSICALS project, we have linked dates in the infoboxes of some of the musicals. Separately, I see that User:Paul A has been linking lots and lots of dates recently. I left him a note, but.... Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:HUSH and other important policies

I suggest that you read and become familiar with WP:HUSH, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL, among other important Misplaced Pages policies that you appear to be disregarding with regularity. Tennis expert (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with those policies, thank you very much. Tony (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle :o --Closedmouth (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pot and kettle, meet water.. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis stub rules?

Hey, can you tell me if you have a preference around placing the Tennis-Stub on a page? I have been placing it at the top - trying to increase visibility...but noticed some are getting moved to the bottom? (I would ask on the Talk:Tennis page, but not sure who actually goes there anymoreMjquin_id (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it Tennis expert who is doing this? If so, there'll be a dispute, since he has serious and troublesome ownership issues with the whole Tennis WikiProject. A lot of people are upset about his attitudes and actions WRT more than one matter. Tony (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lying is an element of incivility, which you have displayed a lot of recently. Have a look at this when you get the urge to trash talk yours truly again. Tennis expert (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So my post earlier today at your talk page, which I see you've scrubbed from the page, was "trash-talking"? Or was it "lying"? It's headed "Conciliatory potential". Please calm down and try to regain a sense of proportion; your behaviour is looking more and more manic. You're seeing everything as an attack on you by default. I'm sorry to see you in this state. Anything I can do to help? Tony (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MDD

Tony, Major depressive disorder has received a lot of edits since I suspect you last looked at it. Do you have time for a quick look or tune-up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert

I see he/she removed your warning to them from their talk page. Are we able to take action against his/her edits? - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. To the ANI. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Joel Selwood FA nomination

Hey there,

Given your previous inputs and edits to this article, you're invited to wander down and express your opinion toward this article's current FA nomination here. Cheers! Boomtish (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)