User talk:Jonesey95

Jump to navigation Jump to search
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 100 days will be automatically archived to User talk:Jonesey95/Archive2020. Archives prior to 2014 were compiled manually; search them via the box at the right.

Manganese, Minnesota[edit]

Hi Jonesey. I know you're on a break, but when you have time, care to do a copy edit of Manganese, Minnesota? You were one of the copy editors for Elcor, Minnesota a few years ago, and helped bring it to feature article status. After you have a peak, I'm planning on submitting it for peer review. Stay well during these interesting times! DrGregMN (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. It needs a sentence or two early in the article explaining why the town was created in the first place. It becomes obvious after a while, but it should be mentioned sooner. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Jonesey! You have a gift. I really love having you copy edit my prose. DrGregMN (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
That's nice of you to say. As I recently told a friend of mine whose novel I copy-edited, it's actually a curse rather than a gift. It makes it hard to read just about anything, because the grammar and usage errors pop out at me! I typically find a copy-editing error every 10 to 50 pages in popular mass market fiction books that have gone through multiple printings. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jonesey. Manganese, Minnesota has been through peer review and I put it up for GA nomination. The article has been expanded with additional text since you last looked at it. Could I ask you for another peek? Thanks in advance! DrGregMN (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
DrGregMN: Done. It was my pleasure. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Jonesey95. Could I please ask that you add this page to your watch list? I have made many revisions at the request of peer review as I have submitted this article for GA nomination. However, I will not be submitting it for FA consideration until the Minnesota Historical Society reopens after the COVID-19 pandemic since it will still need specific page citations from historical news articles. Regards, DrGregMN (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Requesting another copy edit! Regards, DrGregMN (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I have had the page on my watchlist, and I haven't seen anything I objected to. I think I dropped in for an edit or two. If reviewers have specific problems with the copy, ping me from the review page and I will take a look. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, I couldn't resist. I gave it a quick copy editing pass. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Page has been through GA review. I have addressed the reviewers criticisms and am awaiting a final determination. Please feel free to check prose. There are other references I wish to add before submitting for FAC, but need to wait until they can be sourced (the Minnesota Historical Society is still closed due to the COVID pandemic). Regards, DrGregMN (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15 § Template:Use shortened footnotes[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15 § Template:Use shortened footnotes. Peaceray (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Another Barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you for your most recent copy edits of the article Manganese, Minnesota! DrGregMN (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Community Film[edit]

Hi! Wanted to check in about this decline. I'm not actually questioning it, but wondered if you knew the history. The article (main space and current draft) appears to be some original research around the topic that they want to add to Wikipedia. Whether or not it's a G12, the material doesn't seem appropriate IMO. Disclosure, I was original AfD nom as well. Thanks and courtesy @Dan arndt:. StarM 17:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw the AfD, and I looked at the history of the article and of the academia page. WP:BACKWARDSCOPY can be tricky to figure out, so the speedy nomination was understandable. If you think that the current page should be deleted from Wikipedia because it is original research, I think there is a process for that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it will end up back at AfD if it's accepted into mainspace, but possible others will have different takes on it as you did here. StarM 18:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a "take" on it. All I did was remove an inappropriately applied speedy deletion template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I noticed the off-wiki page claims the text was copied from a 2010 blog post and posted without permission as a WP article in July 2011. I can't confirm the reliability of this claim and I've no intention of searching for the claimed original. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Baffle gab1978:. That seems to give some credence to the G12. It's a complicated mess that like you I'm not particularly interested in handling unless it goes into main space. StarM 01:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I admit that I only undertook a cursory assessment - the copyvios report came out as 97.7% copied from external sources, namely Defining Film. I note that that source states "This text of this article was previously available on my community blog in 2010 and was subsequently posted as a Wikipedia article. (18 July 2011)". The question then arises is Filmpartscom the same as the source article's creator, Dr. I. D. McCormick, and as such is it actually original research? I guess I will leave that up to others to make that call. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I've dropped a permalink to this on the Talk so others who wander by see this history. Thanks all StarM 13:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Image PRODs[edit]

Apologies if I've been incorrectly tagging things, but at what point is something not functionally in use? One of the two images, for instance, is a logo created for a user's page, and said user has not been active for 10 years. Does it being put on a user page mean it stays around forever? It has no encyclopedic use anywhere else, and therefore shouldn't be moved to Commons. Is it just going to sit forever just because somebody decided almost 15 years ago that they wanted it there?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I really just want to know the best way to handle it, because leaving them tagged to move to Commons forever isn't a solution. --fuzzy510 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know much about File space, but I presume there is a way to tag files to say "this was tagged as a potential move to Commons, but it should stay here on en.WP". If not, a way to do that should be created. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Fuzzy510: I found it! {{Esoteric file}} is for files that are Wikipedia-specific. That is the template for a logo that exists on one user's page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020.

                 Current and upcoming events

September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today!

Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

Drive and Blitz reports

June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here.

August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Other news

June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated!

Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Steven Umbrello[edit]

Jonesey95, given your experience, and after reviewing your work, I would appreciate some help editing two bio pages that I made (Still new at this).


Do you think you can make some edits to polish these up or at least give me some feedback as to what I can do to make them better? EthicsScholar93 (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Umbrello: The overall format is pretty good. Use the person's last name instead of his first name, per MOS:SURNAME. I haven't checked the sources in detail, but I can't tell if this person meets the general notability guidelines. If he does, the article should make that more clear.
Friedman: does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG notability standards, so the article might be nominated for deletion. Format looks OK but could be tidied up: please see MOS:CURLY and MOS:SECTIONCAPS for guidance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
amazing, thank you so much for the feedback. The lighter edits I have made accoring to your suggestions. The more substantive stuff will take a bit of time to tidy up! EthicsScholar93 (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you help with Template:NATO command structure?[edit]

WRT Template:NATO command structure

Under JFC-NF Norfolk, Virginia, US

The Coat of Arms of JFC-NF does not link to the Joint Force Command Norfolk page. When I try to standardise it with the above similar I failed. Can you help standardise it so the small Coat of Arms links to JFC-NF page? I'm not an expert with templates? Feel free to edit my File:Joint Force Command Norfolk badge.png file here. Or on wiki commons ? Thank You.

BlueD954 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much. BlueD954 (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Another request for Template:NATO command structure[edit]

Hi Jonesey95

Template:NATO command structure

Could you shift JFCNP Allied Joint Force Command Naples and Joint Force Command Norfolk under JFCBS Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum? This the the proper arrangement see JFCBS, JFCNP and JFC-NP are operational-level commands while AIRCOM, MARCOM and LANDCOM are tactical level commands. I don't want to mess up the chart. Thank you!!!

BlueD954 (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That is beyond my abilities. I suggest that you ask for help at Template talk:Tree chart. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Seoul School of Integrated Sciences and Technologies[edit]

I am trying to create a new wiki page for our University ( This is my first time trying to work in Wikipedia and I am using this page as a model: Yet, every time I try to improve the page and address the problems, you delete everything. You don't even leave the photos, logo or school info. Why can't you just delete what you think is not appropriate instead of all the content? Can you give some advise about how to fix the content so that is appropriate and you stop deleting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParosePhD (talkcontribs) 03:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:V, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, MOS:YOU, WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:COPYVIO. Those should provide some good advice for you. Content that is added needs to be sourced with references to reliable sources, formatted correctly (look at the wikicode for Cheung_Kong_Graduate_School_of_Business to see examples), and non-promotional. If the university is your employer, you also must read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before making any edits to the university's page.
Thanks for asking, and please respond here if you have further questions. Remember to sign your talk page posts by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~ – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

September 2020 GOCE drive bling[edit]

Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you (and Tdlsk) for giving out the leaderboard barnstars (and correcting my totals)! I've been updating my stats less so I wouldn't have to do it as often, but I'll do it a bit more frequently for the next drive.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

another code error[edit]

Steue (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

RE:Custom signature fix needed[edit]

Thanks for informing me. I've replaced my signature with the your fixed example. :) Teysz Kamieński (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Teysz Kamieński, it looks great! – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed it pasted the contents of my signature template onto your talk page. On the RuneScape Wiki (the independent one, not Fandom), we paste the template call onto talk/discussion pages and not the contents of it. And I was wondering which way is preferred on the English Wikipedia? Teysz Kamieński (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, it's seems 'SUBST:' is forced onto my signature regardless. Teysz Kamieński (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hellman Building, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Los Angeles Express.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


Hi. Could you fix up the sources for beaver so the formatting is consistent? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Probably not 100.00%, but pretty close. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but now I need a copyedit of the whole article. I nominated it already but it still takes a while for someone to respond. LittleJerry (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your cleanup help on article Casey Calvert (actress). Much appreciated, Right cite (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

{{lead too short}} revert[edit]


Just a ping to say I reverted the recent editprotected request you made to {{lead too short}}. Barely twelve hours of discussion (between only you and the requesting party, with no notifications elsewhere) is nowhere near enough to justify a significant reduction in the template's wording, and the requestee's further comments on talk are wildly out of line with the existing consensus on the template. Apologies for stepping on your toes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thumperward: Thanks for the note. My toes are fine; I don't take things personally on WP as long as editors engage in good faith. I disagree that the new wording, which you have reverted, represented a reduction in the template's message, since most of the reduction in word count came from removal of a redundant sentence. I think that the new wording actually added more words that explained the template's reason for existence more fully. In any event, let's not banter here; please propose new text that matches the name of the template on the template's talk page. I will be happy to engage there.
As for the requester's original suggestion and their other suggestions, you can see if you read that talk page that I disagreed with most of it, so you and I are probably more aligned than in opposition. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I think that too: I just didn't want to offend you. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Union générale des israélites de France[edit]

Hi @Jonesey95: The form for posting these types of tags is usually to wait until their has been no editing for a fews days or a week or so, not while they are away getting a cup of tea, dude. It just creates more work. I always references articles. I'm autopatrolled. So if you see me editing an article then you know it will be referenced, so please don't post these useless tags. scope_creepTalk 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If the article had been in Draft space, I would not have tagged it. If you choose to create an article and put it in article space before it is fully cleaned up and referenced, you are essentially inviting any other editor to edit and tag it.
Any page in article space, i.e. in the live encyclopedia that the whole world can see and that is supposed to meet WP:V, with unreferenced sections or stray numbers littering the prose is unprofessional and should be tagged as such. And now I'm off for my own cup of tea; thanks for the idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


Is there a way to encourage non Kannada users to give a say in the deletion discussion? The users stating keep are all Kannada users. Thank you.TamilMirchi (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Post a neutral note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. A "neutral note" means something like "There is a deletion discussion about Hanumanthegowda at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanumanthegowda. Interested editors are encouraged to participate." A non-neutral note would be something like "Hey guys, can you please go over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanumanthegowda and vote to keep the article?" – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for letting me know. Done Removed Bloodlust Zombies for now. What do you think of the new article so far? Right cite (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Which new article? I keep getting distracted by all of your porn stars.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Bloodlust Zombies. Right cite (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I love that there is so much academic commentary on this B movie. Publish or perish (which also might be a good name for a zombie grad school comedy). – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Great idea! Right cite (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete unsupported parameters[edit]

and if possible, delete unsupported parameters ... thank you! Is there a way to tell AWB to do this as part of general fixes? TerraCyprus (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't use AWB, but you could ask at the talk page for Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters if that page could be used to delete, rather than rename, empty unsupported parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you will think this is overdoing it[edit]

... but I was thinking what a fool I made of myself the other day. Last apology. EEng 10:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's not get drastic.

Edit conflicts[edit]

Hello Jonesey95, thank you for reviewing my edit. I think it is important to distinguish between an edit conflict and conflicts that are substantial and need to be sorted out between minds of good intent. An edit conflict is just a clusterfail of too many edits at the same time. I plan to just revert your undo. my edit is short and important. do you still feel strongly that my contribution should be struck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmic (talkcontribs) 11:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Electricmic (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey95 maybe the term "edit conflict" should be changed to "concurrent edits problem"

I asked you to discuss your proposed change on the talk page, Help talk:Edit conflict. Click on the "New section" link there and propose a specific change. Changing the concise summary of a long-standing page is probably not optimal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October blitz bling[edit]

Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling between 1 and 1,999 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE October 2020 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

And thanks for handing out the awards! Tdslk (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! On to November. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Rollover Number[edit]


Sorry for the error on the rollover total. I have no idea how these numbers work. I had a rollover number for September's drive of 1405660.5 which ended up as 17992.5 for the forthcoming drive. I assumed there was a typo. Thanks for catching my mistake.


Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The mystery deepens! I was trusting the "0" in the previous rollover count, but of course that was wrong. I went back to the July drive Barnstars page and found the correct number. I think it's all fixed up now. We're going to have to make a new barnstar for you if you hit two million words; we should have done it at a million. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Thanks for checking this out. A barnstar is really unnecessary, but I appreciate the thought. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


I just noticed your changes at {{ANNO}}. Are you going to monitor the tracking category? Did you notice the doc page says "If papers are missing please report this at the discussion page; they can then be quickly added." But since the linked talk page doesn't exist on en.wp, I didn't believe reporting it there would result in a quick fix. :) It will probably be years before this happens again. Thanks for adding the missing periodical. MB 20:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There is not a convenient way to watchlist a single category page for changes to its contents, but I put a note on that page saying to post on the talk page (which I just created). I also have that template and talk page on my watchlist. I agree that it probably won't happen again for many years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


Hello. Would you mind cleaning up the source formatting for scorpion? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. It wasn't too bad. Diffs here; let me know if I missed anything or made any errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:UK stations with missing location[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:UK stations with missing location requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

font size[edit]

Hello, saw you changed a font size for a catalog number. I often see a smaller font for catalog numbers (especially with jazz albums), so was wondering if there is an actual consensus in regard to this specific example. Of course, per a recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, catalog numbers themselves have been up for debate. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I expect that I explained the reason for my edit in the edit summary. In any event, always link to a diff, or at least to an article, when you have a question about a particular edit that someone has made. I have edited over 100,000 different articles, so there is no chance that I will recall the edit that you are describing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I see, and of course you have edited these 100,000 articles within the past 24 hours... Take care. Caro7200 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
??? You came to me with a question. If you want an answer, I have explained how to help me provide one. I can't read minds or otherwise inhabit your consciousness. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Paschimbhag copperplate inscription[edit]

Thanks for editing in Paschimbhag copperplate inscription. I worked a month long on the related article on Bengali Wikipedia to make it a GA. But when I translated it to enwiki, it looks too messy like my grammar. :( Can you please help me by copyediting the article. It also needs to be reviewed. Thank you once again. AdiBhai (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

on math[edit]

Regarding math, 1. I anticipate someone reverting you. 2. However, even should that occur, the actual correct solution to indenting with colons is to change <math> to <math display="block">. 3. I vaguely recall a somewhat contentious discussion in the talk archived on the point in fairly recent memory.

Just letting you know. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't know why I would be reverted for recommending a seamless (as far as I can tell) change that improves HTML validity and accessibility. As for display="block", I tried that (see the last section), and it has problems when there is additional content following the math formula, like a reference. Wrapping the whole line in a div looks like the best way to maintain the desired formatting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
But is objectionable for worse reasons to the same people who rejected a fix to affected guidelines pages prior. I assert content should generally not follow a formula in the same way we do not generally follow blockquotes with content (or at least references, since those are not part of the quotations in such cases. --Izno (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Your solution also does not play so nicely with VE which can't deal with the math inside a template natively, but can in either the prior form or the display form. --Izno (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
References can go inline inside of block content if it makes sense for them to be there. See Template:Quote#Reference citations for just one example of recommended and semantically valid usage that is common throughout en.WP.
As for a recommendation that improves accessibility and semantic validity but is incompatible due to a bug in, or inadequate programming of, the beta Visual Editor, that's how it goes with beta software; there are plenty of higher-priority VE bugs in phabricator that have gone unfixed for years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

Hi Jonesey, hope all is well. I just wanted to mention (regarding the Infobox Christian leader discussion) that in my experience, I've generally found it good practice to avoid completing an edit request that another admin or template editor is already involved in responding to. It avoids confusion. Just a helpful tip I've gleaned. Cheers, Ergo Sum 18:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. FWIW, I have found it helpful to mark template edit requests as "answered=yes" if a consensus has not yet been reached. That way, TPEs and admins who have User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable on their watchlists won't be made aware of the edit request before it is ready for action.
The conversation looked like it had reached consensus, and the edit request was marked as unanswered (which is supposed to happen only if there is consensus or a non-controversial request), so I implemented it after testing it in the sandbox (the sandbox had not been edited, so I figured that no template editors were involved in the conversation yet; checking the user rights of all of the conversation participants is beyond what I am willing to do for an easy request). It was no big deal to undo the edit, and I certainly don't take any of it personally. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

More lint errors emerging from {{self}}[edit]

Thank you for fixing the various templates that included

:::::This template should only be used on image pages.

There are related markup issues. User talk:Mifter/Archive Undated includes the markup {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL|migration=not eligible}}, which has a Multiline table in list lint error coming from the markup

:::::This template should only be used on file pages.

You can find templates with this markup using insource search for ":::::This template should only be used on file pages.". The first such template I looked at is {{Cc-by-2.0}}, which is protected, so I can't edit it. So, I'm messaging you. It would be slightly more grammatical to say, "This template should be used only on file pages." I would move "only" in the "image pages" templates also. And looking beyond these two group of templates, I note that the search can be expanded to

insource search for ":::::This template should only be used on", with over 100 hits. Some of these templates may be triggering Multiline table in list lint errors. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll take a look. This may take a bit of time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wanted templates[edit]

I am assuming you are working from "User:Plastikspork/Transclusions of deleted templates/1" and not "Special:WantedTemplates"? I find the former much easier to parse. thanks for the help. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I was working from the Special list, and have done so irregularly over the past 2+ years when I have remembered its existence. It has improved greatly in the last couple of years!
I saw a recent conversation on Plastikspork's user talk page, saying that a few gnomes were trying to get the Special list reduced to the point where it listed every transcluded redlinked template, so I decided to dive in and see what was happening. I worked from the Special list for a while; it is useful for seeing big batches of bad template calls outside of article space, like all of the failed Ping* templates that were fixed today or the pile of failed Cite* template calls that I fixed in the last day or two. (Or the Non-free* and PD* template calls that are cluttering up File: space....)
Now I am working off of User:Plastikspork/Transclusions of deleted templates/1, as you guessed. It is very satisfying to fix three-year-old bad template calls in article space, and we only have about 500 left, plus the ones that come after "P" in the alphabet. I like that it refreshes more than once a month! Waiting on database dumps can get frustrating.
Is there a talk page where these template calls are being discussed? All of the ones I have fixed so far have been pretty easy to fix or delete, but I am sure that we will run into some that look fixable but that we can't figure out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The lists in User:Plastikspork/Transclusions of deleted templates started as just a sorted version of WP:Database reports/Transclusions of deleted templates but I expanded it to include Special:WantedTemplates. It caches the lists, and I manually purge the cache when it becomes too long. Unfortunately, it won't add any entries that haven't already been seen on either WP:Database reports/Transclusions of deleted templates or Special:WantedTemplates. I tried to use to generate new lists, but it times out most of the time. The "refreshing" happens when I re-run the script that generates my version of the merged lists. I don't know of a good central location to discuss the clean up. Let me know if there is one. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Both of you are welcome to come to this talk page to discuss tricky transclusions of non-existent templates. So far, I am cherry-picking easy ones. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
What do the two of you think about excluding User sandbox pages, like User:Daykala/sandbox, from Plastikspork's transclusion report? I don't think that we have a valid reason to be messing around with users' sandboxes; I know that I often deliberately create errors in mine, and I wouldn't want someone coming in to tidy it up unless it was actually breaking something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I typically look at "User contributions" for the user to see if the user has made any recent contributions. If the page is old and the editor hasn't been around, then I don't see a problem with tidying it up. The edits can always be reverted, and it helps get us closer to the goal of having a "Special:WantedTemplates" that isn't maxed out. If the user is actively editing it, sometimes they appreciate fixing the errors (like User:Keivan.f/Works), but in many cases I just skip over it and go to the next one. Note that I am already filtering out ".js" pages and about a dozen pages where I know that the user objects to changes. I can certainly add a particular page where appropriate. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am in agreement with getting Special:WantedTemplates to the point where we can see the whole report. I am optimistic enough to think that we have done enough work in the last two weeks that we will reach that goal at the next refresh. I even did some searching in article space for strings like "Template:W" and "Template:S" to try to find unused templates that were not on the report yet. I found about 50 pages with errors that way. If you know of any good tricks for searching for something like "Template:T*" in article space, I'd be interested to hear about them. [Update: Searching for "Template:The" (with quote marks) in article space found me 35 articles to fix. Other words starting with Q through Z will probably have results as well. I found and fixed 100 articles just now using this search method. I should probably just wait for the next report.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
If I recall, a month ago, Special:WantedTemplates went up to "mid M" and now it is up to "mid P" so I predict it will be up to "mid T" next refresh, but we shall see :) By the way, a favorite that is continuously popping up can be found with this search or maybe with some variant of this search. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
That second http search is a bottomless pit! It times out with 20 or so results, and after I fix those, it times out again with 20 more. I have submitted a query request after fixing 80+ articles in batches of about 20. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Re making it to "mid-T": I am a bit more optimistic, but I just stumbled across a bunch of missing userbox templates that start with "User"; I wouldn't be surprised if the end of the list was somewhere in that batch in the next refresh. There are going to be a lot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Re the user sandbox pages, I was completely wrong. Most of them need the unknown template at the top of the page replaced with {{user sandbox}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Tricky templates[edit]