This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 2 November 2008 (→Date autoformatting: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:33, 2 November 2008 by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) (→Date autoformatting: response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one. |
 |
|---|
| 15 January 2025 |
|
Real-life workload: 3
- 1 = no work pressure
- 5 = middling
- > 5 = please don't expect much
- 10 = frenzied
Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.
| FACs and FARCs urgently requiring review | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
date changes
Please be aware that the changes you are making (script-assisted) to delinking dates per the latest MOS is leaving unformatted dates which may appear non-sensical to some readers. See, e.g., the recent change you made to 78th United States Congress. Those dates now need to be fixed. Please advise. Thank you.—Markles 14:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the ISO dates? Are you aware that our readers (and the many WPians who have not chosen date prefs and logged in) see only the raw date formatting. Removal of the square brackets has, indeed, brought home the issue.
- I think the ISO dates are unfortunate, since many (most?) readers won't understand them, in particular whether "1944-07-01" means January 7 or July 1. They also look bad against the publication details that come after them (e.g., "Sess. 2, Pub.L. 78-225, 58 Stat. 8"). It's a bore, I know, but are you interested in converting them to US format, to match the rest of the article? It can only be done manually.
- BTW, I think the Congress articles and those on Congressional Acts are an excellent achievement and an important resource. Well done. Tony (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Santa Maria, Bulacan
Hi can you help me editing the article Santa Maria, Bulacan? Pls change Its now conurbated with Metro Manilla to Its now conurbated with Metro Manila? I cant edit bcoz its too long, thanks. Secaundis (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Deprecation
I see no real change in meaning; we intend deprecated to mean "was once considered desirable, but it no longer is." It is therefore redundant; some people will also understand as much stronger than it is. Redundant and confusing language serves little purpose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
{{unicite}}
Since you seem to like the idea of that template, could you take a good look at the various outputs and find specific problems with them and suggest ways to fix them? ThanksHeadbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. It seems to have about 50 fields. I haven't a clue what it's all about, and I can't imagine why it's not much much easier just to type out a reference following a selected model. If you want me to comment, I'll need a step-by-step explanation of how you use it, what goes where goes when. I've never used a cite template before, and never will.
- Exemplification and an explicit narrative telling you how to use it would be required for me to understand. Tony (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well right now it's not so much about how to write stuff in (documentation will follow), but rather what gets out assuming you've entered the "correct information" (whatever that may be). So basically what the "job" entails is this. Look in the table of outputs, find what's wrong and how it should look. The more specific, the better. Comment in the relevant sections.
As far as using template, it's rather straigthfoward. Say you want to cite a book, its author its year and its publisher, you simply write {{unicite|author=J.Rockefeller |title=How to Kill Mammoths with Rockets |year=1975}} to produce Template:Unicite and that's all there is to it.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Kenyon College date audit
Hey, sorry, I pretty much had to undo your date/terms audit because it was right after another user had done a bunch of stuff messing up the article (POV, crazy formatting, etc.) and I reverted to an earlier version. So I didn't mean to be reverting you specifically. I will go back and clean up the overlinking and stuff, I just didn't want you to think I was reverting you. —Politizer /contribs 02:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to 1998 in spaceflight and 1999 in spaceflight
Hi. I noticed you unlinked dates in 1998 in spaceflight and 1999 in spaceflight. WP:MOSNUM states that "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so". The articles in question are parts of a timeline, and therefore the dates are relevant. I feel that this is a suitable reason to make an exception. Do you have any objection if I re-link them. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've looked at the articles concerned, and I would have delinked them myself. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your objection, but the delinking does not affect the time line in any way, because the dates, times and positioning are all left intact. If perhaps greater emphasis is what you are seeking, then perhaps you should consider putting the dates into bold type. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- My objection is that since this is a timeline, users reading it should be able to easily access the articles related to dates. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 07:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- You want to relink the dates? Why? The dates might be relevant to the article (of course they are), but why are the pages "January 5" or "1981" relevant? Can you provide examples of the claimed relevance? Tony (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- We link to the places where the events happened. Why not link to when they happened as well? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- We link to where only where it will significantly add to the reader's understanding of the topic. We do not link to the names of commonly known countries, cities, oceans, etc. Please see WP:CONTEXT. Again, can you provide examples of date links that do this? Tony (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- 2007 in architecture, 2007 in art, 2007 in poetry, 2007 in music. Need I continue? Also, please can I know why you have decided to continue with the disputed action with regard to similar articles (ie. ones part of the same timeline), en mass, whilst our discussion on the matter is ongoing. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was unaware that the "year-in-X" links were part of that script function, and will check with Lightmouse. But there is a recommendation against hidden links that look like a trivial solitary year-link. Is that what you're referring to? If so, it would be much better to let the readers know what it's actually linked to rather than concealing it. Tony (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, my point is that the "year-in-X" articles should contain links to dates, as they are articles about events in a period of time. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- We link to where only where it will significantly add to the reader's understanding of the topic. We do not link to the names of commonly known countries, cities, oceans, etc. Please see WP:CONTEXT. Again, can you provide examples of date links that do this? Tony (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Um ... there's a large nav box at the top of each of those articles with links to more year-articles than you could poke a stick at. Why do you want to clutter the inline text with redundant links? Tony (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the issue. I give up trying to explain it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, please do persist. I'm keen that we work out ways of improving the formatting of year-in-X and, particularly, timeline articles. I have in mind an extra facility in Lightmouse's monobook script that would format the date fragments that so often open each factoid. And I really don't understand why we need 2007 in the opening sentence at the top, when the link is adjacent in the box. Tony (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- My position is that while it would be inappropriate to link to dates in articles discussing a specific subject, articles which relate to time, including chronologies and timelines, should link to dates as they are relevant to the passage of time, and particularly relevant to the times and dates when events occurred. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the issue. I give up trying to explain it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but right at the top in the opening sentence as an unvarying formula, with the nav box just under? That's my particular issue here. Are you aware of this? Tony (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Consistency script
I would be interested in taking a look at the script pair to make the dates consistent. Just let me know what needs to be imported. Thanks, –xeno (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is beyond my knowledge; I'll ask Lightmouse to look into this. Tony (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Delinking script
Hey Tony, I have a question about that date-delinking script. I'm not sure if you're the original writer of it, but anyway, the script seemed to mess up this edit, adding stray "x"s around the dates. Can this be fixed? Thanks, –Juliancolton 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct, the 'xx' was not intended. A new feature was being added to the code and that bug crept in. The bug was only present for a few minutes. You were just unlucky to be using it at that time. Fixed now. Feedback like that is always welcome in case something hasn't been spotted. Lightmouse (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. –Juliancolton 02:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
books to read for 1a?
Hi Tony,
what books should I read (books, not wiki links) to help me be at better judge of 1a? Thanks Ling.Nut 16:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ling.nut, let me ask Noetica, the ultimate guru; he's on an extended wikibreak, but I'm in contact with him. Tony (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Date autoformatting
Please, where was there a discussion with more than twelve editors supporting this change? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Try this for starters, gathered only at the very beginning. Tony (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've actually read this page recently, but many of the supporters seemed to be under the belief that autoformatting would never work for unregistered users. As you may or may not be aware I've recently left comments at WT:MOSNUM offering my services to "fix" this (as well as a comment by a dev with SVN access to MediaWiki indicating such changes would not be hard to do). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Dash check
Is this title correct? East-West Schism SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Read fully
Where did that come from? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Dates in other wikis
As one who is very active in dates per WP:MOSNUM, would you know if the same rules apply to other wikis? For example, is it legitimate to delink dates in the Simple English Misplaced Pages, like in this article? Or should there be a separate discussion and consensus in that wiki first? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Wagner
You edit pages on classical music so you will know the answer to this one, what is the name of the loud piece by Wagner with al the descending scales, not the famous bit from Tannhauser (I know that one) it sort of sounds like sex ought to be, if you know what I mean. Hope you can help. Giano (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)