Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony1 (talk | contribs) at 02:05, 3 December 2008 (→Generational change at Washington? Now let's do it at ArbCom: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Werdnabot

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

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Real-life workload: 8.5

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

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

Your proposal

The only way that change will ever be effected is if someone is bold and makes the change. It is having someone respected enough by the community to create a new system and then getting that system recognised and respected. You will obviously face opposition from the "cabal" but that is to be expected. Your proposal on my talkpage looks good to me, and in theory no-one should have a problem with it. It is codifying what should already exist. I suspect the problem will come in finding "coordinators" active enough to monitor the page, and respected enough to not evoke sentiments such as "you have no authority, the arbitrary committee, biased" etc. You also have to make sure it doesn't turn into a stalking contest, or witch-hunt. I remember a few days ago, someone following an admin round disputing every A7 deletion that he/she made and putting them at DRV everytime. This process could force admins/editors ("good" and "bad") from the project because they feel they are being harrassed or that they are on the naughty step. So, in principle I agree with the need for some system, and I agree with what you propose, I just see some potentially troubling areas. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We certainly don't want that to happen. The aim is to increase respect for admins, actually. Yes, you're right about those challenges. I can't put the time into designing and organising it yet (RL is horribly work-stressed at the moment), but will try next week. Tony (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And when I do, I'll certainly ask for your advice on the draft design of the process. Tony (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

about that RfC ...

hello Tony - that RfC you launched at MOSNUM wasn't listed at WP:RFC/A because it lacked a timestamp. i added one, and now it's listed properly. i thought i should let you know about that, since i'm not sure if you had some reason for omitting the timestamp, or if it got deleted after you posted it or what ... anyway it's listed properly now, which i trust is a good thing. Sssoul (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't see it. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also listed it at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/RFCstyle/manual Ohconfucius (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

hm, curiouser and curiouser - after i added the timestamp it showed up at Template:RFCstyle_list, so why isn't it at WP:RFC/A?? ah the wonders of technology ... thanks for listing it manually, Ohconfucius Sssoul (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ps: doublechecking the listing at Template:RFCstyle_list, the RfC Tony launched is currently the first "automatic" one listed, in addition to Ohconfucius's gallant manual add of it. but the link in the "automatic" listing leads to the MOSNUM talk page, not to the proper section for this RfC - that's not good, since the old birth/death-date RfC is still at the top of that page, so newcomers to the discussion might easily be distracted by that one. can someone archive that old one, and/or relist the new one so that the "section=" entry leads to the right place on the page? it would be a drag if anyone could later claim that this RfC "doesn't count" because it wasn't listed properly ... Sssoul (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for this: I'm a computer klutz, and very short of time for WP until mid-week. I see there that I need to make the wording of the "reason" much more explicit; it's terrible at the moment. Shall do. Tony (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've changed the "reasons" at the RfC on MOSNUM talk to "Three important proposals for changing MOSNUM with respect to (1) the linking of date formats, (2) date autoformatting, and (3) requirements for auto changes". But still the old "three things that are causing intermittent disruption" appears at the RfC style page. No big deal, I suppose, but it would be nice to broadcast the real content to the communicty! Tony (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates can take a while to update. I'll purge the cache and see if that makes a difference. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

the "reason" looks good now, and it's listed at WP:RFC/A as well - hallelujah. i've just amended the "section=" bit to match the real name of the section, and i hope that'll cause it to link directly to the right part of the page, once the bot catches up ... thanks everybody and swing on Sssoul (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• What would I do without you people? Thanks! Back to my clients in a few minutes. Relentless until mid-week. Tony (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I thought listing was of prime importance. Thanks for the fine-tuning. BTW, Cole and expert are going around spamming talk pages about me again. Ho hum... Ohconfucius (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry; I think I was stabbed in the back so much one night I nearly bled to death. No matter—I think they've discredited themselves well and truly. Tony (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Tony for doing all the hard work required to finally get rid of the date linking. Either they will be de-linked, or the developers will finally (after two years of ignoring it) implement a less annoying method of auto-formatting. Either outcome would be largely because of your hard work on the issue. That said, please don't bite those who are used to the old formatting who will continue to show up and complain. Bot editing can be very bad as it disrupts the normal edit-revert-discuss cycle, since bots cannot be reverted effectively without using an other bot. Consensus, even when established, takes a while to spread through this huge project. Forcing it through only causes backlashes. Again, thank you. I always (for years) thought date linking was a bad solution, but I didn't take the effort to really do something about it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind to say this. I don't know whether I can fully meet your expectations WRT the bot thing (I can't use a bot, of course, since I have a Mac). Thanks again! Tony (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep an eye on Cole: he's made another attempt at spoiling the RfC if not trying to sabotage it outright. I've just reverted him again. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am actually not entirely against the use of bots here. But if they are used, hordes of people who doesn't know about the consensus will show up at MOSNUM and the bots talk page. They must be treated respectfully, explaining the reasons for the change, even if a gazillion others have made the same complaint before. I still have bad memories of the Betacommandbot fight (1-2 years ago, over fair use tagging). --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse and Colonies Chris are our two bright boys who've acquired expertise in the use of bots for this purpose. What is striking is that both are unfailingly polite to anyone who has complained, and (particularly LM, who's more engaged in bot and script development) use feedback constructively. It's bot and script management at its best, IMO. Tony (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to set aside a sliver of my WP time to do exactly that (explaining the reasons for date unlinking to curious users). Feel free to remind me that I volunteered :-)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I will; thanks, GMW. Tony (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question regarding record charts

I can't find this in MOSDATE and I recall it being discussed not too long ago. Is there a reason to prefer "number 1", "No. 1", "#1" or "number one" when discussing a hit song? Gimmetrow 07:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have that memory too, but can't think where it might be. The middle two are fine by me; I don't like the lower-case n or the spelling out of the number. Tony (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That discussion happened at either WT:MOS, or more likely, WT:MOSNUM, months ago, lost somewhere in those horrid archives. At that time, Tony said not to use # in prose, but to use it in charts, preferring No. 1 to #1 in prose, but accepting #1 in charts and tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Two kinds of dashes

There are two kinds of dashes enumerated afterward: em dashes and en dashes. Or, there are two kinds of dash, the en dash and the em dash. Mixing the numbers, "two kinds of dash, em dashes and en dashes", is cumbersome. —C.Fred (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right; I failed to see the larger context. Tony (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That's part of the beauty of Misplaced Pages: there's always another set of eyes coming back to look at the edit and proof it. I've been on the other side of the coin any number of times myself. —C.Fred (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should probably start watching the discussions there, doubly since one of the things I have on my wish list this holiday season is the AP Stylebook. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion of your RfC

Hey Tony, some users (you could probably guess who they are) want to transclude the RfC that you started onto another page. It has been suggested that you approve of the transclusion first, so I am notifying you. Here is the thread: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Page_growth. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tony...

Hi Tony. Just a quick apology for the crap going on with regard your admin watch talk page. "tennis expert" has abundantly not retired and seems content to hit and run from any serious discussion including his bad reverts which remove maintenance tags and reintroduce redirects, bad markup and improper capitalisation.

On a lighter note, one week before I'm down under, looking forward to all that "culture"! It'll be a bit easier going than India I think.... All the best to you. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust that you were not in Mumbai at the time. Tony (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully not, we'd left for Malaysia a week earlier. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In WA's time zone already? ... Welcome. Tony (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All boxed in (not)

Yes! -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten you were in the "let's get real about infoboxes" faction. Hoary, where have you been all this time, during the most fiery phase of the date wars? Tony (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just crawled back under my rock, O supereditor. I missed the date wars in one sense, didn't miss them in another. Actually I've long regretted my misstep in (resulting from a misunderstanding of) your earlier effort to have some new template for these date things. I'm also rather pissed off with the otherwise tolerable (London) Guardian for switching to the odd format MDY; if Youessians like this odd sequence then bully for them, but it seems bizarre to me (and actually I prefer the Japanese YMD). What with stuff in the real world and alarming rumblings here, I haven't been doing much here recently that's been very constructive; in my free time instead dawdling in the used bookshops and picking up far too many potentially write-uppable treasures, among them a lovingly assembled collection of the earlier work by this obscure figure, the kind of thing that gives vanity publishing a good name. (Yes, "BeeBooks" -- see also "Bee Books" -- is a vanity imprint; perhaps they'll put out anything, and the average is indeed uninspiring, but at their best the content is first rate, and a lot of their books are rightly shelved at the best libraries here.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Noetica recently had a ball in used and new bookshops in China: amazing variety of English-language books. Tony (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You beat me...

You seem to have beat me to delinking Lumos3's disruptive relinkings... Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all. I was expecting he'd given up, but no ... it's like a squash ball bouncing back at you. Tony (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_that_have_British_victims

I would appreciate your input at Talk:List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_that_have_British_victims. There is a very small issue relating to renaming it to List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_with_British_victims ('that have' -> 'with'). You may also be interested in the other matters being discussed. None of which are a big deal. Lightmouse (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Are they friendly incidents that involve fire? A hyphen is required: "List of post-1945 US friendly-fire incidents with British victims"? Tony (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see you support hyphenation, but this is another ENGVAR question, because American usage is clear: do not hyphenate. Which VAR is more relevant here is not clear to me, so should we fall back on leave it as it was? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, American language editors will insist on a hyphen here; the nominal group contains 14 words on the highest rank, and on the second rank, "U.S._friendly_fire_incidents" is a four-word nominal group. It's ambiguous without the hyphen, not to menion harder to read. Go see Scientific American. Tony (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have. None of their three uses of "friendly fire" are in apposition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

1910–12

I am disappointed in you.

I admit that 1910–12 can mean something other than the triennium, in the right context, but that's true of all of English; consider bear. The numbers have a normal meaning, and only mean something else in parallel with 1910–09 and the like. The argument that we should adopt novel formatting everywhere to avoid ambiguity in a handful of places is the sort of thing that's making Misplaced Pages look perverse to literate speakers of English; it should be discouraged, not coddled. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To attract your disappointment, Anderson, is indeed a thrill. Tony (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure is my power to please you, Sir. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's getting kinky. Tony (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on hyphens again

Please comment on hyphens again at Template_talk:Convert#Apparently_bad_use_of_hyphen. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Primate at FAC

Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice

Misplaced Pages:Tip of the day/December 2 --Closedmouth (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• recycling tips of the day... Someone should have words with the gang responsible. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tony (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Lazare_Ponticelli#Date_links

Hi Tony, could you explain to a couple of editors why linking years, especially on a Featured Article, is not helpful and goes against a definite consensus. I would do it myself, but one of the editors seems determined to disregard whatever I tell him. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that one of them posted a message with a negative gloss on Tony's advocacy of doing away with DA. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now Mandrax is there causing trouble. He sniffs it out by stalking contrib. pages. Tony (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice theory; but in fact, I followed the link from this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Tony. However, I feel that threatening FAR is a bit drastic and may be seen as a bit POINTY by some at FAR (it is after all, one year link). The important thing is that certain editors don't proceed to disrupt other articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Generational change at Washington? Now let's do it at ArbCom

I'm going to make an unashamedly POV statement: SandyGeorgia, who is in the key position to maintain and improve the standards of WP's articles, has provided a helpful Voters' guide for the upcoming election. Seven of the 13 seats are up for election, so this is a chance to put an end to the administrative incompetence and backchannelling that has plagued ArbCom during 2008. We need ArbCom to be more:

• open;
• respectful of contributors;
• engaged with what happens at the article level—especially in the writing of articles; and
• skilled at writing its judgements.

The future lies partly in your hands, so please consider the values that underpin the voting guide when you make your decision. Tony (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)