User talk:Tony1

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

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.

Tafl Games - Overlinking

G'day Tony. good to see someone else from Sydney universities here. :)

I think you might have gone a tiny bit overboard on removing the overlinking from the Tafl games page. I've put back the links for Ireland in the 1st paragraph and German language in the 2nd. Otherwise I think it's OK? --Danjel (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And a grammarian too! --Danjel (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd take out all of the language links (why on earth is the German-language article worth diverting to? It's far too general to provide the required significant increase in the reader's understanding of the topic at hand. I know there's an issue where the script removes just some of the country names in a list. It's something we haven't resolved yet. I don't mind your decision to retain "Ireland". Tony (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it contributes to the article. Tafl is, after all, a Germanic word and the history of German as a language is good to have alongside it.

In any case, there are a lot of people out there that don't have a lot of understanding of there being any other language other than English out there. Try telling people that you speak Tagalog, for example (I don't, but still :).--Danjel (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

English is a Germanic language too. Does that mean we should link less familiar words to the article on the German language, since the history of both languages is entangled? The clincher is, why would it be an advantage to encourage a reader to interrupt their reading of the article visit such a huge, broadly framed article? Can you think of a section there that could be linked more specifically? Tony (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba

Thanks for your support and comments. Have addressed your concerns. Please strike out comments that you feel are addressed satisfactorily. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but unnecessary—I supported, and would rather spend the time revisiting one where I've opposed. Tony (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Official site" quiz question

Hi Tony, first off, big ups for your work here. I'll stop there to avoid gushing. I have a personal dislike for hidden weblinks within infoboxes. That is, when you look at the page it says "Official site" or similar but to find out what the website listed in the infobox you have to click on it or otherwise take steps to access the information. Many people and groups have more than one official site further compounding the issue. Since the infobox is part of the lede is this spelled out that we're suppose to be masking the actual official websites of the person/group?

My hope is that a group, for instance "XYZ" could have their website "XYZ.com" simply displayed as such in their infobox. Likewise Janey Person's website "JaneyPerson.com" would simply read as such. The number of article subjects with official websites is only growing; surely we don't want them all to simply read "official website" which only confirms that such exists? With the exception of uber-lengthy websites wouldn't this make sense? Thoughts? Suggestions? -- Banjeboi 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Benji. I'm not the best person to ask, so I'll get a few others to comment. Is an infobox really part of the lead? Can you provide a link to an example? Tony (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Infoboxes are a part of the lede when used to ... lead the article. They are presented side-by-side with the most important overview of content. For an example of the "Official Website" in action Chi Chi LaRue is one example. Compare to how a company, Titan Media appears. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and supported by Wikipedia:LEAD#Content_of_the_lead. Tony (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify on the Chi Chi LaRue example I've done a workaround which looks horrible but is better that a tease link that simply says "Official Website". -- Banjeboi 03:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, it looks messy now. I don't quite understand what was wrong with it ?five edits ago, when both were neat blue. The square brackets don't look good at all. Tony (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of saying their website is ChiChi.com (or whatever it is) the infobox coding has been corrupted to force "Official Website" overriding what the actual website is - I don't think we should tease readers. With the rare exception of web addresses that are too long there is no reason to do this. Which is more helpful;

Official Website

En.Wikipedia.org

There really are few reasons to force "Official Website" as such and I see no reason to do this on biographies or any other infoboxes in any categories. -- Banjeboi18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Not sure if you're addressing this somewhere presently but Jeffree Star is a good example of what the links should look like instead of saying simply "Official Website". -- Banjeboi 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

opinion on quark

Hi Tony. I'd last to ask you for an opinion on the prose of quark, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quark. The problem is one of fundamental philosophy, rather than specific errors—I'm quite sure the prose in the current version would be OK for a textbook, but not so sure if it's OK for an encyclopedia article. I believe it's condensed to the point of opacity, rendering it inaccessible to the general audience. I wrote a second version (link on the FAC page). I am not saying mine is perfect; it is only intended to give a sense of the direction that I am suggesting the article should go. i actually want to Opose, but since the problem is one of philosophy, I am uncertain. If you have time, would you please comment on the FAC page? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Far out

G'day. I see you have been visiting some of my favourite isolated rocks. I'd be happy to pitch in with this task but I am loathe to just copy script.js into my monobook and hope for the best. I imagine its simple enuf, but are there any instructions anywhere? Yrs, in a howling westerly Ben MacDui 09:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

By all means, Ben: transclusion is best; then updates and improvements that Lightmouse make are automatically carried across to you. Here, in this cap, are the instructions. Lightmouse runs a "wishlist" page for comments and queries. Tony (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Installation and usage of date-autoformatting removal script

Instructions for installation

• EITHER: If you have a monobook already, go to it, click "edit this page", and paste in this string underneath your existing script:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

• OR: If you don't have a monobook.js page, create one using this title:

[[User:[your username]/monobook.js]]

Then click on "edit this page" and paste in at the top the "importScript" string you see three lines above here.

• Hit "Save page".
• Refresh your cache (instructions at top of monobook).
• Go to your user preferences and select "no preferences" for dates, which will display the raw date formats that our readers see.
• Carefully check MOSNUM's guidance on which date formats are used where. Generally:
  • US-related articles use US formatting, except that some military articles use international;
  • Canada-related articles may use either, but almost all use US;
  • UK-, Australia-, NZ-, Ireland- and South-African-related articles must use international.
  • articles without clear links to an anglophone country may use either—generally stay with the prevailing usage in the article. Note that India-related articles use either.
• You're ready to start.

Applying the script—it's very simple

• Go to an article and determine whether US or international format is used (or should be used).
• Click on "edit this page". You'll see the list of script commands under "what links here" in the left margin. Click on either "Delink all dates to dmy" (international format) or "Delink all dates to mdy" (US format). If you wish, click on "Delink common terms" as well.
• The diff will automatically appear. Check through the changes you're making before saving them.
• Click on "Save page": it's done.

Afterwards

• Respond politely and promptly to any critical comments on your talk page. If someone wants to resist or revert, it's better to back down and move on to improve other articles where WPians appreciate your efforts. NEVER edit-war over date autoformatting; raise the issue at WT:MOSNUM.

Thanks - up and running. Ben MacDui 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Way Out (2004)

Hey Tony, thanks for adding comments to No Way Out (2004)'s FAC page, I really appreciate it and I've learned from the issues you pointed out. I have addressed those comments and replied to some of your comments at the FAC page, it would be grateful if you could return to give it another look, thank you.--S_RX 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Hanna (2002)

Hi Tony. I got a copyeditor to work on Tropical Storm Hanna (2002) to improve the overall prose, so if you get a chance, could you take another look at the FAC? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you respond if you get a chance? Sorry to pester you; lately, FACs with opposition tend to be closed quickly, and I believe I've addressed your concerns. Thanks in advance. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As of

Tony, I sent an FA nominator to WP:MOSDATE#Precise language about an imprecise section heading ("Recent events"), and instead, he added "as of year" links. I thought we were done linking years? Why is MOSDATE still recommending that "as of" statements link to the year article ? I was surprised to see it still there, since we haven't used them since before dates went delinkey. (See as of) is still in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Making sure that articles are written in precise language with regards to historical and current dates is something I've always kept an eye out for, so forgive me for jumping in here (as an aside, Wikipedia:Updating information is shorter, but also has some relevant links). As far as I can tell, the MOS doesn't say to link to years. It is referring people to Wikipedia:As of, which says to not use "as of XXX" links (eg. [[As of 1990]]), and even lists deprecated links that are (slowly) being cleaned up: see Wikipedia:As of#Deprecated "as of" pages. What people are meant to do is use Template:As of, which as far as I can tell, doesn't link to dates. I wasn't sure exactly what Sandy was talking about, so I went and tracked down the edit I think prompted this: I think it was this (which is indeed deprecated per Wikipedia:As of), and was then changed with this edit, when in fact I think the correct edit would have been to add the template (which was created in February 2008 - there was an earlier version in 2006, which I presume had much less features). I think there has been a misunderstanding here, so I am going to pop over to the FAC and point this out. Questions about Template:As of should be left at the talk page, where it looks like User:Ikara will be happy to explain things or change things as needed. I will also leave a note at the template talk page. Incidentally, if you look on the talk page, there is a method of enabling editors to detect plaintext output from templates. See Template talk:As of#How to detect this template in an article?. This was one of the objections to people using date-markup that outputted plaintext (that editors would not see if there was a problem until they hit edit), but the method described there would probably overcome that objection. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The "as of year" links are deprecated per WP:As of and the discussion regarding it that took place at the Village Pump. However, they should not be outright removed as they still serve a functional purpose. Instead they should be converted to the {{As of}} template as appropriate. Links of the form [[As of Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year}}, and links of the form [[As of Month Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year|Month}}. This will output the plain text "As of [Month] Year" and categorise the article appropriately, but not create a wikilink in the article. See the template documentation for more options and information – Ikara ^talk → 16:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that template turn them into virtual links, i.e., bright blue, etc? If so, it should be binned. Tony (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You would bin the template rather than (if it had been linking dates, which it hadn't) delink the dates inside it? Sigh. I did say above: "which as far as I can tell, doesn't link to dates", and I said elsewhere that it doesn't link to dates (ie. it outputs plain text), and I tried to explain that even though it outputs plain text it is not "invisible" in the sense that it flags itself up in various ways to (logged-in) editors but not to readers (to be honest, I'm not 100% sure myself how it actually does that). But instead of noting that, you jump to the wrong conclusion? Whatever. It does add a "category link" at the bottom of the article, but this is a Wikipedia:Hidden category (this was a recent - last few months, well, February actually - change that I hope is mentioned somewhere in the MoS - it is important that MoS regulars are kept abreast of technical developements that might enable old issues to be revisited). The categories this template adds articles to might not be that useful if they get fully populated, but the aim to keep track of articles that need updating is a noble one, and fully in accord with keeping our articles accurate and up-to-date - i.e. as important, if not more so, than pushing back against (date) overlinking and the dilution of useful links. Useful links are only useful if the article is up-to-date, though using "as of" language is a step in the right direction (I shudder when I see people saying "recently" and stuff like that, and I still get annoyed that people don't keep Hurricane Katrina up-to-date even though loads has been written about it outside of Wikipedia since it passed FAC). Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Replacing 'As of xxxx' with a template is easy. The only question is whether it is the right thing to do. Lightmouse (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Test: As of 2008, As of July 2008. No, it doesn't make blue links. Apparently it just adds the page to a category. But the wording at MOSDATE leads someone who doesn't take the time to delve into that other page to think that have to add as of 2008. Of course, another curiosity is how this element came to be with no discussion at MoS. I love it when MoS makes a fool of me at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite... I remember a discussion about the abolition of the "as of" system closing with "no consensus" a few months ago; this recent change has passed undetected. And it's a pity, because I should have supported it had I known about it. I do not care for such lack of effort when transparency is concerned; someone could have taken a few minutes to notify through one of the proper communication channels. Waltham, The Duke of 04:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to tell you all we need a MoS noticeboard; who listens to me, anyway. Some folks were off in their little corner of Wiki, doing their thing, never told anyone at MoS, it doesn't surface until I ask for a change on an article at FAC, and the issue surfaces. I get kinda tired of the buck stopping with me, when I make an idiot of myself :-) We need a centralized MoS discussion board. Or we're going to always be chasing our tails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be an idea if people kept a closer eye on the Village Pumps (WP:VP). They are meant to be used to notify people of discussions, but you would be surprised how often (as in this case) the discussions take place there, and not elsewhere. I think Waltham is referring to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:As of (April 2008), which was followed by the July 2008 discussion. And it might be surprising to MoS regulars, but some people think of MoS as "Some folks [being] off in their little corner of Wiki, doing their thing". :-) If anyone takes offence at that, please don't (ultimately, if communication lines are not kept open, we are all doing our thing in a little corner somewhere). Communication works both ways, as Tony has recognised here, in his response to this. I agree that Schissel's offer there was a refreshing change in attitude, and me personally, I'd like to help out with explaining things if you (Tony) would accept that offer (I won't say I'm completely converted, but I do see that a lot of date (and other) delinking needs to happen). Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I should add here that I am aware of Tony's earlier efforts with the other discussions and the careful linking to a page explaining everything, and links from edit summaries, and so on. I'm not saying that there was no outreach - indeed there was rather a lot and it was done very well. But possibly, it seems, not enough or not in the right way. Wikipedia can be incredible frustrating like that. You think you've explained things to everyone, but there are always some people who pop up and say "too cryptic", "not enough disucssion", "never heard of this" and so on. That's part of why Schissel's offer to help spread the word was so, well, helpful. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's the discussion. No notice to MoS (the relevant guideline page), a very limited discussion, no clear consensus, and MOSDATE is currently linking to an essay (and apparently has been for a long time); all of the lack of clarity that I've been sounding the alarm about for a very long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I wasn't very active in late July, or I might have noticed the discussion; I generally watch the Pump. Anyway, I think the situation with regards to where discussions are held has improved somewhat lately, partly thanks to the increasing prominence of {{cent}}; whoever has added it to the Proposals section of the Pump, it was a flash of brilliance.

As far as the institution of a "MoS noticeboard" is concerned, I am not sure why "Moscow" can't fill that role. Or that template that's been brought up; instead of creating a new page which could quickly generate redundancy and discussion-splitting, we could create a template—placed at the top of all MoS talk pages, and placed in or linked from some other central venues—that would leave editors no room to add anything more than a short notification (it would be, of course, supervised by the project). All important discussions around MoS would be added there. We could make it more conspicuous or have it collapsed by default, perhaps as a component of the MOSCO banner.

(I've also considered a newsletter—MOSCO is a WikiProject, after all, and not everyone reads the Signpost—but that might prove to be too much work for our small and busy staff. Although it wouldn't necessarily contain much more than what is already written in the updates.)

PS: Sandy, why use an external link where an internal would do? It looks like a diff. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 12:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point: His Grace is using a horribly slow connection at the moment. Tony (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But why do you suppose MOSCO hasn't gained traction? Because people are afraid of anything associated with MoS? Because the only people who care are those who edit war the guideline in the one little corner that they care about? Because we haven't established Wikiwide a process by which guidelines, essays, policy etc. are efficiently discussed and sorted? And look at the confusion we're dealing with; that discussion at the Village Pump was listed as a "policy" discussion, and I came across another similar discussion just this week, an essay with zero consensus marked as a proposal. We still have a big problem, and we haven't gotten our arms around it, leading to increasingly chasing our tails. And it comes home to roost at FAC, because that's the only place the MoS is enforced. (Link fixed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Who supposes that? (In case you are referring to me, I said "I am not sure why [it] can't fill that role" (emphasis added).

And thanks for fixing the link. I don't think an external link to a Wikipedia page actually slows me down, but the format is counter-intuitive. I don't like it in diffs, either, but we have few options there.

Anyway... Any comments on the template idea? Waltham, The Duke of 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who supposes that: I'm asking why MOSCO hasn't taken off. I don't follow categories or templates; I still don't know what CAT:GEN is. I watchlist pages; I need one cental page that I can watchlist to keep up with MoS. Having centralized MoS discussions would benefit everyone; just look at this example of someone getting minimal input at the Village Pump on what they honestly believe is "policy", with no feedback at MoS or even apparently awareness that MoS should have been noticed. Contrast that to RSN or BLP, where anyone with an issue or question knows to go to those noticeboards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering about redundancy. On one hand, style is arguably important enough (as a whole; not each individual guideline) for a general style noticeboard to be reasonable, and take a rightful place along with the rest in {{editabuselinks}} (the name is largely historical, and only a row deals specifically with edit abuse). In organisational terms, it would be quite useful, seeing that a) it would be easily accessible to non-regulars and b) it would finally provide a centralised discussion venue for style in general (including non-MoS style-related pages). On the other hand, is it easy to make a clear distinction between what goes to the noticeboard and what goes to the WikiProject? We certainly don't want duplication and splitting of discussions. One solution is always to abolish MOSCO. Another is to retain it for discussions of a restricted scope: planning and macro-management of the Manual of Style. Notices would be left in the noticeboard at the beginning of such discussions, and notifications would be made about any decisions. The WikiProject would work like most WikiProjects: mostly with regulars, and only with matters in its scope. Noticeboards have a different character, and so would the style one.

These are just plans, though. Waltham, The Duke of 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Aimed at various people: what on Earth does MOSCO stand for? Manual of Style Community Office? WP:MOSCO goes to WikiProject MoS, but what on Earth does the CO stand for? If it's some sort of in-joke and you only call it MOSCO because it feels like Moscow, no wonder it hasn't taken off. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been wondering the same thing about MOSCO. Thought it was just another way of making those of us not "in" wonder what is being talked about. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is here; apparently, the name is short for MOSCOORD ("coordination"). There is also the less mystifying WPMOS, but I prefer MOSCO because it's pronounceable. Waltham, The Duke of 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Progress on the style guidelines will be made only to the extent that we preach to people who are not in the choir. New FAC reviewers are going to be hard to come by as long as the only people we're likely to co-opt are people who have already written a FAC. 1. Keep working on the guidelines. 2. Listen to how people feel about them. 3. Promote them.

CAT:GEN is the same as Category:General style guidelines. It's (now) 25 style guidelines. It's been around for 5 months. If Wikipedia lasts for a millenium, "we" (meaning something like FAC reviewers and style afficionados) will never "gain control" of the style guidelines; they're growing all the time. We will never get some kind of uber-guideline passed that says that no one else can contradict the guidelines we like. We don't need it, either; most people have a positive reaction when I copyedit according to just about any guideline currently in Category:General style guidelines). If we see this as a battle to co-opt people by copyediting their articles according to the guidelines, which I generally find people really appreciate, and not as a battle to silence opposition in the form of wayward guidelines, I don't see how we can lose.

I think no one has used MOSCO as a noticeboard because we already have one: WT:MOS. Even if it's a little harder for us to have to deal with completely different kinds of issues in one place, it's easier for the people who have to figure out where to post, so that's where they post.

"I love it when MoS makes a fool of me at FAC": I'm very sympathetic, I'm embarrassed when I don't know style guidelines, that's supposedly what I'm good for. That's what WP:Update is for. Check it out. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Year in X - WP:LOW

I saw your comment about "Year in X" at User:Lightmouse's talk page. I just thought I would point out WP:LOW. Maybe that will answer some of your questions regarding the delinking of these pseudo-dates. Dismas|^(talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That is very helpful, thanks. I'm unsure that it's references to MONSUM and MOSLINK reinforce the point, though. Tony (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:LOW#Linking years consistent with the MoS? What it currently says seems to be too simple:

"Solitary years remain unlinked (preferred) and should not generally be 'piped to articles (e.g. [[1989 in music|1989]]), especially when part of a date. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (links) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)"

Of course, linking to other areas of the MoS only works when updates are rolled out throughout the whole system, otherwise inconsistencies spring up. The link to "As of" above is a prime example. The "As of" system changed, but the MoS links pointing to it were (I think) talking about the old system. Links can be dangerous sometimes! Er, maybe using "as of" links to flag up when the MoS links were made would help? That might get silly! Wikipedia editors do, eventually, learn to check when a page was last edited, but that only works up to a certain point. Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Soviet and Russian manned drifting ice stations

Hi Tony. Sorry about the barrage of edits to your talk page just now. I hope all the posts made it through and were helpful. Thanks for doing a date audit of Soviet and Russian manned drifting ice stations. I noticed you made a comment about the title "two hyphens, one hanging". Would you have time to explain, either here or at the article talk page, what you think the title should be? drift ice and drift ice station are other terms (i.e. instead of drifting), and I can see the arguments for drift-ice station but I can't quite see where the second hyphen comes in. Do you mean Soviet- and Russian-manned drifting ice stations? Forgive me if that mangled the hyphen MoS beyond recognition. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your redlink here is exactly what I had in mind, and I prefer your or "drifting ice station" (maybe no hyphen necessary there, since the coupling of either "drifting ice" or "ice station" doesn't seem important in that context. I don't like the gender-specific "manned", but can't think of a way out. Tony (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Word-for-word translation of gender-loaded terms can sometimes be difficult. The term 'operated' or 'staffed' might work. If you go beyond 'word-for-word', you could simply say 'Soviet and Russian drifting ice stations' as with Soviet Antarctic Expedition. The national designation of the station is not purely due to the staff. Google has references for '<national sponsor> drifting ice stations'. Lightmouse (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have suggested your shorter version but for a concern that some may be unstaffed. Carcharoth? Tony (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the unstaffed ones were just floating buoys dropped in the ocean. The "stations" were the manned ones. The real distinction is the one made between dedicated drift ice stations and ships sailed into the pack ice and allowed to get embedded in the ice and be carried around the pole for a season or two before (hopefully) emerging again. I think "manned" could be dropped, but I rarely get involved with move discussions anymore, unless it is something absolutely indisputable. Everything else I just create redirects for. Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and more to the point, the "Soviet and Russian" designation is surprisingly rare. It seems most articles do treat the Soviet era and the Russian eras differently, though I can understand why sometimes some articles do treat them in one article. A bit like the way History of Greek and Roman Egypt got split into History of Ptolemaic Egypt and History of Roman Egypt. With minor instances of other names along the way (Ægyptus, History of Greek Egypt, and so on). Many sources treat the Greek and Roman era in Egypt as one "chapter", but others divide it up. Ah, I see History of the Soviet Union is a similarly sparse list of articles, bit like History of Greek and Roman Egypt. I'd bet there is a similarly chaotic edit history there as well, with many page moves to many different titles. Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

overlink

I don't know if it is yourself our your bot, but it appears details are being de-linked on rugby league infoboxes. Per our MOS they should be linked. Many thanks.Londo06 08:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

By "details", I presume you mean dates and date fragments. This is occurring throughout WP not only in infoboxes, but in all parts of articles. Please see MOSNUM for the new practice. Tony (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by details I meant things like Australia and England being de-linked on the infobox. I have no problem with dates being de-linked, I wholly support that move, but not places in the infobox.Londo06 11:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But is your point that the infobox is different from the main text in this respect, or that such items should always be linked? Please see Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#What_generally_should_be_linked. Tony (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the MOS for the infobox and others has those details linked. I am not aware of any such details for the body text, however it is for the infobox.Londo06 12:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Do you mean Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)? I can find no example or advice that suggests such items should be linked in infoboxes. Have we spread into the issue of infobox templates? If so, you may have noticed that since the start of this month, quite a few of the date-producing templates in infoboxes do not now link. This may be occurring for place names produced by templates too (are there any?) In any case, the time when we linked everything in sight has passed, and people have realised that text in infoboxes, especially those with coloured background, is easier to read when plain black. Can you link me to an example that is concerning you? Tony (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Watmough.Londo06 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Better, here's the diff. Yep, people who can read English well enough to consult the eng.WP are meant to be familiar with the major English-speaking countries and their demonyms, such as the US, the UK and Australia. We'd like the high-value links to stand out to readers without dilution by such low-value ones; it's very hard to get readers to click on any links at all. The wikilinking system is brilliant, but WP has gone overboard with it, which has somewhat diminished its utility. We're trying to make it work better. Tony (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC replies

Hi Tony! I replied to your comments that you left on the review for the USS Nevada (BB-36)...but 3 out of 3 of those replies were questions back to you! If you could take a look a reply, thanks a lot. —the_ed17— 23:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

I reverted your edits to Give Up. Please review WP:DATE -- wikilinking date elements like this is valid, and enables WP to identify dates as such and display them in a reader's desired format. Bankbryan (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And I see that someone has re-reverted it already. Please catch up on the major changes to practice, which were made nearly two months ago. Thanks for your inquiry. Tony (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up and will do. Bankbryan (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

I have moved to address a few of the issues that you brought up at the FAC, if you would check the article and give me some feedback I would apreciate it. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

Hi, you commented on the (failed) FAC; please can you help me out by leaving some feedback at peer review? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 12:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Random browse column? (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Brazilian states by Human Development Index) Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerned

Hello. I would like to ask you for a favor. I know you said you don't usually copy-edit articles, but could you please take a look at it. It went though quite a few other copy-edits, but even though I'm quite embarrassed by this, this is my level of English at the moment. The article recently failed FAC, and even though prose isn't the reason it failed, it certainly didn't say anything in favor of the article. So, if you have the time and are willing to help, would you please take a look at the article, it would be greatly appreciated.

P.S.: Many thanks for the advanced editing exercises as well. I actually find them difficult (in a good way, of course). Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll refuse, at least please tell me, so that I wouldn't have to wait. Diego_pmc ^Talk 14:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, too much on my plate at the moment, and there's always pressure to review at FAC. Do you know how to go about systematically teaming up with the right people, so you can reciprocate using your own skills and "trade" their copy-editing? Tony (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

date delinking

Tony, where's the best page listing the many reasons to delink? I think you had a subdirectory but I can't remember what it was called. (Feel free to respond here.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for a page in Tony's namespace, you can always check the directory. I've only just found about User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA, for example; I'm sure Tony has linked to it in various places, but I haven't been too attentive in the later MOSNUM discussions. The information in the page has been given here or there, but in this page it is all together.

You might also be interested in my essay, which nobody seems to be promoting (sniff): User:The Duke of Waltham/Auto-formatting is evil.

Wait... Are we talking about date delinking, or general removal of links from overlinked articles? Waltham, The Duke of 00:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

His Grace is a master at navigation. This is the first I've heard of the "directory" route. Yes, the info page concerns date autoformatting. This should be kept quite separate from the delinking of date fragments, which, amazingly, has flared up as a burning issue despite our perception that it had been resolved long ago. People do cling to old ideas, don't they. Tony (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just promoted both your links in the latest thread at the Pump: WP:VPP#date auto-formatting chaos. I admit I didn't know about Special:PrefixIndex either. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you'll be amazed with what you can find if you have a good look around Special pages. Waltham, The Duke of 05:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You (the others, not you) didn't know about Special:PrefixIndex? <boggles> That is a very useful tool. Though I think recently the "auto-completing" bit of the search box had the article part of the prefix index integrated with it (something so simple and obvious I'm surprised it was not done earlier). As for finding subpages in someone's userspace, there is now a "subpages" link at the bottom of everyone's contributions log (scroll to the bottom) along with a lot of other stuff. Someone told me the Mediawiki page where this was developed, but I've forgotten the name! Ah, here we go (Google helps here): Help:User contributions, MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer. This was probably all mentioned in one of the recent Signposts (in the technical section), but I've fallen behind with my reading there. Carcharoth (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. I didn't know about Special:PrefixIndex either. Very useful, as you say. I see autocompleting in the main Wikipedia search but not in the PrefixIndex search. Thanks for pointing out the link to 'subpages' etc, that is useful too. Lightmouse (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pff, you call yourselves Wikipedians... :-p

Carcharoth, I really like the box at the bottom of the contributions pages, though I must say I am mostly aware of it because I followed the discussion on the Pump (regarding the selection of a suitable icon and nomenclature for unregistered users). I don't really need it, because I use navigational pop-ups, which—amongst other things—provide a link for one's "userspace". Waltham, The Duke of 03:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: En dash spacing on year ranges

Thanks for your explanation. Incidentally, I think that the spacing of dashes in years would make a good example for your Manual of Style page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea: will do. Tony (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking

Hi Tony. Just thought I'd let you know that User:Tennis expert is systematically undoing your edits once again. I've tried to remind him that his edits are not actually improving the article but I suspect (a) he'll delete the message with a smug edit summary and (b) he'll continue applying his own consensus to articles he seems to own. Just thought you should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he damages them by reinstating glitches and worse, wholesale wrong date formats. He's very eccentric. Thanks for the info, since I don't keep tabs on my work; those who run the scrip are sworn off warring, so he can stew in his own little world, and eventually will see tennis articles turn into a shag on their own little rock in this respect. His colleagues at the Tennis WikiProject largely disagree with his fanatical stance.

Have you seen the latest proposal for a different but related matter that flared up recently at MOSNUM talk? It's at the bottom, and I'm quite hopeful that it might satisfy both sides of the debate about solitary year linking. It's not my idea, but I'm promoting it and attempting to gain consensus. Tony (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic example of rampant incivility and a systematic (intentional?) failure or willful refusal to WP:AGF by The Rambling Man and Tony. Exactly which glitches have I reinstated and which wrong date formats have I inserted? And thanks, I guess, for labeling me as "very eccentric". I don't remember calling you names. Tennis expert (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people would be pleased to be considered eccentric. Strictly speaking, it means "off centre", which your extreme views on linking certainly are. You have failed to move with prevailing practice at WP, and tennis articles and their readers are the losers, plus your colleagues, who mostly disagree with you. You have persisted in stalking me and reverting my work and that of others who have tried to retain the improvements against your handiwork. More than once, I've been made aware that you've reinstated the wrong date format for Australian tennis players, for example, in your rush to make all of the dates and years bright blue again. This is unacceptable behaviour, as is changing UK-related articles into US spelling. You risk making a pig of yourself. Tony (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Wow, Tony, calling someone a "pig"---how civil. Also, your mischaracterization of the norm as "extreme views" only serves to show how far off-base you are. This is Wikipedia, not a paper book. That you push for date delinking simply for appearance' sake says a lot about you. This coup of yours doesn't make you right, and harassing those that stand up for the right to wikilink doesn't make you a good editor.Ryoung122 08:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What coup? I didn't call him a pig: I said he's making a pig of himself. However, I will soften this to "you risk making a pig of yourself". Tony (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony: (1) My views, which have been expressed many times in very simple and direct language but which you still do not understand, is that there is a consensus in tennis articles to link years and dates. I personally am not in favor of linking years but am in favor of linking dates. (2) Which UK-related articles did I turn into US spelling? Which wrong date format for Australian tennis players have I imposed? If you'll point out my errors, I'll correct them. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting, trash talking, and gossiping about my edits. Tennis expert (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, sorry that I've dragged you into another debacle. "Tennis expert" has continued to revert your edits against the WP:MOS. Despite being asked the purpose of relinking years and the odd country, plus turning "runners-up" into "runner-ups" (!), he is adamant that his impression of consensus rules over others. I think this one is doomed. RIP WP:Tennis. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking

(e/c – Rambling Man stole my heading! lol!) Although I support your script-assisted changes, un-linking dates and common terms, I would like to gently ask that you be more careful, too, :-). Your edit to Cédric Pioline changed dates in the entire article to the US format instead of the international format it was originally in. I don't think it would take more than a quick glance to determine that Pioline would prefer to have his dates international! I'm not sure of the mechanisms behind what you're doing or how easy it is to change it, but I hope mass US-format changes can be avoided in the future. It's quite tedious for "manual" Wikipedians like me to change all of those dates back, one by one. Thanks! :-) Maedin\^talk 13:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, second report today of the wrong format. I do try hard to assess each article correctly, and a lot of them have the wrong format to start with. You're perfectly right, and I apologise. And it was well formatted anyway, without inconsistencies.

But now I see our old friend User Tennis expert has been stalking me and reverting. Someone else has just stepped in since, but naturally enough re-reverted to my faulty version. I'll convert to the correct format now, once, but I dislike intensely edit conflicts over this matter. I'd be pleased if you took it up with Tennis expert yourself if he returns to impose his ownership on the article. I'm outa there, wishing the editors goodwill and going on to make improvements where they're appreciated! Most of his colleagues at WikiProject Tennis don't agree with his extreme stance. Tony (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so graciously and for fixing the article. I was sure (from previous comments of yours that I have read) that you were fairly careful anyway, so I'm grateful that you didn't take the heads-up as accusatory or derogatory. As for Tennis expert, I'm afraid you've asked timid 'lil Maedin! I actually have an interest in tennis articles, but my penchant is for using diacritics regularly, wherever they belong—a view which is, unfortunately, the exact opposite of Tennis expert's. He/she was overruled on their wholesale attempt to remove all diacritics, and so far has let me alone. I hate edit conflicts and confrontation as well, and I'd rather let Tennis expert alone, but I will voice my opinion if he reverts the delinking edits again.

Anyway, thank you again for responding quickly and well! Maedin\^talk 13:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are sadly mistaken, Maedin. I clearly never advocated the "wholesale attempt to remove all diacritics" and I would appreciate your not spreading around false information about myself. Tennis expert (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry, Tennis expert, you're absolutely right. It was an uninformed opinion and I have since reviewed the matter and have now read comments that I only scanned / skipped before. I've stricken the comments above related to my mistake. My apologies! Maedin\^talk 09:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Another incivil and factually incorrect comment about yours truly from Tony. I suggest that you start WP:AGF. Tennis expert (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Khalid al-Mihdhar

If you have some spare time, I would appreciate if you would take another look at the Khalid al-Mihdhar article. Substantial amount of copyediting has been done, with help of User:Momoricks. Please let me know if there is anything else needed with the article. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It would help...

..If you could revisit and see if your comments to No Way Out's FAC have been addressed and maybe have a better decision for the outcome :)--S_RX 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Your input would be appreciated here. --John (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting request (gasp!)

I am deeply unsatisfied with the writing in History of a Six Weeks' Tour. It is a strange literary work and somewhat difficult to explain. I was wondering if you would consider copyediting at least the lead and "Composition and publication"? I am positive that I have not written as clearly and concisely as possible. :) I would greatly appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Tony, I constantly see you on FAC's and you always oppose. Well Veronica Mars is undergoing a peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Veronica Mars/archive2, in the hopes of getting it to FA status. Anyways, I don't want to nominate it and have you list 1000 points as to why the prose is bad. This is my (kind) way of saying that your comments would be appreciated, and if you could state any problems, that would be great. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Link intersection

Where you aware of Wikipedia:Link intersection? It seems relevant to issues of linking. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What distortions does "what links here" have? On some pages, "what links here" is very useful (usually the ones with very few links - I agree that on pages where there are lots of links it is not useful). I find selecting namespaces helps filter some things out, and if you are looking for a deletion debate, "what links here" limited to the Wikipedia namespace is very useful. I also use the "what redirects here" function all the time (the options to remove or combine links, transclusions and redirects has made 'what links here' very useful). I'd really encourage you to take another look if you are basing your opinion on your use of 'what links here' from last year or so. But I've gone off topic. What were your objections to Wikipedia:Link intersection again, and how exactly does it affect readers? If it could be a useful tool for editors, why on earth would you be glad it is "dying"? Dare I point you at Wikipedia:Category intersection and Wikipedia:Semantic Wikipedia? I dunno, it sometimes seems there is a big philosophical divide somewhere around here that people keep waving at each other from the other side of. I find rummaging around links and following things up and browsing (even if rather random) to be fascinating. I suppose others want more focused and precise navigation and browsing. It's difficult to provide both. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide enough?

Tony - WRT major depressive disorder, I have added bits to the diagnosis and treatment sections, as well as noting presentation (one line) in Signs and symptoms. Tricky ot know how much to add. Further detail would go into general issues of all psych disorders in 3rd world countries. Do you think it is enough as is? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova

Hi Tony, any chance you can rerun your script over this? As usual, Tennis expert has relinked the dates but made other changes so a simple reversion is impossible. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As one of the promoters of the change in practice, I've cautioned other supporters against edit-warring on the matter. After all, one of the arguments put against the change was that DA stops edit warring. Although I don't believe it was a valid argument, I don't want to give ammunition to those who might throw back at me their prior warnings.

However, that doesn't stop you from acquiring the script and running it. I'd be very pleased to see that happen. Apart from this consideration, the more people who are able to run the script, the more time-intensive manual labour editors at large can be spared in what is a mammoth task. Tony (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Tony, are you planning to use Wikipedia:FCDW/October 13, 2008? I set up WP:FCDW originally in the hopes it would be a central coordinating spot for the Dispatches, so I wouldn't have to hound people for input; I'm not sure if you still want the first open slot each month, or if I should just wait for you to pop in whenever you want a slot? Can you update the talk page there if you want that slot ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Images in Riot control

• Please discuss your reasons for bulk-deleting the image gallery in Riot control. I have gone throgh them twice removing those that seem to be irrelevant. I have read Wikipedia:Image use policy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject, that wasn't Tony. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)