User talk:Tony1

Real-life workload: 2

• 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.

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

ping again

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory

Re: your note about removal of date formatting

Please feel free to do so at any article where I am the major contributor (listed at User:Savidan/Contributions). I don't feel strongly enough about it to go through all my past work, but I've stopped writing with the dates formatting that way. Thanks. Savidan 04:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That should tide us over until the guideline changes again...:) Savidan 15:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to count me as a positive response for Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood and Tomb of Antipope John XXIII here. I'm very satisfied. Savidan 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just e.s.p. I guess. I've been following this DA issue pretty closely ever since you brought it to my attention. I'm surprised that its been meeting any resistance at all... Savidan 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with script

Tony, I'm having problems using this script. In the edit window I have two tabs -- [delink iso] and [part dates], and they allowed me to delink isodates (2008-08-08) and stand alone years, but not full dates such as [[8 August]] [[2008]]. Is this how it is supposed to be? Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Matthewedwards Editing.JPG I don't have the "full dates" tab. Perhaps because I have the additional admin tabs for page deleting etc? I haven't been to MOSNUM lately. I have to head out for an hour so I'll check back. If you can think of anything about the script, that'd be great. I've also asked Lightmouse but he hasn't got back to me yet. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked: this is one for LM. Also, I didn't mention that "dates blah" will do piped year links. Avoid, of course, for pipes such as "1999 in baseball". The "all dates" tab has been purposely programmed to avoid pipes. Tony (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've supplied him with the same image. I noticed he's not an admin so he may not have been aware of it. With regards to MOSNUM, I don't see Greg's yellow proposal... How was the skiing? Did you stay in Australia or go abroad? Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Breakneck speeds, but no broken neck. Yes, in this country, where it's twice as expensive and half as good. Nevertheless, the best season in more than five years. We'll need to ascertain whether all admins have the same problem. Or maybe it's a matter of the add-on functions you've selected in your prefs. Tony (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed yourself. I didn't realise Australia had the weather for skiing. I've discovered that Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs and WP:WIKED both conflict with the script. Just in case anyone else comes to you about this, WikEd is incompatible with any script, add-on, or extension that relies on or changes the text edit box. The reason is that WikEd replaces the normal text area with its own rich-text iframe. Many of these scripts will still work if WikEd is temporarily turned off by pressing the button, making the changes, and re-enabling WikEd. Six Tabs replaces the regular "cactions" tabs with

Article

edit hist   Discussion edit

hist

and seems to override any other scripts that adds any extra cactions. I've removed SixTabs from my monobook and found that I have a whole bunch of new tabs from other scripts that I didn't even realise I was missing! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also Tony, if you add the following lines to your monobook, you get pull-down tabs, which means you don't have to scroll across to find the one you want. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu'); importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css'); importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Compact Navigation');

(outdent) You might want to explain this to Lightmouse. I did this when I discovered WikEd disabled the script and Lightmouse had never heard of WikEd and therefore did not pay my explanation much attention. I spend many frustrating days with Lightmouse's script before I discovered the problem. This information needs to be passed on to others who may undergo this frustrating experience! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that I've actually given up with Lightmouse. I raised the problem with him, and his response was... not as helpful as I would have expected, and was basically "You are missing <this>, <this>, <this>, and <this>. Don't know, don't care." Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, I'm sorry you've had trouble with the script. Damn it: I hope it can be sorted out eventually. Thanks for the extra strings: great not to have to travel over to the left side to reach the "all dates" tab. But who's the dork who programmed the pull-down buttons to be in the centre rather than the left of those huge horizontal spaces? I wonder sometimes at the inability of programmers to look at basic time-and-movement issues before they program. I'm still using it, but where can I raise this issue?

I fixed the issue by removing SixTabs and replacing it with the pull down menus. WikEd can be temporarily turned on and off, so that isn't a problem any more either. Regarding the central placement, the programmer is User:AA, though he's just begun an extended wikibreak. I've actually left a message with him regarding an additional tab for the discussion menu: a "new section" tab. If he doesn't reply in a week I might just add it myself. I personally don't want to mess with the alignment though because I don't know how many users are annoyed by it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, I did not say that I do not care. I know that it is frustrating when software doesn't work. My response was based on my inability to help you, perhaps you over-estimate how clever I am. Lightmouse (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Operation Brevity

Your thoughts about this issue? I'm not very familiar with military jargon and whatnot. Specifically, I'm interested if you also think "back" and "out", highlighted in the discussion, are redundant. — Deckiller 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So you pretty much feel that those two words should remain in the prose? Otherwise, I think we agree almost word for word on everything else (some of the other points you made I highlighted on the FAC talkpage, though I think your solutions are stronger). I think the reason the other changes were not made was because the copy-edit had not been done yet. — Deckiller 00:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. It deserves attention, and I hope the contributors are going to be cooperative. Tony (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My CE abilities are not generally up to scratch in terms of FA standards, and I have been too involved with this article to bring fresh eyes to it. However, I do believe that it is close. If I attempt a copyedit of one section, of your choice if you wish (though preferably one without the phrase "exploit towards" in it), would you be willing to review my efforts? If you find that I am able to bring it up to an acceptable standard, I will then try and complete the rest of the article. If not, I'll leave it, and do what I can to assist the main contributor find a better copyeditor. --FactotEm (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes? No? --FactotEm (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I'll drop a note back here when I'm done. Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done --FactotEm (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, the copyedit is in my sandbox. The article remains untouched for now. --FactotEm (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look. I appreciate it. If the whole article is improved, so that the prose suffers only from a similar level of 'surface glitches', would that be enough to overturn your oppose? I need to know whether it's worth investing my time to attempt the same treatment for the whole article. --FactotEm (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's such good material; you ought to have no qualms about sprucing it up. Best to get a collaborator to go over it after you've done your work. I see this as an investment in you as an editor in this topic, so maybe your editing might focus on trying to pick up things from an unfamiliar reader's POV. That's the hard thing—distancing yourself from the writing process so your close familiarity with the meanings doesn't interfere. It's expert vs non-expert, familiar vs unfamiliar. Tony (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I fully appreciate the difficulties of being too close to a subject, and on balance, I think I will be disappointed if I attempt this within the timeframe of the FAC. I'll take a more leisurely approach, and see if we can't get this one through on the next attempt. Thanks for your time. --FactotEm (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PS It's very much a narrative account. That can be a strength, but could be a weakness unless the reader is let into the human side, the earthy details, in just a few places. Otherwise it might be just "this division withdrew, that division advanced". Do you have access to more personal accounts, experiences? Perhaps the diaries of inidividual servicemen are quoted in a few sources .... If that dimension could emerge in just the right places and amounts, it will become a well-known source itself. Tony (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See your point, but 'just the right places and amounts' is quite a trick. Academic really; I'm not the primary contributor and don't have any of the sources, but I'll point the main editor this way. --FactotEm (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

dates wiki-linked

I have seen you removed all wiki-links for dates here. May I ask why you did this? Tomeasy _{T C} 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for your message. Yes, I boldly acted at Netherlands, whereas I usually post a notice at the talk page for up to a week. I guess I'm lulled by the overall acceptance of, and in some cases enthusiasm for the removal of DA. You may be interested in reading the capped list of the disadvantages of DA at one of the talk pages (this would have appeared at the talk page). Please let me know how you feel about it.

Interestingly, I arrived at that article from the Dutch WP (I don't speak Dutch, but am interested in the langauge). There, DA is never used, of course, although I notice that the Dutch WP has lots of linked years, which engWP now firmly deprecates. Tony (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Actually, I was not aware of the auto-formatting functionality at all. Now, that I have learned about it, I understand the arguments to discard it as well as why it was installed in the first place. So, from this point of view, I do not really care about the issue.

The functionality that I related to the linked dates was the context provided by the link. That seems to be gone with your approach. I found it sometimes helpful to follow a link for the year to see what else happened by then. Do you think this functionality should be removed? Or do I misunderstand something?

You've claimed that "engWP now firmly deprecates" the use of linked years. I think this is the related MOS section to your claim. However, I do not see backing to your claim there. Rather, editors are explained how to do apply linked dates. What agreement did I miss? Tomeasy _{T C} 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom, This is relevant, I think. There are other places, too. Tony (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If it was the new policy to discourage linked dates, I think, this should be mentioned right in the place where linked dates are explained. The link you provided rather says the obvious, namely that a link should not be created, if it does not provide relevant context, and this also applies for dates. It does not discourage linked dates, if they matter.

You did not comment on whether you think linked dates are never needed. Is that what you intend with this alleged policy change, or is it the auto formating that you want to dispose of, or both because they are inseparable and one has to go for the sake of the other?

Last but not least: You were referring to a recent policy change. The link that you sent me does not show this at all. I have checked this article for March and the passage that you declare relevant did not change since (and probably since much longer). Can it be you do not provide me the full information? Probably, you've had discussions about this policy change, presumably with consensus to put it into effect, and then you decided to change the articles accordingly. I would be interested reading something like that. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unsure whether you're thinking of linked chronological items, including single years, and date autoformatting (DA) as one thing. They're really quite separate issues, but commonly misunderstood as a single one because the DA mechanism is, sadly, entagled with the linking mechanism, one of the worst programming decisions ever made, IMO. The MOSLINK link I provided does point to the deprecation of 1980 and the like, in the second bullet point. For DA, it's better to go to WP:MOSNUM, where there are two relevant sections (easy to find in the ToC). Please note that there are proposals to loosen the long-standing demands of MOSNUM for consistent date formatting throughout entire articles, which is widely ignored by editors. See MOSNUM talk for that. Let me know if we're still not talking about the same thing. Tony (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read my second comment, you will see that from this time on I discriminate between the two functionalities. Let me thank you once again for helping me understand this with your first comment. So, I think there is no misunderstanding in that sense. I am indifferent whether to keep the DA or not, but I found it helpful to link some dates, if this provides useful context. And: MOSLINK does not deprecate linked dates, if they are useful. As I understand you, you want to erase this functionality, because it is entangled with the DA functionality, which you actually want to get rid of. Is that right? Further, I would conclude that there has not been a policy change as you claimed initially, as long as you do not provide evidence for it. If so, I am sorry to say, I would feel taken as a fool by you. :-( Tomeasy _{T C} 11:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Tom, it's not policy, but in styleguides (an important distinction). The change has been the gradual evolution from the mandatory to the optional. Editors are now empowered to use or not use DA as they judge best. I encourage people not to use it, for all of the reasons expressed in the capped explanations. Tony (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"which engWP now firmly deprecates"... Anyway, I think we are fine now and thanks for the distinction of styleguides and policies. I will simply not use the brackets around dates by default anymore, as I did so far. Rather I will use them only when I really want to provide context to other events on that date. This will, of course, be the case quite rarely. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

M-28

Since I haven't really read through the article much since it was nominated 3 weeks ago, I printed out the article and played with it on paper, patrolling for commas. I think I did a decent job, but I'd welcome feedback. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Before it becomes official...

I would like to ask if you could gice the page United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate a look over and leave some suggestions for imporvement on my talk page. Its not too far out from FA-class, I think, but I would like a professional opinion on what could be done before going to WP:FAC. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

Actually, I think you overstate the case. It doesn't say that ISO 8601 formats aren't allowed, just that they're not common. And since I see them all over the place, I kinda discount that. (I am watching this page) - Denimadept (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE

Your name has been mentioned at WT:CITE. Although I hesitate to ask you to join the mess there, I do think your views would be valuable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I mentioned that this page has rapidly detriorated into one of MoS's biggest messes, and it's an important page. I have limited patience for fiddling with numbers and dashes and trivial items that continue to surface at the WP:LAYOUT page, while important pages that support WP:V policy fall into such a state of disrepair that it becomes unuseful at WP:FAC. I continue to believe it is urgent that someone invigorates WP:MOSCO to get some cohesion to all of the MoS pages. While I am dealing with FAC and FAR, what to do about GimmeBot, the Dispatches, and my own ongoing work (which I'm neglecting, for example WP:MEDMOS and many articles that need my attention), I just can't take on MoS cleanup, but someone needs to do it. It's getting worse by the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening up Pandora's Box

Tony 1, It was I who initiated the messy exchange but I did want to have a discussion on the issues of citation guides and layout rather than having an edit war. I would also like to seek out others like yourself who may have a good perspective on researching and bibliographic notations. FWiW, I will also refer this note to SandyGeorgia who also may be an assist here. Bzuk (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC).

Dates

Hi Tony,

I have a concern about this edit. As I understand it, the Arbitration Committee specifically ruled a while back that either wikilinked dates, or non-linked dates that conform to local practices, are acceptable, and that edits that do nothing but change from one format to the other are prohibited (due to their tendency to lead to edit wars.)

As it happens, we at WikiProject Oregon have recently discussed the issue, and I think it's fair to say that most of us would support the format you seem to prefer. We're also not really a group that's prone to edit-warring. But, I thought I'd check in with you -- either to let you know about the problem with this sort of edit, or, if my information is out of date, so you can bring me up to speed.

Thanks, -Pete (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just found that your reasoning was quoted in the WP:ORE discussion I mentioned. I skimmed through it, and I'd say I entirely support your reasoning. However, I still think it's out of synch with policy and that ArbCom ruling; I'd rather work with you to change the policy, than have further edits like this made. I suspect there would be broad support for what you say. -Pete (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Pete. My response is at WikiProject Oregon. I did point out that edit warring is highly unlikely to occur, and that a note was posted on the talk page more than two weeks ago, with capped reasoning and a formal proposal. Tony (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply there, and sorry for missing your talk page on Oregon State Capitol a couple weeks back. The only thing that's holding me back from enthusiastically endorsing what you're doing is the reluctance of people like EncMstr (talk · contribs). He's a highly productive member of our project, and a very smart guy. His well-reasoned disagreement with your assessment gives me pause. Not to say that it convinces me. I'll be interested to see what he thinks. Anyway -- I'm glad to see some movement on this issue, thank you for taking the initiative and making such a strong effort to communicate about what you're doing. -Pete (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I notice there's another "Pete" posting in the discussion on MOSNUM -- just want to point out that ain't me. -Pete (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to join our discussion

Hello there, Tony1! Awadewit and I are coordinating a podcast conversation about writing and editing Wikipedia articles. Since we know you to be a conscientious and thoughtful editor, we'd like you to be part of the discussion. (It will take place via Skype – all you need is a headset and the free software.) If you're interested, please visit the scheduling page and indicate your preference. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 13:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I forgot you're in Australia (Sydney, right?). Would Sunday 24 August at 9am your time (7pm on Saturday US EST, 0:00 UTC) work better? Scartol • Tok 13:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make a note that 9am works better for you. It's just audio – we'll have enough trouble getting that to work, without trying to make you all look at my ugly face, too! =) Scartol • Tok 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I look like a hideous reptile on Skype vid, even if I tweak the lighting. Tony (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists

..has just been quoted at me as a guideline on how to write a list. Including...

• If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criterion is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).
• If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."

This tends to fly in the face of our recent avoidance of bland openings. It's hard for me to defend my position when a guideline explicitly states it's okay. FYI, it's List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes that we're discussing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions at the FLC. The bigger issue is modifying WP:LIST so we can't be accused of double standards. How do we go about that? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

M-28 (Michigan highway)

Tony, can you revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-28 (Michigan highway) please? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DA - clarify?

Hi, Tony1! Could you clarify some of your comments on WT:MOSDATE? Specifically, (1) I'm confused that you advocate local control, but also advocate a site-wide policy of discouraging auto-formatting.

(2) Next, I'd like your take on this thought: The strongest benefit I see to auto-formatting is that (for logged in users) dates always display the same way. So even when the refs use ISO format and the text is entered with textual months, I still get the same format all the way through. By removing auto-formatting, I would estimate some 80% of the articles on here will have dates in more than one format.

(3) In your latest comment on WT:MOSDATE you say:

(T)he code is not worth fixing, for most of the reasons under the cap that has been promulgated here and elsewhere.

Are your reasons "here and elsewhere" the list of six "disadvantages"? I'm curious as to what you think about my response to those.

Thanks, Tony1! Just trying to get my head around the issue and (4) why people feel so strongly about it. :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Satyr. I hope you don't mind my inserting numbers in your comment above, so I can more easily refer to your points. In reverse order:

• (4) Yes, its intriguing that a small clutch of people do feel emotional about it, while most WPians take a more practical, reader-oriented attitude. My feeling is that those who value computer programming as a skill and a tool for improving the project are aghast to see the discarding of a major, long-standing, ubiquitous function. To them, it may seem like a backward step, a needless sacrifice of a function that, superficially, seems to finely tune the text to their particular taste. While I understand that stance, I have no sympathy for it. In the heady, exciting days when DA was put forward, people had little experience with wikis and with the reader-oriented issues we've now had time to reflect on. I think this psychological environment favoured technical novelty and innovation without stopping to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages. Once a technical feature becomes established on a wiki, it's very hard to challenge. However, the time has come to do so, and the maturity of the community is evidenced by the popularity of the move (once people think about it), and the neutrality of many WPs who perhaps haven't thought about it much, but don't mind dropping the blue in principle.
• (3) Can you link me to where you originally responded to the capped reasons? Yes, I was referring to those.
• (2) "The strongest benefit I see to auto-formatting is that (for logged in users) dates always display the same way." I think that's not a great benefit, given the tiny proportion of readers who are registered, preferenced, and logged on. I care only about our real readers, out there. Your 80% estimate may well be correct, but even with the DA for manually keyed-in dates, many articles are inconsistent; there'll be your own pref in the main text, and then ISO in the refs. Some of the refs typically include US or international formatted dates, too, either DA or DA-free. The citation template thing is a serious issue, but I'd prefer not to solve everything at once. My good friend, SandyGeorgia, would prefer this all-at-once route, but I see myself as more willing to tolerate structured inconsistency within an article, at least in the short- to medium-term as we try to corral and coordinate the templates. I do insist, however, on a single format in the main text, where the smooth, easy reading of running prose can be interrupted by DA then DA-free, or US then international (raw) format. And of course, it's much easier to read a list of refs without inconsistencies, sure. All in good time.
• (1) A strategic combination of local and site-wide policy is already essential to the running of WP, as it is to all national/local governance. It acknowledges the need for both global strategies and cohesion, and the shaping of text to local conditions. There may be conflicts from time to time, but they're part of the deal. I don't see it in terms of discrepancy or inconsistency.

Let's talk more. Tony (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FSC

Well, I figured someone had to - things were staying open for months, even if they had passed, and things like that.

Of course, it's not ideal, since me not voting would be counter-productive to any sort of throughput at the moment, and I also want to prime the pump a bit by nominating things so that people do keep checking FSC. Happily, I have enough friends willing to close, or at least to make the decision on whether it passed, and then I can fix up all the 63 notifications necessary. =)

By the way, try out the new nominations system I put in - it should be a lot easier =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent; yes, it's not good to lose your reviewing role, but a plus overall. Featured lists are on a much better footing now that they have a directorate. Tony (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SFG

Hi again, Tony. Do you reckon you've got time now to look at SFG? It's a real mess at the minute, and I'm not sure the basic metafunctions summary I drafted is an improvement on what was there before. Might need to scrap it and start over. Anyway, I'd really appreciate your input on what the article should look like in the end: how much detail to go into, what does and doesn't belong, that kinda thing. Thanks! - snookerfran ^(talk) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NFCC question

Tony, I've begun to gather thoughts on the creation of a dispatch discussing the review of "non-free" images. I may have stumbled upon a wrinkle (i.e. something not generally adhered to) and, as you're someone who's been involved in the writing of the non-free content criteria (especially in regards to the precision of language), I thought I might run it by you:

• NFCC#4 sets forth "Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia." (emphasis mine)
• Publication is "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending"

Would it not, then, be that case that Wikipedian-created images (i.e. derivative works) of, for example, sculptures would fail? How can this image be reconciled? Could the issue be gamed/resolved by, say, uploading to Flickr or a self-published website first? If I'm being too literal, do you happen to know how the criterion was meant to be interpreted and/or what it is intended to prevent? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this interesting question, Elcobbola. I can't answer it, but I know exactly who can: our experts at WT:NFCC. If you don't mind, I'll copy this to that page. Tony (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; my faith in the ability of WT pages to produce well-reasoned answers to these sorts of questions is...minimal, which is why I tried here first. If you think there's validity to the issue, however, then that is perhaps all I really needed and, indeed, that page is an appropriate next step. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They're pretty good at NFCC; they're keen to support their day-to-day efforts at policing images. Tony (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this proves my point. Maybe I'll ask on the Commons. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pending Dispatch list

... at Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#Pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

date-autoformatting

I'm not sure -- did you see my reply to your comment at User_talk:Sdsds#date-autoformatting? (sdsds - talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC of U.S. Route 491

Tony, Thank you for the review. I believe I have addressed your concerns. Please comment at the FAC, if you have additional concerns. Dave (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Script unlinking dates

Tony, this edit has now broken the sorting for the dates in the second table. Can you adjust your script so that whenever it encounters {{dts}} it inserts |link=off into the template so the dates still sort correctly but the dates aren't linked? I asked Gary King to modify the template for just this event. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two things that I don't understand.

• That edit merely removed square brackets from dates, it did not amend a template.
• That article does not contain 'dts'.

Can you clarify what you mean? Lightmouse (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps that list didn't sort properly to start with... In which case no worries... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way you could adjust the script to deal with templates? Up until recently, the {{dts}} template (designed for sorting dates chronologically in case anyone was wondering) automatically wikilinked the dates. I had a quick word with User:Gary King about it and he adjusted it so that you could add a |link=off in the template so the wikilinking was turned off. This was in anticipation of Tony rolling out more delinking of low-value wikilinked dates. The majority of recently promoted lists with dates in use this template but the linked version. I wonder if the script can be adjusted to modify those {{dts}} templates? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you give me example pages using the template in the two modes, I can take a look. Lightmouse (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely. The link Gary gave me was Template:Dts/examples where it's explained. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think I can do it. I looked at List of Norwegian monarchs. It appears to work for 'dts' but not for 'dts2'. Why is that? Lightmouse (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, and I think {{dts2}} has been deprecated and {{dts}} should be used in preference. Another little task for the script perhaps? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing 'dts2' to 'dts' is best done by bot in one sweep. My bot (Lightbot) can be coded to replace all instances of {{dts2}} with {{dts}} simply by deleting the '2'. I assume that no other change is required. You will need to get stakeholder consensus. Once you have consent for that task, I will seek permission to run the bot. I can then change the script to add 'link=off'. I notice that the script is not in your monobook. If you want it, all you have to do is add the same line as Tony has (and then clear your cache). Lightmouse (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

aug 6

Hi, just had a look at "Harmonic function" there, and I love what you've done. Tony (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there-- I have to admit I'm a little confused, or else just pure senile. Which article are you referring to exactly? Also, I checked my contribution list, and I don't have any for August 6 (I was in the backwoods of Ontario at the time). --Blehfu (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "augmented 6th". :=) Tony (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you kindly. --Blehfu (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a topic I actually know something about, so I felt I could flex my editorial muscle. --Blehfu (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

'dem ~!@#$ Date links and delinks

Completely, well maybe not so completely, uninvolved editor jumping in on the Colonies Chris and BillCJ conflab. All parties need to take a "deep breath" and remember that experienced and knowledgeable editors like yourselves can become very worked up over an issue, especially if there is some investment involved. From my limited dealings with each of you, a consistent effort to work for the betterment of the project is evident. I believe what began as BRD exercise, has now been elevated into a dispute of personalities. None of that should apply in what is essentially still a "content dispute." FWiW, Chris, you have probably a gathering consensus bolstering your deprecating of autodate formatting but where you link that campaign with a general "paring" of common wording wikilinking, it can look like a nefarious attack. BillCJ, this direction of evolving standards in editing will take some "push and pull" and AGF still applies. Tony1, I am gaining a begrudging admiration of your tenacity and willingness to stick your neck out, but one of your earlier perspectives my be applicable, paraphrasing or rehashing an axiom" "not all battles are worth fighting in a war..." Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the copyedits

		The Utah State Highways Barnstar
		Thanks Tony, your feedback is tough, but very good. And as you probably now know more about Utah highways than anybody else in Australia, I award you this. Thanks for helping Interstate 70 in Utah and U.S. Route 491 reach featured article. Dave (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Dave. Keep up the high quality and the state bureacrats and construction companies might use them as a resource. You may consider trying to forge an ongoing telephone/email relationship with one or two professionals in those institutions; announcing that you promote their work through the seventh-most-popular Internet site in the world is always a good entree. Why bother? Because they might be willing to offer advice, or make available documentation about, say, planning or technical challenges, or interesting features, that is currently unavailable. With their permission, you could enrich your articles with this additional layer of information. Think of aiming for a Featured Topic eventually? Tony (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM & Date Unlinking

Your quest to unlink dates has finally taken you into articles on my watchlist. I have no real desire to entire this debate. But it would be nice if your edit summary could be more descriptive. Is there perhaps a subpage of the Talk:MOSNUM or your own Talk page that could be set up to explain the change(s) you are making? That would save many of us from having to wade through the many pages of discussion in MOSNUM's Talk page to figure out exactly what you're doing and why. This is particularly important as this is a change from standard practice so many editors will be wondering why you're making the change and if such a change is supported by rule or consensus.

Another thought: Has discussion of this change included discussion of FA guidelines and expectations? Seems a pretty big thing to think about given that you are changing FAs, too. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, ElKevbo. FA guidelines deal only with additional requirements, beyond the policies and guidelines that apply to all WP articles. They do not deal with date autoformatting.

In a character-limited edit summary it's hard to do more than point to a page. DA is optional at the moment, although there are moves to deprecate it, which I think would improve the project. You can find much discourse at MOSNUM talk.

This is the standard message to inform users:

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date-autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional, after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages of using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors, and the consensus against the use of date-autoformatting is overwhelming. I seek in-principle consensus here for the removal of date autoformatting from the main text of articles related to this WikiProject, using a script; such a move would also be sensitive to local objections on any article talk page. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

You may wish to peruse the following capped text to compare two examples, with and without date autoformatting. The DA is set at international style—the one pertaining in this particular article—to show all WPians how the blue dates are displayed to visitors. MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted, analogous to our highly successful guidelines for the use of varieties of English. The choice of style is audited during the running of the script to ensure that it is appropriate to the article (i.e., consistent, and country-related where appropriate).

Two examples for comparison

EXAMPLE 1

Original

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June. The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 June and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.

To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

DA-free

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June. The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.

To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

EXAMPLE 2

Original

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

DA-free

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

Tony (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen check

Tony, this has come up on several FACs, and no one seems to have nailed it down yet. For example, see Leonard Harrison State Park:

*Overlook Trail is a 0.6-mile (1.0 km) long path to Otter View, a vista looking to the south ...

Is that hyphenation correct, or should it be

* ... 0.6-mile-long (1.0 km) path ?

If it needs another hyphen, the convert template doesn't deal with that, so what should editors do? Do they always need to recast the sentence, or should they just do the convert manually? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Either "a path 0.6 mile (1.0 km) long", or "a 0.6-mile (1.0 km) path". Tony (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for c/e

Hi Tony :) I was wondering if you'd do me a favour by looking over Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation) for prose etc? It's just become a GA and I'd like to take it to FAC in the near future. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know if you noticed because it was while you were skiing, but there were utterings at WT:FLC of perhaps doing a WP:FLR, before they go to WP:FLRC. I know you were interested in this idea a couple of months ago and started a discussion at WT:FLRC about it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)