Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

Please note that this talk page is for discussion related to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Off-topic discussions, including asking for peer reviews or asking someone to promote an FLC you are involved in, are not appropriate and will be REMOVED.
Thank you for your cooperation.

List Questions

(Reposting this here - thanks Scorpion0422!) In a recent Featured List Candidate on notable graduates of a school, the following issues were raised that might be useful to discuss:

Inclusion Criteria/Statement of Scope

How should this be specified for a list which consists of a "notable" subset of a whole? Originally, I placed "Notable" in the section title, but a comment stated that was redundant and should be deleted. I ended up including a sentence that stated "...graduated the following notable alumni who made significant contributions to..." and another that ended with "...listed in the roles for which they are most notable" along with a reference to WP:BIO and WP:MILMOS#NOTE. The reason people are in this particular list is that they graduated from a particular school and they are notable per standard Wiki criteria. The roles under which they were grouped was an attempt to break the list into pieces of managable size but other groupings are possible.

References for each Item in the List

Can a wiki article be used as a reference for an item in the list? I realize wiki is not considered a reliable source, but it seems that Wiki should have some way of reusing or pointing to the reliable references in a given article instead of copying the text. For example, it has been well-documented that Chuck Yeager was the first to break the sound barrier in level flight, and his wiki article has many reliable references to that fact. Must a list of notable pilots repeat the reference(s) or could it simply point to the Yeager article?

I think I found an answer in the archives of this page which states,"A list must be self-supporting; it can't rely on the linked articles for support (Wikipedia is not a reliable source). If there is an overall reference that can support the whole table, then individual citations are not required in that circumstance. They tend to be necessary for dynamic lists." I wasn't the only one confused by this it seems. FLC does mention verifiability, but it may be worth adding this distinction to the criteria. I still think Wiki would benefit from the notion of a "verified" reference to which articles/lists could link rather than making endless copies. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I fully understand either question, but regards to your second, because WP can be edited by anybody, and wrong information can be inserted into an article and may be overlooked for days, weeks, or even months, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, you can reuse the sources in those articles at this list ;) A verified reference which articles can link to? Do you mean more than once, in the same article? That can be done by typing

<ref name="NASA">Reference goes here.</ref>, and then whenever you want to reuse that reference, just type <ref name="NASA" />.Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a verified reference which articles can link to. My thought was to replace the individual copies of references used in articles with a link to a single verified reference. Much like how many articles can link to a single photo rather than duplicate the photo in each article. For example, I added over a hundred references to the List of USAF Test Pilot School alumni and nearly all were duplicates of those on wiki pages to which the list already linked. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on priorities. If verifiable content were as important as properly licensed images, I'll bet Wiki would create similar infrastructure to review and police the content. Each image is scrutinized to ensure a proper license and removed ASAP if not. But we have limited resources and few lawsuits are filed over poorly-sourced content. Skeet Shooter (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FL Review

Matthew reminded me of this concept on my talk today. I did raise it during the big change-over a few months ago when we appointed directors and rewrote the criteria. But people were unhappy with the idea of adopting the binary structure of FAR/C, where articles are nominated for review (FAR), and the director (Marskell) decides many weeks later whether sufficient progress has been made on improving the article to avoid the next stage, FARC, which is a more intense period of soul-searching, or not, followed often or not by defrocking.

I've read the now-archived section of this page on this matter. I agree that we do need a formal review process to update FLs to modern standards. Whenever I open an FL, I find things I don't like (usually breaches of modern criteria).

If people don't like the binary system, may I ask whether the current instructions and procedure are the best way of encouraging contributors to improve their FL? Is the two-week period appropriate?

"Once a list has been nominated on this page for a minimum of two weeks, it will be removed from the list of featured lists if the consensus is to remove."

That statement leaves little room for Dweller or Matthew to do otherwise. I'd have though extensions in time should be readily given where there's a bona fide reason. Is there some way of upping the ante, so to speak, after the two-week mark? Why not a further two weeks in the hot-box after that? We don't want a flood of removal candidates, but we do need a systematic audit of the 700 or so FLs. Perhaps over a next year, a good proportion might have been scrutinised, some of them in FLR. Tony (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I forgot to add that I'd support the idea of no keep/remove declarations until after that two-week deadline. That would underpin the article-improvement ideal at the start. Tony (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Resignation"

Hello everyone. While it saddens me, I must announce my imminent departure from the post of FL director. In a couple of months time I will be on an extended wiki-break for up to five months and will not be able dedicate the time and energy required to keep WP:FLC ticking over. I realise that I have only been in the post for a few months and hope that I've contributed positively to it during that time but this break is unavoidable and hence so is my resignation.

I'll continue in the post until a replacement can be found and will continue to review each list up until my break. I'd like to thank the regular reviewers (you know who you are) who I've called on to help with reviews and opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for all your time and effort that you have invested in FL over these past few months. Woody (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks also. And best of luck on your new efforts. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is a loss. Thank you for your talent and hard work. Tony (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help! I'm sorry to see you go. Gary King (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go TRM. You've been doing a great job the past few months as both a closer and reviwer and you helped get the process ticking again. What kind of timeframe are we looking at? Should we try and find a replacement as soon as possible, or wait a few months? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for the kind words. Scorpion, I'll be off-wiki late October so whenever's best. I suppose sooner rather than later... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work! In any case, is TRM going to choose his replacement, or are we going to have elections? IMO, the former is preferable, but just asking. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think people need to declare their interest - it does consume some time and energy and it really needs to be handled by someone who actually wants to do it...! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; I wonder whether either of the delagats for the removals page is interested. They scored highly in the election. I'd rather avoid another election if possible. Tony (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry to hear that, TRM. I hope your extended break doesn't turn into a retirement. In reply to Tony, I would consider it -- FLRC doesn't take up too much time or effort. Whoever does become the director or even thinks about it should also take note that Gimmetrow is considering retiring Gimmebot, which closes GAN, FLC, FAC, PR, etc etc, and updates article talk pages and a whole bunch of other things which will have to be done manually. He wants to go back to editing. Gimmebot only started doing FLCs about six months ago, and as Scorpion can attest, it's not fun. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize Gimmebot might be retired – I thought it didn't take up that much time to run, especially considering its infinite usefulness. No more elections – please! I'd love to see either of the FLRC guys take the helm. Gary King (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. You'll be missed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a fun break, but come back soon! –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dts and dts2: request for consensus

I believe that these are the templates we use to enable click-sorting of data in table columns. Apparently one has been deprecated (the 2?) and the other is preferred. Can people enlighten me?

User:Lightmouse has asked that consensus be gathered here for the building into a script of the automatic removal of one of them (the 2, I guess). Is this acceptable to everyone? I'm very new to this, so don't expect deep insights from me. More info at my talk page. Thanks Tony (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Gary King to ask the state of play with {{dts2}}, there's a notice on the template page itself declaring the template is deprecated, but it is still in widespread use nonetheless. Perhaps Gary can shed some light on the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding and recollection of the situation is this: dts previously worked on "DD-MM-YYYY" parameters; dts2 was created as an interim measure on a "YYYY-MM-DD" parameter format and all instances of dts changed to dts2 at that time; and now that dts itself has been modified to be "YYYY-MM-DD", dts2 is now redundant. I presume that all instances of dts2 can now be changed to dts – if I'm right, and Gary King will no doubt tell us, perhaps a bot will be found to do it. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deprecated the template earlier this year, in February I believe. {{dts}} uses the YYYY-MM-DD format for inputting dates, while {{dts2}} uses the DD-MM-YYYY format. Therefore, a bot would have to change {{dts2|30|1|2008}} to {{dts|2008|1|30}}. It is important to note that the second argument can also be a month name, like January. Simply treat this as the second argument without worrying if it is a number or a word when using a bot to replace. This should be an easy task for a bot; it just requires some regular expressions to correctly replace the template; like in Ruby: replace

\{{dts2\|(.*?)\|(.*?)\|(.*?)}}

with

{{dts|$3|$2|$1}}

Done! Gary King (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Supplying the regex is very welcome indeed. I have included it in my script (it is available for anyone to use - just ask). For those of you with the script: if you press the 'part dates' tab, it will convert the 'dts2' format into the 'dts' format. If you press the 'all dates' tab, it will add 'link=off'. Tony, please test this and let me know if it works for you. Lightmouse (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The change works like a charm. Gary King (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you certainly can't apply the "all dates" tab—see the first table here. So maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you need to first apply "part dates" to change "dts2" to the now acceptable "dts". That also removes single-year links. Then which tab to remove the date autoformatting? Tony (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you did not misunderstand, you found a bug. Thanks for letting me know. I have fixed it now. If you press the 'all dates' tab, it runs 'part dates' functions first, so you don't have to press both tabs. Please try again. Lightmouse (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the wrong place to post this, but hopefully someone might see it :-) Earlier today Lightbot was converting various list articles, including the FL List of Birmingham City F.C. managers, from using {{dts2}} to use {{dts}}. This had the effect of changing the date format as seen by the reader from the appropriate international day-first format to the (in my view, for a list relating to an English topic) inappropriate US month-first format. AFAIK it's still a part of the WP:DATE#Full date formatting MoS that date style shouldn't be arbitrarily changed (consistency, national ties, retaining existing format). Is there a parameter which can be applied to dts to determine output format? there doesn't seem to be one in the documentation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struway2, I was just responding to your comment on my talk page when I saw your posting here. Lightbot followed the guidance stated in this section here. I am sure somebody will come along shortly and provide an answer to this. Lightmouse (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here's me thinking that DTS2 was used to render dates in the international date format, as opposed to DTS which did it in the US format. <shrugs> Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening is that {{dts}} by default links dates, and linked dates are formatted based on user preference. When link=off is applied, dates are unlinked and so appear in a fixed format; in this case, they are in US format. Personally, I don't mind what format they're in; the important thing is that it's a format that everyone agrees on. I would prefer to change it only after several people have agreed on a specific format; I'd like input specifically from people such as Lightmouse and Tony1, since I haven't been keeping up-to-date on the latest date formatting discussions. I posted to Tony's talk page at User_talk:Tony1#Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates.23dts_and_dts2:_request_for_consensus explaining the situation. Gary King (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that whether the date output by the template is linked or not, the important thing is for it to be in a format appropriate to the topic, as per the current MoS, to benefit the majority of readers who don't have date preference. US dates for US topics, and international-format dates for topics related to countries where that format is preferred. If there is to be only one date-sorting template, then obviously there has to be a default format, but equally obviously, there has to be a choice. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is getting interesting. I tolerate almost all unambiguous formats, including ISO and some that are banned by the MOS such as 'September 11th'. I also tolerate inconsistency within articles. My dislike of linked dates outranks any format preferences. The problem here is just the same as that of the citation templates. My only suggestion would be to add an ouput format parameter to the dts template. If such a parameter existed, I could modify my existing handy tab script so that you guys could use it to force all 'dts' dates in an article into either US or non-US format. With a bit more work, such a tool could be extended to force all things that look like dates into one format (but it would not be able to avoid quotes and titles). Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we have two DTS templates, one for the US date format, and one for the international format, that can have linking and autoformatting turned off if desired? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LM, tables are typically the central part of lists, and are more obviously part of the main text than ref lists, both in terms of their upper location, size in proportion to the whole article, and close relationship to the lead. While ref lists are demonstrably separate from the main text (despite their being intertwined through ref numbers in the main text) I think I'd have trouble with date outputs that were international in the lead, then US in the first column. It's no big deal, but Gary has hinted that a solution is at hand; i.e., the ability to choose either format in plain black text. There's also Matthew's suggestion that a different template for international format be produced, of the type that TRM already thought we had (just another instnace of how blasted date autoformatting jinxes us, and how WYKIWYG—What You Key in Is What You Get) is better for all. Tony (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We did have a template that output in international format; that's what {{dts2}} did. For my purposes – enabling date sorting in tables in non-US-related articles – all it needed to get rid of all the blue was to implement a no-link parameter that would stop the addition of square brackets. Like {{sortname}} has. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Gary, is Struway's suggestion the best way to go? Is it going to be possible? Tony (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks

About two weeks ago, User:The Rambling Man asked me to step over here and start checking sources like I do at FAC. I told him at the time I'd be traveling, but I'm home now, and if the general folks around here would be interested, I could try to fit FLCs into my schedule. Depends on if that'd be welcome or not over here. I've never actually done much with FLs, so I'd be a babe in the woods on the other criteria... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have enough time, I know it would be very much appreciated. I know that your work at FAC is truly appreciated so any repeat here would be great. Being a specialist on one criteria is fine. Woody (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be amazing if you could help out with source checking; several people already do it so the load is already lightened, and to add to that, each list usually has several general sources and a small number of specific sources. And plus, a lot of lists often use the same sources, so that should also help. Gary King (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can be as bad as John McCain or Michael Jackson, both of which are just huge for sources. So is the general rule that there are "general" sources and specific ones? And the general ones are considered to hold true for the entire article? You can tell I don't do lists much... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'll give my personal experience on this: I don't think any of my lists use general references, because my lists contain information compiled from different sources. So in that case, it's like a typical FAC. However, several lists do use "general" references; an example is this recently promoted list: List of Minnesota Twins managers. There is a "General references" which is really just used to back up the other references; they are pretty much always supplementary, meaning they are just there to back up specific references, which every list should still have. Gary King (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, lists contain "general" references for the material in the list. For instance, for List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for foreign language performances, there is a general reference for the list, and specific references for the rest of the material (usually the lead and any notes, if any). It varies from list to list though. Some lists don't have a general reference that covers the whole list, and will instead just have references sprinkled throughout the list (or have a column for it, many of Gary's lists, such as List of acquisitions by Yahoo!, do this). In the end, as long as the material is adequately referenced, whether through a general reference or lots of specific references, then it's fine. And yeah, your help would be greatly appreciated here =) sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your help would be greatly appreciated Ealdgyth. Thanks for remembering! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barring any opposition, I'll probably start checking this weekend. (I have an article up at FAC and class tonight, so it'll be a bit busy until probably Sunday...) I also plan to get back involved with GAN and need to do my PR runs sometime. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, this is a generous move on your part that will bring a new (and required) dimension to our review process. Thank you very much. Tony (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH! Where's my "link checker tool" to check for dead links?? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get the rest of them tomorrow. That should take care of the backlog. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New director

I've had a quick chat with User:Matthewedwards about taking over my role in about three weeks time. Matthew is keen to do this as long as there's a consensus to support him taking the position. I'm not suggesting we go through the whole "election" process, but if people could indicate their support for Matthew below then we'll be able to quickly establish a consensus. Thanks.

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good choice. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gary King (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cannibaloki 16:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MASEM 16:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for FLC though it needs to be worked out whether he is maintaining his FLRC role as well? Woody (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; if he feels he can carry on with the (lower-volume) FLRC role as well, that's fine by me. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—excellent. Tony (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support and while it would be nice if someone else took over for Matthew as an FLRC director just to share power/responsibility, no one else was close at the election and I doubt that the community wants to run another one. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well a quick thank you to everyone for responding quickly. I think we have irrefutable consensus that Matthew will be a more-than suitable replacement for me. There remains the issue of FLRC director, a position which, ideally, would not be held by one of the FL directors. Since we didn't have "an election" or that post, I think it'd be useful to see if there's any interest from anyone in taking over from Matthew in that position? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing question

While brainstorming on a list (namely, separating the winners/nominees from Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor into a list), I was wondering whether this type of sourcing would be suitable. Using this search tool (the website is maintained by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, so it's as official as it gets), one can simply select "Actor -- Supporting Role", click "Search", and get a full listing of all the winners and nominees for the Best Supporting Actor award. Is this suitable for a general source? If so, do I simply write in directions for using the source? sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the results page will expire? I'd use the results' link as a general reference, granted of course, the link won't expire.--Crzy cheetah 09:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link does expire after a while, hence the question. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the link didn't expire, WP:ELNO says "avoid links to the results pages of search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds". IMO references are more important than external links so we shouldn't use them. The question is does that search tool fall under that bracket, but if not, I think the results of the search do. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search results are automatically generated so I don't think it's wise to use them as references in general. I would suggest using an online archiving tool to create an archive of the page then using that as the reference. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date autoformatting change

Dear nominators and reviewers

Extended debate at MOSNUM and elsewhere over the advantages and disadvantages of WikiMedia's date-autoformatting (DA) functionality, culminating here, has seen clear consensus emerge to add this italicised sentence to MOSNUM's section "Date autoformatting" section.

[Date autoformatting] should not generally be used unless there is a particular reason to do so.

Accordingly, the sentence has been added. Nominators and reviewers are asked to take this into account in relation to FL Criterion 5 (style guidelines). We draw your attention to the well-established "three simple guidelines" for the use of either international or US format, which are set out here, and the guideline on within-article consistency here, which states that:

Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
Dates in article references should all have the same format.

In almost all cases, the change can be summarised simply as "Remove the double square brackets around month-day and month-day-year dates in the main text and footnotes (and check that the raw dates that are left use a consistent format". A script can be run on any nomination by request, to spare the manual labour of removal. We need to be careful with lists that have the date-sorting templates (dts and dts2), for which we await the tweaking of the script to accommodate. Probably best to hold off on those until done (see section above).

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).
You're ready to start.

Applying the script—it's very simple

Click on "edit this page". You'll see a tab called "all dates" at top-right. Click on it; this will immediately remove the date autoformatting in the edit-window.
The diff will automatically appear under the edit-window. Check through the changes you're making before saving them. See Note 1 below
Until the edit summary is reworked, consider copy-pasting in this one: [[User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js|Script]]-assisted dates; see [[WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting|MOSNUM]]
Click on "Save page": it's done.

Afterwards

Respond politely and promptly to any critical comments on your talk page. If someone wants to fight it, it's better to back down and move on to improve other articles where WPians appreciate your efforts. Do not EVER edit-war over date autoformatting; raise the issue at WT:MOSNUM.

Notes

[1] Treats only square-bracketed dates. The script removes square brackets only, which mostly involves the main text and footnotes; it's acceptable for citation-generated dates to be of a different format. Occasionally the removal of DA will reveal inconsistencies in formatting of what were square-bracketed dates, and with the reference section where citation generated dates are often used. These should be corrected manually before saving the actions of the script; alternatively, post a note on the talk page asking editors to audit the date formats, and draw their attention to the well-established "three simple guidelines" for the use of either international or US format, and the guideline on within-article consistency, which state that:

Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
Dates in article references should all have the same format.

[2] Date-sorting templates in tables. As of August 24, a minor tweak must still be made to the script (which will update automatically for all users who have transcluded it as above), to deal with the column-sorting template in tables. Please be aware of this in relation to Featured Lists and the like (i.e., hold off there until it's fixed). The "dts" and "dts2" templates are at issue. Should be fixed soon.

[3] Antiquity-related articles. Articles on topics such as ancient Rome should be treated with caution, since the script removes year-links as well, and some editors may argue that there's a case for retaining the simple year and century links from ancient times (e.g., 212). It's better to ask first in these cases. In any case, such articles contain few if any full dates.

[4] WikEd. For those of you who've installed WikEd, it must be disabled to run the script.

Tony (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]