User talk:Tony1: Difference between revisions

Template:Werdnabot

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

4 September 2024
News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready? Recent research: Simulated Wikipedia seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024 Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year Traffic report: After the gold rush Humour: Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates#Nominators_should_not_support_their_own_nominations:_Proposal. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to restart this process again, see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates#Nomination_procedure:_Proposal. Best. --Kleinzach 01:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that there are many superfluous links that can be removed from articles, I think the last part of this edit looks slightly strange. Why link some countries but not others? Just curious. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this does look inconsistent in one way, but is bound to occur normally where some items in a list have already been linked on their first occurrence above in the text. No reader of the English WP should need to consult an article on an anglophone country, in all but the rarest of circumstances. Personally, I'd not link any country names but those of the most obscure places. But if you wish, I'll go back and re-link them all. I'm going to ask that the script be changed so that there are two levels of "delink common terms"; that might minimise this problem. Thanks for your comments. Tony (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary to re-link them - I'll leave it as is for now. When I eventually get around to pushing the article towards FA, I'll bring it up in the peer review and hopefully get a consensus on what level of linking is sensible. Thanks for the explanation though. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unfortunatly some of these are deliberate such as links in Info boxes and image captions, so I and other users will now have to replace these which may in some cases be impractical without undoing all you edits. Please don't remove these if using the script in future --Nate1481 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide examples of such "deliberate" links. I don't understand why being in an infobox makes any difference. Tony (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Brazilian states by Human Development Index. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched to "Strong oppose". Tony (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony, listen, I received suggestions by User:Anne Teedham and she has given a better re-write to the lead. I was wondering if its well, like you stated in the FAC, about having another user editing the article. I am not sure if she will help me out with the prose, but, do you recommend anyone who can scrutinize the rest of Eckhart's article? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. YellowMonkey has done what I think is a brilliant job copyediting Melbourne Airport. What are your thoughts on the article now? Mvjs (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, Tony, thanks for your comments at Flocke's FAC. I made some additional changes to the prose, making sure to pick out any redundancies and/or unnecessary wordiness. I would appreciate it if you revisited the article and the FAC with any further suggestions/comments regarding the prose. Specific examples would help greatly, or simply let me know if I should contact someone for a full copy-edit. I hope it won't come to that, though. :) Thanks again! María (habla conmigo) 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind revisiting Brianboulton's FAC, where you had raised some prose concerns? I have since copyedited the article. Maralia (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be too hard to go through the templates at WP:CIT and remove the auto-wikilinking of dates when the date is inputted in the 2008-10-02 format. Is there consensus for this type of step, has it been discussed somewhere/brought up before? Cirt (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people would welcome it. Please go ahead. Tony (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm okay, I'll have to see about figuring out how to do the de-linking in those templates myself or if I will need help of have someone else do it. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I meant the WP:CIT templates, not infobox templates. Like for example {{cite news}}. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. My comment was by analogy. Tony (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing autolinking of ISO dates in citation templates will make it harder to spot date format inconsistencies within references (it's awfully common to see dmy/mdy publication dates, but accessdates in ISO). It's a nitpicky thing, and absolutely not a reason to hold back, but...it's late, and I'm grouchy. Grumble. Maralia (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony

I saw your edits to the Suharto article. Would you be kind enough to contribute to a discussion I’ve opened at the Indonesia Project page? Here. I’d like to establish a convention for dates, and I suggest international style (ie, “3 October 2008”). Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added something to an old discussion. See here. Notifying you as you were the last person to comment there. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent changes, why did you un-link English (as the type of teacher his wife was) but leave drama linked in the same sentence? --DAW0001 (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. [Just letting you know what I'm posting on talk pages, Tony; I want to make sure people who have recently fought for some point or another at WT:CONTEXT don't suddenly tune in one day to a deleted page and feel left out.] P.S. not watchlisting; don't wanna break my computer. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The delinking you just did at Robot was great, btw. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, Dan. Yeah, it's easier to read now, and those good links are more obvious. Pleased to be of service. Tony (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to nominate antbird as a Featured Article, but I was wondering if you could quickly check it to make sure the prose is reasonable enough to get through. A number of editors have pored over the article making and suggesting prose changes and clarity issues, so I think it is there, but my forte is content so I'd appreciate a quick opinion. Ta! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do these 2 things in the same edit? Cirt (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the explanation, I shall try that sometime. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

If the answer is never, shouldn't the delinking be done by a bot? Plasticup ^T/C 04:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "as opposed to a (human-supervised) script? If so, the problem is that removing DA really requires decisions a bot con't make; the main ones are whether the format was correctly chosen (i.e., international for NASA—clearly not). Inconsistencies within an article are a major problem, and a bot can't fix these—it just removes square brackets and leaves the raw format there. This is why DA removal by script is really a wider audit of what our readers have been seeing. Tony (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But those seem like two separate functions. One is removing the autoformatting, and one is putting day/month into the correct arrangement. Surely the former can be completed by a bot without harming the article, as most readers have been seeing the dates in this arrangement anyway. The arrangement (International/American/etc) could still be carried out separately. Plasticup ^T/C 04:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. My sense of thoroughness has pointed me towards doing both at once. If the purpose is to more quickly rid us of the cancer of DA itself, yep, bots are the way to go, and you might add your voice at Lightmouse's "wishlist" page. Your thoughts at whatever is the latest location of attacks on his good work (ANI, bot application? He knows better than I do) would be most appreciated. In fact, LM and I talked about the issue of what bots can and can't do only yesterday at the wishlist. Tony (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly get my bot to crudely hack through the most common auto-formatted dates, but there is something to be said for the thoroughness of your approach. Obviously no bot can evaluate the process in the way that you can, but perhaps a cruder approach could be used on the monstrous number of low-quality articles. Would that be something you approved of? Plasticup ^T/C 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. The advantage is that when stripped of concealment, editors will be more likely to come along and fix inconsistent formats (although I suspect not globally wrong choices, such as I see quite often). You might consider passing this proposal by two of our smartest boys on this matter: User:Lightmouse and User:Colonies Chris for their opinion (perhaps linking to this section as an opener)? It's certainly another strategy that may work well in combination with mine, which is to target FAs, GAs and the thousand most visited, to promulgate the relevant section in MOSNUM (and for commone terms, CONTEXT and MOSLINK) via links in the edit summaries. It is succeeding in changing people's behaviour. But it leaves the millions of other articles untouched, of course. Tony (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Test: As of 2008^[update], As of July 2008^[update]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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) [reply]