User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2019 September

Previous · Index · Next

Jump-to links
2024   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2023   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2022   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2021   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2020   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2019   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2018   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2017   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2016   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2015   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2014   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2013   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2012   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2011   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2010   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2009   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2008   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2007   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2006   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2005   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2004                                                           Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just a heads up that your ordinals edits break wikilinks used by Template:NZ parlbox (sorry – no documentation) as happened here. The whole series of New Zealand parliaments uses ordinals (e.g. 5th New Zealand Parliament); is that something that doesn't align with naming conventions? Schwede66 02:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't add short descriptions to dab pages. There was a discussion at some point last year, where it was decided that short descriptions of dab pages should not be added individually, but supplied by the {{disambiguation}} template, which all dab pages have. – Uanfala (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I have re-read the discussion at Template talk:Disambiguation since your revert, and it does not seem to say that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation_pages_with_links/Archive_14#Short_descriptions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the disambiguation templates should transclude {{Short description}} is a good one, and receives support there. There is no established consensus that they should not be added to dab pages, only two people refer to that, and its by no means clear that they are suggesting that dab pages should be prohibited from having explicit short descriptions.

Explicit short descriptions, as well as potentially being more apposite, allow editing of the short description by naive users, and also work the same way as short descriptions on most pages in namespace 0.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

If that's really what you get out of that discussion, I can only urge to reread it. – Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, for the sake of consistency, that we should not be adding these without an explicit mandate to add them. Adding them to disambiguation pages runs counter to the purpose of the short description, since disambiguation pages have no description separate from their title. bd2412 T 14:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please stop adding these to disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 14:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, is this sort of stuff really necessary? You've been lighting up my watchlist today with various gnomish things that seem to make no odds to how an article is displayed. Perhaps your version is tehnically more correct but it is the sort of thing that would be better corrected while making more substantive contributions to the articles. And on at least one of the others, relating to a UK subject, you tried to add the use ddmmyyyy template thing when there is absolutely no doubt that such is the applicable date style precisely because it is indubitably a UK subject and no-one has been fighting to change stuff to mmddyyyy etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Very many thanks for the barnstar. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

Hi - I notice that you have added a number of redlinks to articles. Please note that per WP:REDNO if you are adding a lot of redlinks you are really expected to be actively working on building those articles. I appreciate you may be about to write these articles but can I suggest that you wait until you have actually drafted them? Sorry to be a pain but thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you may be mis-reading REDNO, it says "Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template." This is fair enough. In general redlinks are to be welcomed, provided they are to suitable topics, and preferably at the "correct" name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  

Note that even the navbox guideline might be ignored, for example I would not be inclined to remove redlinks from the following navbox, even if no-one was actively working on it:

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I am not asking you to remove redlinks. I am just asking you not to add them unless you intend to write the article imminently. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i know, there is no space between F.C. of Manchester United F.C., Arsenal F.C., please use WP:RM for setting so called "standard" or kindy ask WP:Footy. Matthew hk (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I've noticed you expanding abbreviated template names, like {{ill}} or {{ubl}} in a few places. I don't know that this is a big deal, but I do find the compact version easier to read, and sometimes by chance, it avoids a line wrap in preview mode, which also increases readability. I'm not aware if there's a policy or guideline or style guide that applies specifically to expanded vs. abbreviated template names. While WP:NOTBROKE isn't specifically about Templates, it does concern redirects, which is what abbreviated template names actually are, so that could be seen to apply, here. In what way do you think that coding "{{interlanguage link}}" or "{{unbulleted list}}" is an improvement to an article, over the shorter versions? Or, were these special cases, only applying to the particular articles which you changed? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've seen a lot of these in the last few days, and have traced one of them to this edit. Essentially, you have reverted this edit without consensus to do so. Template talk:Unbulleted list#{{unbulleted list}} or {{ubl}} in infoboxes? is relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: The {{ill}} one is due to this edit, resultant changes haven't popped up on my watchlist. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the compact easy-to-read abbreviation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, thanks for finding that. In other changes to AWB rules, I've noticed this one regarding replacement of the redirect template "Infobox:MP" by its target "Officeholder". This seems contrary to WP:NOTBROKE, and has other problems. Rich, I've raised this discussion about it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the thousand or so edits to change {{bya}} to {{birth year and age}}. Seems a bit excessive to me, especially when the "significant" edit associated with it is actually a minor one already being handled by a bot. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1979) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Small annual list not independently notable (fails general WP:LISTN)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this, I realized that the articles have had PRODs before so I have nominated them at AfD below. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1979) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1979) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In January 1st, 2022 works made by authors who died in 1951 will be enter in public domain in the countries which is Life + 70 years after the death of the author and it’s very important.

191.181.216.10 (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I have created Draft:2022 in public domain, hope that helps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop using a script to edit 1000 pages in an hour. It's flooding my email and watchlist with edits that are 100% pointless (because a bot is already replacing those deprecated characters) and 100% violating the spirit of your editing restriction (by replacing template redirects). In other words, stop hiding your "remove all template redirects" agenda behind barely-not-cosmetic edits. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Is flippancy really the route you want to go down? Why do you constantly have to make things difficult? Primefac (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I was being flippant? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Mostly because of our interaction history; I know that my initial message comes across as seeming like I'm more concerned about my watchlist than anything else, but we both know that these sorts of edits have been a point of contention in the past. Either way, ignoring (or at least not responding to) the majority of my posted concerns comes off as flippant to me. Primefac (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience you.

I think I suggested that AWB users be given a couple of years to clear this up, or indeed an AWB bot could have done it. That way the 600,000 bot edits that you approved wouldn't be wasted edits, and your watch list would have remained undisturbed.

I think I also pointed out that there was an open discussion that meant there wasn't consensus on this task. If I remember correctly the discussion was closed very soon afterwards, by you, after which you quashed the review.

But sure, I'll stop.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! On your recent edit to Hatari (band), you changed "dead-url" to "url_status". Note that "url_status" is invalid and it should be "url-status" instead. Heads up that, in case you did this on other articles as well, this might need to be fixed. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 19:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect YTO (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the YTO (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Mari Trini albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Lulu Santos albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a (surprisingly recent) good source on Mary Collins' research, so I expanded the article a bit and have added a few other sources as well. I think the article is at a pretty good place now. Silverseren^C 04:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Excellent work. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]