User talk:Ohconfucius/archive37

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You changed the Round Table to "round table" in bunch of articles

Like [1] etc. Possibly from it being automated or whatever, so just watch out next time. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Confucius Institute

Hey-

The reason I added the link to Wiktionary on the page for the Confucius Institute article is because the vast majority of English-language speakers can not read Chinese and might want to get clarification on what those characters represent. I see you are doing a lot of work on China-related pages, and I don't mean any ill-will toward you. I'm just of the opinion that 99% of English speakers, especially native speakers, don't understand what those characters would represent, and I want to give them an opportunity to understand them on a deeper level if they so choose.

Thanks for your time,

Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message. I removed the link because current consensus appears to no longer favour linking Chinese text using the template, althugh I must admit I can no longer find where I read about it. For sure, it was abused as editors were often linking individual characters, and is now well and truly deprecated. Now, even the practice of linking Chinese words/terms in general is no longer condoned as I understand it. The reasoning is tht all the explanations necessary to that understanding should already be in the body of the text. BTW, I won't revert again. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your informative reply. I understand what you are saying completely. Linking individual characters does seem silly sometimes to me. However, I usually do not link individual characters- I almost always link words or concepts of two characters or more. I have been doing it since November 2017, and have probably added 3000 to 5000 or more of these links. I believe that it is not possible to give all of the relevant information about Chinese characters that are relevant in English language Wikipedia articles, and so we really ought to give the readers a chance to 1) realize the existence of Wiktionary and 2) use Wiktionary as a tool to better understand what they read in the Wikipedia article they are looking at (if they are interested enough). I would like to see the discussion you are talking about, and participate in those discussions. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I had a chat with User:Deryck Chan a while back on a HK or China noticeboard on the subject. Maybe he can shed a light on the current state of the discussion. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any universal guidelines on when to use {{linktext}} for Chinese phrases on the English Wikipedia. However, I don't think linking to wikt:孔子學院 is particularly helpful to the reader in this case, because the Wiktionary entry doesn't provide anything that isn't also on the Wikipedia article. Deryck C. 12:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Hong Kong extradition law controversy and Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019

The two articles seem to overlap in content. Is it necessary to merge the two articles? Or move the 'Legislative Council row' section to the draft article? Thank you in advance. --Good afternoon (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I had done a lot of work on the article without realising there was already an article in mainspace. I only noticed yesterday after I searched for the article using wordsearch. They should indeed be merged. The "Fugitive Offenders" article is well-structtured, and I have begun moving some content over. Will try and do some more later this week. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Referencing on Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019

Would just like to give a warm reminder of the referencing style on the article. Lmmnhn (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 30th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Wong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Badiucao-hong-kong-extradition-poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Badiucao-hong-kong-extradition-poster.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019

On 10 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

Hello Ohconfucius, I noticed your edit in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests [2], and I found out that you have changed the dates in the article to DMY instead of MDY. As the subheader uses the dates, June 9 seems like the "common date/name" used by mass media, rather than 9 June, and it is easier the read the subheadings. The main article of the bill also used the original subheading links. Also, original quote of the press release from the government [3] used "June 9". I understand that consistency of date matters but is there another way to manage those subheading dates? I have changed the subheadings for now. Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Wefk423:Thanks for your message. The dates were inconsistent from the very first edit (which included a mix of dmy and mdy dates), and I merely unified the dates to the format used for th vast majority of HK articles, in accordance with convention for Hong Kong and with WP:MOSNUM. I don't understand why there has to be mdy dates in headings and dmy elsewhere, and unfortunately don't have any means of managing different date formats within an article; I certainly don't imagine mixed formats would go down at all with the community. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Usually in cases like this, you should consider reordering the headings, e.g., First protests, 9 June... if the date is in fact important to the heading. I am skeptical that it is important. --Izno (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ohconfucius and Izno: I think both of you made sense. But I’m more concerned about the table of contents, as it will be easier to read and search for the specific event, and that it provides a more better structure for the whole article. But of course, the consistency of the whole article is also much important. I think Izno’s idea is the best choice here. Also, I also initiated a discussion in Talk:2019_Hong_Kong_anti-extradition_bill_protests#DMY_dates. Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Marvin 2009

Hey mate, I've noticed that you were involved in an arbitration case with Falungong before, and there's an account called User:Marvin 2009 (edit counter) which shows a distinctly similar pattern to the topic banned accounts User:Asdfg12345 and User:HappyInGeneral. Could he be a sockpuppet? --PatCheng (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. The user isn't particularly active – their peak of activity was in 2016. It's quite possible Marvin 2009 is a sockpuppet, because the pattern of editing and the type of content seems to fit the profile of a single purpose account, although they have tried to disguise it wih a few innocuous edits to other unrelated articles. But having stayed away from FLG articles since my topic ban, my Wiki-stress levels are lower than they have ever been. Neither Arbcom nor I would benefit from me resuming an interest FLG articles. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Destructive reverts by citrobun on Gui Minhai

As of late, Citrobun has been making abusive and unfounded reverts to material you originally wrote on Gui Minhai involving his drunk driving incident. This incident as you know is well-reported by many sources from the New York Times to BBC to SCMP and The Guardian. You can help me defend your information by reporting his destructive edit-warring to administrators. I'd hate to see your content obliterated by this reckless charlatan. Thank you.Alexkyoung (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Alexkyoung:Thanks. I know the actions of the editor well, and I see where they are coming from, which explains why I didn't revert it. The type of accusation and charge fits in with the campaign of smears and pattern of trumping up of charges against opponents of the Regime. The information will have been fed through the propaganda loop of the Regime. So arguably, although the information is "well sourced", it will have trickled through to these western sources from United Front activists. Most China observers will be familiar with the pattern, it may need to be put into context for the average reader. I'll try and find something appropriate. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by Nickm57

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&oldid=903968918

I recently made these edits. They are cited by this article (though you can find others):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/

On the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_discrimination

some seem to disagree that the Jews were discriminated against. These seem to be the same people who believe that the holocaust never existed. Nick is just a really bad person. At this point, I believe I need administrative help.

Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. I was hoping Nick could be blocked from editing, or that a report be submitted against him, at the very least. His abusive behavior is getting out of hand.

People like him also launched several smear-campaigns, simply because I wrote about some things that are well-sourced and well-documented that does not fit their chauvinistic point of view. They intend to ban me, and I need support. I have reached out to those who have appreciated my edits. Please do not let these bullies get their way and further censor the internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang_Pages_and_User%3AAlexkyoung

I appreciate your input on this urgent issue. Wikipedia has no space for such bullying and abuse. Alexkyoung (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I watchlist Ohconfucius's page. It would take some time to research the ins and outs of these edits, and I've only taken a brief look. I think you should hold off and engage in deeper discussion on the talkpage with those who appear to be your adversaries. What is driving them? Is there a way of finding things in common with their view, and connecting with them better? Is mediation appropriate? (Mediation is something WP does very poorly, but it's worth a try if you really can't sort it out yourselves.) My advice right now is: slow things down, and try to take the emotion out of it (the first is easy, the second rather more difficult). Tony (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js

Hi Ohconfucius. I've noticed some changes where this is not working as it did since you updated this script recently. For example, it doesn't pick up the date in the "accessdate" parameter in a cite. It would also "clean" links that were to generic year pages. So on the article for Václav Trégl, it would strip out the year in film links in the final bit of the opening line. Please could you take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing colorboxes from Strictly Come Dancing (series 16) (and series 15) articles

Ohconfucius, your edits to these two articles removed the colorbox templates from the "Dance chart" section, making nonsense of the ensuing table. Variant names of templates should not be considered for removing; if you prefer "Color box" (the primary name) to "colorbox", then I could see replacing it, but not removing it entirely.

I have no idea what the state of the rule that the script should not replace yyyy-mm-dd access dates, which was a major issue some years ago, but the script did do such replacements in various of the Strictly Come Dancing articles in your recent "script-based" edits to them. I was also wondering whether the inconsistent application (sometimes quite frequent) of the "primary source needed" template across the articles was really necessary, given what was being sourced.

I hope you'll be more careful with what you're deleting going forward. I was disappointed to see the damage that was caused. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Protection of the Varieties of Chinese

Hello- I would like to invite your comments and edits on a new page, Protection of the Varieties of Chinese, which is based on a Chinese Wikipedia article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Replacing Use Australian English with EngvarB

Hi, is there any particular reason you replaced Use Australian English with EngvarB on New South Wales Bar Association? Given that the article has strong ties to Australia and consistent usage has been established in the article I understood that MOS:RETAIN required the specific variety of English to be retained. Apart from anything else, the description "Australian English" is clearer to random editors than EngvarB. Cheers Find bruce (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Bruce, what is the difference between EngvarB and AusEng? Tony (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There are some differences in both vocabulary and spelling. The question goes to the basis for the removal of the Use Australian English template. Why is it being replaced by User:Ohconfucius via user script? -- Ham105 (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

These are templates permitting maintenance of English codes by the script. As there are only four English code variants, namely American, Canadian, Template:Engvar and Oxford, there is no benefit in having a multitude of [country] English templates other than creating minority English ghettoes. In fact, it may be counter-productive because the maintainer has to look across a multitude of categories to get the work done. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, your script does maintenance and your interest is in the script. I read your post from last year about {{Use Australian English}} and {{Use Indian English}} having "no differences between these codes as far as the script is concerned". There's not a technical requirement to remove them, right? -- Ham105 (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bruce, is it anything more than "program/me"? Tony (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: there are numerous variations see Australian English#Spelling and style. I came here thinking there may be some reasonable explanation that I had missed, but it appears not. In the absence of any consensus to delete the Australian English template & consistent with MOS:RETAIN and template:EngvarB I will continue to use the Australian English template. Find bruce (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Find bruce: As explained to you, the template is for maintenance purposes, so there's no need to get upset or belligerent over it. As it's a non-displaying template, I had hoped that editors wouldn't be fixated on it, and I certainly didn't think there would be this argument that we seem to be having. MOS:RETAIN governs style and content, and arguably doesn't apply to maintenance, where only the end result counts – that its language code is correct. I suggest that you bear that objective in mind going forwards and stop fighting your ghetto war. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Find bruce: I see almost no differences in practice between UK and Aus Eng, aside from "program/me". In any case, Ohconfucius is right: why are you getting so animated about a non-displaying template? If an editor doesn't know they shouldn't use AmEng in an Australia-related article, some edit-mode sign buried somewhere isn't going to make a jot of difference. I will continue to automatically change the notice per the set-up of the script. Tony (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ohconfucius Do you find insulting people helps to persuade them of your point of view? You made an edit for reasons that I did not understand & so I came here to discuss it with you. My only emotion was that of disappointment to find that your answer is that you think the template should be deleted but have not obtained consensus to do so. Thanks, but I will return to working on the encyclopedia. Find bruce (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Replacing the national English templates with EngvarB is unacceptable. Do it again and its an automatic trip to ANI. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	you're from UK Editor ? Roseirena (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Dates

Hi Ohconfucius, Just wondering would you happen to know what caused this?,
The script had changed "A poll of party members published on 13 June showed" to "A poll of party members published on show of 13 Juneed",
I suppose it'll teach me for skimming through as opposed as actually checking thoroughly! :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Using the script on that page still produces that error so something somewhere may need fixing, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Many thanks! Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Flagathlete

Hi Ohconfucius, I'm hoping you can help. You very generiously modified your flagcruft script to change items to flagathlete from flagicon. However, it doesn't quite work as intended. it changes {{flagicon|ENG}} [[player]] to {{flagathlete|ENG}} [[player]] which displays as: ENG (25x17px) player. The code I'd like would be {{flagathlete|[[player]]|ENG}} which displays as player (ENG). Is this possible.

I couldn't find the original topic, so I thought I'd add here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski:I've tweaked the script as per your request, but I don't know of any pages offhand where I can test it so I haven't. Let me know how you get on. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Works perfectly. You are the business. You've saved me hours of word on fixing this! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Great, keep up the good work. Let me know if there are other repetitive tasks that I can help to speed up! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Varty.jpg

The file File:Varty.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Low-quality blurry picture, we have File:Rowan Varty 20170506.jpg which is much better.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Nogov1.jpg

The file File:Nogov1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unencyclopedic.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Nogov2.png

The file File:Nogov2.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unencyclopedic.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rowse photo 08b cropped.png

The file File:Rowse photo 08b cropped.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Bug?

Please take a look at the recent history of Thomas Edison. If I've understood correctly, you wrote a script that changed "Milan, Ohio" to "Milan, Ohio". I think that's a bug, even in America. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

OC, could you please ping me when you reply to this query, I use this script quite often and am interested in your findings. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I got my ass torched for the Milan one, just before FlightTime did! Tony (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Philip Trueman:@FlightTime:@Tony1:Thanks for the bug report. Guilty as charged, M'lud. I've also tweaked the script so that it should ignore instances such as London, Ontario and Venice, Florida. Of course, don't hesitate to let me know if you find any more bugs.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not use this script and I have no intention of doing so. But I worry that there may turn out to be too many instances of this problem to handle as special cases. How well does it handle Hamburg, Missouri and Hamburg, Minnesota? Or Mars, Nebraska and Venus, Pennsylvania? Or Providence, Rhode Island? Just asking. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Short answer, nothing happens to those. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Also, per my talkpage, this diff. Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Hong Kong Way

On 13 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hong Kong Way, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Hong Kong Way was a peaceful political campaign held in Hong Kong on the 30th anniversary of the Baltic Way? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hong Kong Way. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hong Kong Way), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Questions

Hi there Ohconfucius, I have a couple questions regarding one of your scripts. (it would take forever for me to learn the programming myself) First, one that you mention yourself:

• Fix common naming error (be careful with this one)

What kind of naming errors? .... now for the other one. Does the script differentiate between British English and US English? Or are none of those items (spelling especially) that the script addresses really part of any of the ENGVAR?

And BTW, I did appreciate the "TY", but it's really us who should be thanking you for your work in writing the scripts to begin with. :-) Cheers. — Ched (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• edited .. duh on me ... the script I'm asking about is the general formatting one. — Ched (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Ched: The naming error in the formatting script actually refers to the use of "Celcius" and "Centigrade" when we use "Celsius" here on en.wp. I do have a script that aligns to British and American spelling in line with the prescriptions of WP:ENGVAR. It can be found here. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website=

In this edit, and presumably others, you seem to have have added italic formatting to the "website" parameter in citations, which is causing the article to display a warning in the reference list that "Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website=". Please fix your script and/or process so that it does not do this. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius This has been happening for a while now. Can you please stop these edits. Per the error report it generates at the end of references, apostrophe markups are not allowed. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

And again here. Please fix your script. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I note the date of the diff you gave was in July; I don't believe it has happened since, as I updated the regex on 22 September. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patrick Balkany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clichy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js

Hi O, I was wondering if there was any possibility to add some more terms to your useful Delete Common Terms script, and if so, what's the best way for me to submit my suggestions? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• All suggestions are welcome. You can post them here, if you like. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Awesome, thank you. I may take a little time to compile them, and naturally I'll defer to your judgment as to whether or not some should not be added. It's a cool tool. Thanks for writing it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Hong Kong protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	We haven't spoken in a while. Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm touched by your greeting. Happy Christmas and all the best to you too! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 18:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

I have restored the War of the World articles to their previous titles. The topic has already been discussed; please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#The War of the Worlds. The discussion concerns their locations, and the fact that the "US" series isn't actually primarily an American series, but an international co-production. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

All Souls College, Oxford

Ohconfucius, your script edit to All Souls College, Oxford yesterday removed www (as well as http) from the college website in the infobox, which results in a link that doesn't work (on my computer and phone at least). Do you know why the script does this: the examples in Template:URL seem to keep www where it is present? I couldn't find any relevant guidance in MOS:LINK. TSventon (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• TSventonMy apologies. The http can in all cases be safely removed. I realised that while it's redundant in most cases, the www is sometimes necessary when webmasters haven't correctly parametered that link, so I've adjusted the script not to remove it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, thanks för thé explanation, which will be useful the next time another editor does something similar. TSventon (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Germany" wikilink becomes " (Germany)" syntax error

Hi Ohconfucius,

could you check if this was caused by a script bug?

• Special:Diff/934130424

Note the space and the brackets, both of which appear to be an error.

Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think I've fixed it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Wow, that was quick. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Marking edits as "minor"

These two recent edits (1, 2) were marked as minor despite adding new paragraphs of material and new sources. The second edit also has a misleading edit summary of ce; General formatting when it's an entirely new section.

Edits should be marked "minor" only for superficial edits and not for adding or removing content & references. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wasn't trying to be deceptive. Thanks for being on the ball. My apologies. Marking of edits as "minor" can happen when I run my script after making an edit. I'll try to ensure it doesn't happen again. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Script-assisted fixes

Hi Ohconfucius, just a quick note about this edit. I've had to do a partial revert on some of the date changes in the sources (It's something I've noticed a few people doing when using scripts). For some reason the script strips out letters after years, so the following two sources are both changed from "1951a" and "1951b" to "1951". This breaks the sfn coding so error messages pop up in the sources

• {{cite news|last1=McIntire|first1=Jane|title=Attraction of Fine Pottery|work=Sunderland Echo|date=2 August 1951a|page=2|ref=harv}}
• {{cite news|last1=McIntire|first1=Jane|title=North-East Started Renaissance in Art and Learning|work=Sunderland Echo|date=27 November 1951b|page=2|ref=harv}}

See FNs 10, 11, 81 in your version to see what happens. I'm sure it's an easy thing to overlook, but if you could keep an eye on those when you're making changes I'd be grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Chinese name convention

I noticed that you changed the link of some of the persons with the naming convention of "English name+Chinese family name+Chinese given name" from linking the full name such as "Edward Ho Sing-tin" to "Edward Ho Sing-tin". That is totally unnecessary and confusing as "Edward Ho Sing-tin" is the FULL NAME of Edward Ho and if you leave out his given name it will confuse the readers why "Sing-tin" is being left out when it is part of their name. I have seen you doing that so many times on so many articles! Please stop doing that! Lmmnhn (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• If you examine closely to my edits, you'll see that one of the main aims is to eliminate unnecessary piping. I never change "[[Edward Ho Sing-tin]]" to "[[Edward Ho]] Sing-tin". I agree that the latter is confusing to readers, but Edward Ho is the common name of the individual, or otherwise it wouldn't be occupying that namespace; as such, it ought to be completely unnecessary to use the full name. The problem you point out related to the use of Hongkong naming convention in WP in conjunction with the incorrect application of WP:PIPE, creating a Frankenstein like "[[Edward Ho|Edward Ho Sing-tin]]" – the relevant redirect should be used instead, per WP:REDIRECT. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Lmmnhn: See also WP:NOTBROKE. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Why was my edit somewhat reverted?

Why was my edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak&type=revision&diff=939198585&oldid=939197716 , regarding the Macau section, somewhat reverted and removed? I cited two reliable sources, one being The New York Times and the other being the Wall Street Journal. Please ping me when you reply. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• My apologies, it was inadvertent, as a result of me overriding an edit conflict. Your edit has now been restored. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

syntax error

Your recent edit introduced a syntax error. The closing single quote of the string is missing. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You call that a proper lead?!

It doesn't have anything, not one word, related to how taking her videos down was a bad decision or how the best thing for her to do would be put them back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.128.155 (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Hi, we seem to have lost a block text with this edit [4]. Graham Beards (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ian Botham

Sorry for the revert on here, page loaded an extra something just as I was clicking something else, and it jumped to the rollback button. Harrias ^talk 18:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• thanks. I notice there may be a problem anyway. The script thrated some links as linkspam. I'll go back and fix it after my dinner. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 18:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

References

I notice you removed a number of publisher parameters from the sources I added, see here. Please don't do that. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified changes - dates

Re [5][6], please note that

• Per WP:CITESTYLE, yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601)is allowed in citations
• Per WP:CITEVAR, you ought not change it

Please update your script accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

{{nee}} vs née

Also in [7] - but I have noticed it in some other of your script-assisted edits - you've changed "{{nee}}" to "née". Is there some specific reason why we shouldn't use {{nee}}? If there's a problem with that template then perhaps it should be deleted. If there's no problem, there doesn't appear to be any justification for removing it. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought we worked this out a decade ago in relation to Vietnamese diacritics ... the result being to minimise them in English? Tony (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the template was put there to allow the output of the diacritic possible by using the template. For me, it's an overlinking issue. Perhaps editors still have a need for it and we can disable the linking in the template. What do you think? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you should raise the question in the appropriate forum - probably at WP:TFD - as to whether the template should modified or deleted. If it's not deleted or marked as deprecated, then your script ought not remove it (regardless of whether there's a diacritic), without some explicit good reason. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Mitch Ames, MOS:NEE shows this is normally linked and supports using the template also. I run AWB a lot and it adds the diacritic to nee (but I don't believe it add a wikilink if that is missing). MB 04:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you still have the permission?

Hi! You have uploaded File:Planar3 from above.jpg and File:Belt driven Rega.jpg and some other files and mention that you got them from someone else. Do you still have the permission? Or do you still have contact with the photographer? If yes perhaps you could send a mail to OTRS? --MGA73 (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I don't understand... I know that OTRS have somewhat changed their procedures for licencing. Are you a member of OTRS needing me to resubmit proof that the images are bona fide GFDL-compliant, or do you need to contact the owner for another purpose? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! No I am not a member of OTRS. You mentioned on the file page that you got the photos from someone else. I think the photographer should send a mail to OTRS confirming the GFDL. If that was allready done then the OTRS team did not add the usual template on the file page. If you think a permission was sent the easiest is to ask them go check. --MGA73 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know it was missing the usual template. The author did indeed send me the surrender of rights, which I transferred to OTRS, and I assumed it was satisfactory as I heard nothing since and the file wasn't deleted. So should I send the email again or ask the author to directly contact the OTRS team? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Helle again! I have asked at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard if they can find the permission. If they cant find it perhaps you could resend. But lets wait and see if they can find it. --MGA73 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Script error

Your recent change to California High School (San Ramon, California) corrupted the infobox by partially removing the |website=. It also removed colorboxes when unlinking the colors. MB 04:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

		A glass of Thandai for you
		Here is a glass of Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of almonds, fennel seeds, watermelon kernels, rose petals, pepper, vetiver seeds, cardamom, saffron, milk and sugar. Thank you for all your editing efforts with 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Here is something to keep you recharged, cheers. DTM (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

• -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Your script changed Use Commonwealth English to EngvarB

On 6 March 2020, using your script, you changed a {{Use Commonwealth English}} tag to a less specific {{EngvarB}} tag on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.

Can you make it not do this please?

Thanks.

· • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's the same thing. Please refer to script docmentation. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually {{EngvarB}} specially states that it is not and advises that "articles tagged with one of the more-specific English-dialect templates should not be changed to {{EngvarB}}" (my emphasis). This includes {{Use Commonwealth English}}.

From reading other comments on this page, it seems to me that your script(s) is (are) creating just as many problems as it (they) solve.

{Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)}

Edits

Can I ask why you changed mdash entity encodings to mdash characters, reordered citation parameters, removed empty citation parameters, changed a wikilink incorrectly, removed wikilinks from the Infobox and got rid of dozens of date templates, all in one edit? That was super unhelpful. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You also removed the (ACP) that gives the acronym I use throughout the article! I think you need to review your script WAY more carefully. Your edit description doesn’t even match the changes you are making - they are way more than WP:CS1 and MOS:ITALICS changes. You are literally changing dozens of other things, and sometimes damaging the article or reversing carefully chosen style choices, like the {{date}} template. I urge you to stop doing that. I know you are doing it out of the best of intentions, but you are breaking articles, in some cases ones that have been slaved over by editors for hours, days and weeks. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear God, you even removed the publisher and publication-place parameters from citations! Why?!? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And I look at it again, and you changed “under-utilised” to “under-used”, ignoring the fact that’s Australian English. This is getting worse... I’ve just literally reverted your edit wholly to fix this mess. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

So I’m having a look at your script, and I looked at your most recent edit. I notice you make gramatical changes but you don’t note this in the edit summary. I also don’t understand why you are making the date changes you are making, yyyy-mm-dd is quite acceptable. It’s also not clear to me why you feel the need to remove the scheme from the {{URL}} template when this is perfectly acceptable. Nor do I understand why you are changing the month in the {{use dmy dates}} template. Furthermore, you removed the language attribute from citations, which makes no sense because on an article about COVID-19 noting a Taiwanese website uses an English language is actually useful! And, yet more inconsistencies, you change an ndash to an mdash, which isn’t actually correct as in the last paragraph that should be an mdash! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think people also asked you above not to remove the {{nee}} template. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Here another example that had to be reverted almost immediately. You literally removed wikilinks that were useful that should not have been removed. The subject contributed to mathematics, but you removed that wikilink even though it directly related to the subject. You removed London as a wikilink even though that was useful. The list goes on. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Another edit (my last one I’m looking at) and I think that the number of issues I’ve picked up in the extremely small sample size of the past few days means there are a lot more issues - but this script edit does not match your edit summary. You made a change to an HTML comment, but it was a whitespace ref change. I suspect when you are making these changes a. You are not reviewing what you are changing, and b. you are careless in what scripts you are running. As I need to give you a chance to respond, I’ll come back tomorrow to see your response. But I think we need you to review the way you are using your scripts, they are not particularly accurate, you make a lot of unnecessary changes, you make controversial changes and sometimes you are damaging markup. This urgently needs to improve! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, excuse me? You reverted "underused" to the ugly and unnecessary "under-utililised"? There is no engvar difference in this case. No. I'm going to revert that. And you appear to be wanting "London" to be linked, as though readers consulting the English WP don't know what London is. Methinks you're adopting a pre-2009 attitude to wikilinking: scattergun. The community has moved on from that. You need to read WP:OVERLINK. Tony (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That’s the way we Australians say it. It’s even in the source material. I have read the Overlinking guideline and it says not to link when it’s not directly related to the subject. I’ll dig out the bit I mean. And what about the other concerns? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm Australian, and a professional editor. I strike down "utilise" every time I see it in clients' text, bar extremely rare cases (I let one through last month in an IT context where "use" seemed less precise – it's rare). Every case of "in order to" except in rare contexts where the "in order" disambiguates (I see about two a year on average, and I edit a lot). If you'd like some lessons in English, I'm prepared to point you in the right direction. The WP community decided long ago to ration linking much more than you appear to want. Tony (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm commenting here because:

1. I've raised some similar concerns in the past
2. Chris.sherlock asked for my opinion

I've had a quick look through Chris.Sherlock's three edits mentioned about [8][9][10], and what follows is based on those. I'm cherry-picking some of the "easy" or more obvious issues, and/or ones I'm familiar with; this is not an exhaustive commentary on all of the types of changes.

• changed mdash entity encodings to mdash characters. Personally I find — or {{mdash}} easier to read while editing, because it's obvious what they are (whereas the individual characters can be harder to distinguish between dashes and hyphens), but MOS:DASH doesn't mention a preference for a particular way to include a particular dash. (The exception to this is {{spaced ndash}} and similar, which offer some functionality other than just the single character.)
• reordered citation parameters. The order of the parameters generally doesn't matter, so I suggest that changing them for the sake of change is a bad idea - primarily because someone reviewing an edit has to work harder, parsing the change to determine that it has no effect. In some cases – changing the order of the parameters that were previously in the order shown in the template documentation to a different order (e.g., {{birth date}} in [11]) – the change is counter-productive because it makes it just a bit harder to compare the use of an instance of the template with the documentation. It's easier to match the usage with the documentation if the parameters appear in the same order in both. (Of course, the corollary of this is that there is some minor justification for re-ordering the parameter to match the documentation.)
• removed empty citation parameters. Reasonable, especially when there's a lot of obscure parameters, and someone has just copied the entire blank template with all parameters from the template documentation, because it cuts down on the "noise" to scroll past when editing. On the other hand there is merit in leaving some of the more common or useful parameters, to encourage future editors to insert values. (Defining "common or useful" is the challenge.)
• got rid of dozens of date templates. In some cases (e.g. [12], lead paragraph) this is reasonable. {{Date}} documentation says "This template should only be used internally in other templates.", so its removal from non-template use appears justifiable.
• yyyy-mm-dd is quite acceptable. Agreed for refs, tables, infoboxes (see #Unjustified changes - dates), but not necessarily in general use, per MOS:DATE.
• I notice you make gramatical changes but you don’t note this in the edit summary.. This I agree with. The edit summary should match the changes to the article. I agree with the edits per se (including fixes for MOS:SEAOFBLUE and "in order to"), but the mixing of multiple types of edits with an edit summary that suggests fewer types of edits is misleading.
• I think people also asked you above not to remove the née template. I did, and I stand by my previous request. If the template is wrong then fix it or propose its deletion, but do not just remove instances of a functional template without an explicit reason.

Some specific suggestions for improving the script(s):

• Have the script do one type of edit at a time, rather than multiple types of edits. This makes it easier to separate functional from non-functional, contested (and there are clearly a few of these) from uncontested. Examples of different types of edits:

• — to mdash characters, and similar
• re-ordering template parameters - if it's done at all - and if you must, please only change them to match the documentation, and/or removing unused template parameters
• removing/changing date template usage
• changing /copy-editing text (or punctuation), eg for grammar
• adding/removing links

• The edit summary should accurately reflect the edit - this should be much easier if the script only applies one type of edit at a time.
• Don't change yyyy-mm-dd if it's used consistently and as allowed by MOS:DATE, WP:CITESTYLE
• If {{nee}} is a problem, fix the template or propose its deletion. Don't just remove a valid template usage from an article.

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Mitch Ames. You can actually ignore everything I wrote above and just focus on what Mitch wrote. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Mitch Ames. You can actually ignore everything I wrote above and just focus on what Mitch wrote. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Mitch Ames, Chris.sherlock Thanks to the both of you for your comments and suggestions. I would respond based on Mitch's comments as follows:

• mdash characters - I have now disabled the regex in the script that swaps the html — with the corresponding ASCII character
• reordered citation parameters. I am aware that the order of the parameters generally doesn't matter. I would explain the script is written to ensure that date formats output from the template are correctly rendered using |df= wherever they may be located in the relevant template. This is usually done by ensuring that the template parameter exists and populated, and the script was written with limited knowledge of regexes. I will review the lines responsible to improve and ensure the parameters are not moved.
• empty citation parameters. Although I am actually often surprised why the script removes as few empty parameters as it does when reviewing my edits, I have reduced the number of empty parameters – for example |accessdate= – removed automatically
• got rid of dozens of date templates. Indeed, {{Date}} documentation says "This template should only be used internally in other templates.", the removal from the article body was in fact manual
• yyyy-mm-dd is quite acceptable. Agreed, but they ought not co-exist with other valid date formats within the different date fields. Although the {{use dmy dates}} template tends to render date formats uniform in citations, it will throw up error messages if the date format is somehow non-compliant. The script aligns those that are not in line, and fixes errors in dates. It also align cite dates that are not bounded by citation templates. I usually try to ensure that the existing formats are retained where they are consistent inter se.
• grammatical changes not noted in the edit summary.. "Utilise" and "In order to" are particular bugbears of mine. These are I think the only two grammatical changes made by my script (after consultation with User:Tony1). Occurrences are changed in the flow if my other edits as they would benefit from the protection code (so quotations, titles, and other immutable elements are not changed). I will adjust the edit summary to match the changes.
• the {{nee}} template. I have now disabled the regex in the script that removes this.
• "(ACP)" - acronyms used later in the article are cited once, immediately after the first appearance of the unabbreviated term.
• the publisher parameters compliance with Help:CS1. Template documentation says: "The name of the publisher. Omit terms such as Publishers, Co., Inc., Ltd., etc., but retain the words Books or Press. Not normally included where the publication is a periodical which has its own Wikipedia article (e.g. Newsweek, Billboard)". Again, these were manual changes. The instances removed were for the SMH and the Telegraph.
• changing the month in the {{use dmy dates}} template - It seems that you don't understand the purpose of the template and the related script actions. Kindly refer to the template documentation.

  -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If the ownership of the newspaper changes, we should include the publisher. That happened on all the newspapers you removed the publisher parameter on. The Daily Telegraph is now owned by Newscorp and not ACP, and Fairfax is no longer but has changed to Nine Entertainment Corporation.

When I’m using git, I make small, isolated changes in my source code and commit accordingly. With your changes I had to revert you fully. Why don’t you make multiple changes like was suggested? Also, your edit summaries aren’t particularly good.

Also, to nitpick - ndash and dash characters are uni ide characters, not ASCII characters. I concede the date template, I misread the documentation on that one. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC) - Chris.sherlock

P.S. somewhat ironically, can you apple your script in a seperate edit to convert the dates again? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Why is the garble of syntax left unsimplified now for en and em dashes???? Tony (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Arthur Stewart, Duke of Rothesay

The article Arthur Stewart, Duke of Rothesay has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, see precedent created by recent deletion discussion at James, Duke of Rothesay (born 1507).

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. PatGallacher (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your script change does not comply with WP:NÉE

Your script change to Munira Wilson does not comply with WP:NÉE Jim Craigie (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That MOS item does not require the use of the template. Whether its necessary to remove the template as the only edit is another question, but the guideline you're citing does not require the usage of the template at all. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Take this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. There are problems with WP:NÉE, I think. WP:NÉE:

italicizes all instances of the words 'née' and 'né'. As common English words they should not be italicized (Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Common usage in English – part of MOS:FOREIGN).

requires first use to be linked. As common English words they should not be linked (MOS:OVERLINK).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Punctuation inside internal links.

I notice you/your script removed some punctuation from inside one of my internal (piped) links. Unless you can suggest a suggest an alternative solution to the following issue (in which case I'd be very pleased to hear of it), please consider not doing so in future. The problem is that if, for example, if one has the markup

[[Primal Scream]],

there's quite a strong chance that on a mobile display the comma will end up at the start of a new line. This does nothing at all to create the impression of a professionally typeset page and in my opinion actually distracts quite considerably from the content. It's even worse if the comma is followed by a citation number. The only means I have discovered of circumventing this is to use instead the markup

[[Primal Scream|Primal Scream,]]

Of course it may not be the case that at the time of editing the comma is left "hanging", but there's no guarantee a subsequent editor will think to check whether or not their amendment causes the text to shift in such a way that it becomes so (if indeed this even occurs to them). Personally, I therefore prefer to err on the side of caution.

{Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)}

• The way that you format for the punctuation is highly unusual, and is probably not compliant with WP:PIPE. I believe that this is a wider mediawiki issue. Perhaps a query to Village Pump... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

YMD reference dates controversy

After being notified about the discussion about ref dates in early March, I decided to hold off on using the dates script until the issue got resolved. Unfortunately, the discussion had spread to so many separate venues that I gave up on trying to keep track of it all. Has a consensus developed yet one way or the other? Would you advise that I start using the "body dates" option from now on? Ionmars10 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• DMY and MDY date formats (including within ref sections) are prevalent here on WP; YYYY-MM-DD dates are definitely a minority style, yet some users impose or vehemently defend the YMD date style in reference sections. I would suggest that you keep using the all dates to dmy/mdy buttonst. CS1 now manages the rendering by auto-formatting citation template dates using parameters within the {{use dmy dates}} and {{use mdy dates}} templates, so this can be used to fine-tune the rendering.

  The body dates part of the script as currently written does not correct date formats [inside references] that are non-compliant [and which cause CS! display errors]. in that it may not remove the comma in 3 March, 2020 or it may not add the comma in March 3 2020 etc., and it is my intention to deactivate it very shortly because its functions are incomplete and are in any event rendered obsolete by CS1.

  -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC) (blue font = redacted 17:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC))

  Umm, if the definition of 'body' is the prose part of an en.wiki article, then this edit is not really correct. cs1|2 does not do anything with body dates; only those dates that are inside a cs1|2 template. Similarly, the statement above, assuming that 'body' refers to the prose of an article, is also incorrect. Clarify for me?

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• That my script changes the dates within the prose part of an article is a given. Ionmars10 asked a question because of an apparent disagreement as to an article where another editor challenged the change in the citation date format (away from YMD dates, as I understand it) using the "all dates" function of the script. For me, the question above bearing on whether the "body dates" button would be more suitably used. My response was to advise the use CS1 to manage the displayed within citations. I hope that I have understood your question. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

MOSNUM incorrectly picking up talk page section links

See this diff. Should be pretty easy to fix, anything in double brackets or double braces should be ignored. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. I tweaked the script and ran it on the article. Seems to be fixed now. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

New bug: comma after month

With the changes that you’ve just made, a bug has surfaced. The conversion from mdy to dmy at the Johannes Kepler article left some commas between months and years behind. I had to run the script three times before all stray commas were gone. Schwede66 17:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• thanks, I've now tweaked the script. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Flags in list of shipwrecks

Re this edit to the List of shipwrecks in 1803, which you claim as WP:FLAGCRUFT. It is a long-established practice that ships nationalities are identified by their flags, where known. Your edit actually made the list far worse by removing links to valid articles, such as the Batavian Republic and the United Kingdom.

If you are really opposed to these flags in shipwreck lists, then I would suggest that the best way to thrash this issue out is by means of a WP:RFC with notification to at least WP:VEX, WP:SHIPS, WP:SHIPWRECKS and WP:MILHIST. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do the flags add to a crowded infobox, and is their use purely decorative? Tony (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tony1: - we are not talking about infoboxes in ship articles here. The use of flags in the infobox of ship articles is specifically permitted by WP:WORDPRECEDENCE. What we are talking about here is the use of flags in lists of shipwrecks. They are not "purely decorative", but educational. Many countries in existence today did not exist in the past. Flags change over the years, some cities were previously independent city states (Trieste until 1891, Odessa between 1819-59), the Hanseatic League cities until 1871). In many cases, the civil flag flown by ships is very different to the national flag of the country (e.g. the Kingdom of Prussia civil / national, the Kingdom of Hanover civil / national, Singapore civil / national). For some countries, the flags themselves were vastly different in the past (e.g. France from 1790-94 now , Belgium from 1830-31, now ). Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Kind of pretty in a gaudy way (an awful lot of bright-red spots). What does the patch of singular red add to readers' apprehension of "Morroco". The current flag, I see, is different: so is the version displayed an admiralty flag, or the national flag at the time (1803)? And out of interest for making the links more useful to readers: the link is to the whole country article, rather than piped to something more focused in the context: Morocco; or even better for the curious reader: Morocco. The flags peter out before the end of the list. Some links to nation-states and within-state divisions (like New South Wales) bely the real situation in 1803. Tony (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tony1: Thanks for the heads-up. All flags now restored. Not sure what you mean about New South Wales. Australia did not exist as a country until 1901. The flag of Morocco between 1666 and 1915 was a plain red sheet. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, but how would a reader find the significance of that flag, and whether it was a national (or naval) flag at the time? The edit mode doesn't help much—just gives country and year. In other words, what is its function for the reader? Tony (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The flag provides a link to the country. Virtually all country articles have a link to the relevant "Flag of (country)" article, for those readers that spot an unfamiliar flag and wish to learn more. What concerns me is that the flag is correct for the period in time, and that the link to the country article goes to the correct country/city for the period in time, even if it is displayed differently to the article title per COMMONNAME. As I said above, these flags are not purely decorative, but also have an eductional purpose. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Jesus wept. I think it's really pretty – whatever floats your boat. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.