This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jonesey95. 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.
Well, I almost knocked off another set before the new year came in, but four errors in Table tag to be deleted (User Talk) are beyond me, and I can't go further.
User talk:Icelandic Hurricane/February Archive (2x). No idea. While I understand how their menu comes in, I get lost with the infoboxes behavior and they wig out when I do things to fix the table errors and I've given it enough tries in preview. User talk:JoeNMLC I'm not really "stuck" on how to fix, he just reverted me as he didn't like how something moved a little bit, so I don't want to go back in. User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 9 Not fully sure what's going on. I'm tempted to <pre> that table it since it seems more a discussion on how to do a size change rather than showing the size change.
I fixed the first and the third pages. The first one still has two pairs of mismatched div tags that may have been created in my edit, but the page displays much better and I ran out of energy. If you can fix them, be my guest. I made a minor edit to the middle page that did change the display a bit, so we'll see how that goes over. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
A couple of mismatched divs is fine given all the busy syntax on that page. Thank you greatly.
Hope so, thanks.
????? That was what I tried first, but the table didn't appear and Linter said it was missing a bold tag, so it didn't feel right given I wasn't familiar with lsth (and doing |{{#lsth:Roger Federer career statistics|Singles</b>}} which fixed it from linter's perspective felt wrong). No bold issue today for some reason and the table displays, so guessing when I tried it the called table was broken and missing a bold. I can't explain it. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Re Roger Federer and #lsth, yeah, that's pretty obscure. It is transcluding a section of an article. I went to the article and fixed the two Linter errors it had. One of those errors was being transcluded on the talk page, so it got fixed there automatically. In general, when I come across a Linter error that I really don't get, I leave it for others. You did the right thing by asking for help instead of applying a workaround. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Cleanup request
Happy New Year! I was wondering if you might be able to help with a bit of post-page move cleanup based on this discussion. I am also looking for a bit of help here with Template:Article history and ClueBot archiving, if you're familiar with either. If not interested, no worries! Just seeking help someone a more technically inclined editor than myself. Happy editing! ---Another Believer(Talk)20:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This is not my main area of expertise, so I didn't do things in the most elegant way, but I think I have fixed everything. If not, contact me again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jonesey95, Thank you for your encouragement and offer to clean up my article on Bobbie R. Allen. I understand your cautioning me about COI and have been conscious about providing citations throughout the article. I'm complete except for a document to be provided from the Harry S. Truman library and your comments and edits are much appreciated! Wdallen49 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
"or from Wikipedia's Visual Editor"
Is there a way to clarify that a bit? I don't use VE, so I'm not certain exactly under what circumstances this might happen. Might be worth covering in a footnote rather than directly inline in the guideline text. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I've seen that from time to time you remove <small>...</small> tags from infoboxes and templates citing MOS:FONTSIZE. For example here. Do you remove them on sight, or only when you feel the resulting text is just too small? There are hundreds of pages using small tags in {{Speciesbox}} and related templates, for example Suberites ficus. Should I be removing small tags from those templates? —Bruce1eetalk11:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I remove small tags when the resulting text is too small, i.e. below 85% of the default body text font size. The default text size in navboxes and infoboxes is 88%, so adding small tags is invalid (except in some title parameters in infoboxes, which are larger than the default). As far as I know, {{Speciesbox}} has a default font size of 100%, so using small tags and templates inside that template is fine. Your browser should have a "Developer Tools" or similar menu that allows you to inspect the actual font size of rendered text and compare it to the default body font size in a rendered article. This size will vary depending on your computer and browser settings, but in general, rendered text should not go below 85% of the default body font size. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm using Firefox and it has a "Web Developer Tools" menu, but I need to play around with it first to see how it works. —Bruce1eetalk17:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Click the little arrow in a box on the far left, then click on an element in the page. Then go to the Computed tab on the right side of the very busy toolbar and look for "font-size". Click first on normal body prose text to see your browser's normal font size for Wikipedia pages. Then click on some infobox text, and you should see a font-size number that calculates to 88% of the body prose size. The hardest part is clicking on the element that you want, since every page is a bunch of nested elements and you might not be able to click on exactly the one you want. If you get close, you may be able to click on the item you want in the left side of the toolbox, where it shows the HTML for the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I tried this on Draft:2024 Auburn Tigers baseball team. Clicking on the normal body prose gives a font-size of 14px in the Computed tab. Clicking on "Jacksonville, FL" in the 5th row of the table gives a font-size of 10.7398px. If the normal text is 100%, then the reduced text would be about 76%, noting that the table font-size has already been reduced to 95%. Since the small text (Jacksonville, FL) is below 85%, the small tags should be removed. Am I on the right track? Also, is there a way to get it to show the font-size in percent, rather pixels? —Bruce1eetalk23:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
When a table uses both "font-size:95%" (or anything less than 100%) and <small>...</small> tags, I usually just remove the "font-size:95%" declaration from the table's style rather than mess with a bunch of small tags. Other editors may choose a different path. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I think I've got it now. That the tool gives the font-sizes in pixels isn't a problem. Since the default font-size shows as 14px, which is 100%, the threshold of 85% is 11.9px. So any text lower than 11.9px should be questioned. Thanks for all your help with this. —Bruce1eetalk08:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Check for unknown parameters
You were right about Template talk:Paid contributions.
Why you reverted Check for unknown parameters that I added to templates?
On your edits you said refer to editor's talk page. But you don't mention any technical reason. Why the code is not working? Have you ever tried it? Shkuru Afshar (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
What is the difference between
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{Main other|}}|preview=Page using [[:Template:Infobox film]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|showblankpositional=1| alt | animator | background_artist | based_on | budget | caption | cinematography | color_process | country | director | directors | distributor | distributors | editing | gross | italic_title | image | image_upright | language | layout_artist | music | name | narrator | narrators | native_name | producer | producers | production_companies | released | runtime | screenplay | starring | story | studio | writer | writers }}
and
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|}}|preview= Page using [[Template:Infobox weather type]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_" | ignoreblank=y | name | image | imagesize | alt | caption | area of occurrence | season | effect }}
There is already consensus in the discussion that the whole thing is a waste of everyone's time. I do not think that anything I could contribute there would improve the discussion. It would just be wasting more time, including my own. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Template query
Hello, Jonesey95,
A very new editor created Template:Draft-stub and I'm thinking that it was just a cut and paste of an existing template. Does it look familiar? If so, I don't know whether it should go to WP:TFD or turned into a redirect. What do you think? Thanks! LizRead!Talk!20:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
You mean the possessive apostrophe? I'm happy with it, thanks, unless there is some WP guideline, WP policy, or external usage manual you would care to point to that would help me understand your concern. Happy editing! P.S. I am honored that you chose my talk page for your twentieth edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I will admit the colors are not particularly inspired but it looks basically acceptable to me for a technical page :( jp×g🗯️11:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Thanks for the link. Red-tailed hawk, I do not find the above message helpful, since it provides no context and does not help me find the edit in question to know whether I should be concerned. Even though the above message says that it "does not imply that there are any issues with your editing", the mere presence of the message presents that implication. The "topic" called "post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people" must comprise thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of articles; are you saying that if I fix a syntax error in such an article, that edit is treated or viewed differently from the thousands of other error fixes that I make on a monthly basis? That seems like a dubious premise, or maybe I misunderstand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
No; if you fix syntax errors in those articles and continue to make good edits (like those hundreds of thousands of gnomish edits that you have made), that isn't viewed differently. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This seems contrary to assuming good faith to me. You should assume that I will continue to make good edits, just as I assume that you will make good edits, unless there is evidence to contradict that assumption. The above warning message should not be necessary unless an editor is making questionable edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, not a warning message, and the instructions at WP:CTOP and {{Alert/first}} don't assume fault here. In any case, I continue to believe that you will be a productive editor; I don't see where I'm stating otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Again, as noted above, the notification does not imply anything wrong with your edits. It's just a notification that you've edited a page related to Post-1992 U.S. politics, and something you should be aware of, even if edits in the area are minor. The notification of a good number of editors comes after an AN thread where additional admin eyes on the topic area were requested. Admittedly, it would have been better to do this as new editors came in, rather than all at once, but I had been a bit too busy to track that. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The confusion is that the edit I made was clearly productive and harmless, and had a clear edit summary, and yet I received the above scary-looking warning message. The message says that it is not a warning, but it clearly is. I just don't see the value to anyone of posting that notification here based on the content of my edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand why the formatting, etc. might come off as a warning at first glance, but I can assure you that this isn't a warning; the template is regularly given to productive editors; it's merely making one aware of the existence of the whole WP:CTOP system and how it interacts with American Politics. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Wow, what a nest of confusion. This is why I try to stay away from drama in nearly all of its forms here on Wikipedia. I'll go back to my gnoming. I encourage you to limit your delivery of the above message to editors who make substantive edits to the prose or references of articles and ignore editors who make gnomish, productive, or otherwise harmless edits. As you can see, it just stirs up concern when misapplied. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jonesey95, I saw your stylesheet changes to reduce blank spaces on the page, but it goes a bit too far for me. I'm just hoping to reduce the amount of blank space to the right of the pinned tools menu and expand the article width by a corresponding amount, maybe 40px at a time until it seems too wide. I don't want to reduce the amount of blank space on the left. Is there some minimal set of common.css changes that would do that? I have been unable to figure this out. (I have "Enable limited width mode" checked in my preferences and I don't toggle to use full width. My screen is 1440x900 if that matters.) Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Have you tried the section of my common.css that is preceded by the comment "Vector 2022: Fix excessive padding when page tools are in the right sidebar"? You might also want the section after "Vector 2022: Fix font size of items in Tools (formerly More) drop-down menu". Basically, I used my browser's Tools/Inspector feature to point at different parts of the page to identify the CSS selectors that they used, then adjusted my common.css to try to shrink or otherwise change those sections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I didn't want to reduce the font size, but I finally found a solution for the method I'm using. One or two more lines were needed in .mw-body in addition to the grid-template. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Since it sounds from the template talk page that you will not be following through, I thought I'd get your thoughts on me filing review of our mutual acquaintance's conduct at AN, with the view to potentially pull their TPE access. You and I both suffered through the {{marriage}} nonsense, but is that enough to merit removal? Some of their responses in this last discussion would lead me to pull any other TPE's access, but since I'm involved I'm trying to be a bit more cautious in proceeding. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I strongly support removal of template editor for them. They keep doing the same thing over and over again: making far too many edits to live templates that are widely transcluded, doing so before and during discussions, making errors, not acknowledging that the behavior is disruptive, and then doing it again. It's not appropriate behavior for a TE. The editor will still be able to edit the sandbox and testcases and documentation if they want to improve templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Primefac, for your posting to AN. I try to stay away from AN and ANI boards, having had a few bad experiences there, and from drama in general. I always appreciate the editors who are willing to take the time to make valid reports on those boards. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm deeply sorry for any disruption my actions may have caused. Reflecting on the {{marriage}} situation and the recent discussions, I ought to have been more cautious and collaborative in my approach. My intentions were always to contribute positively but I readily acknowledge that my methods weren't the most effective. I will commit myself to being more mindful and consulting with fellow editors before undertaking significant changes in the future. Regarding the review of TPE access, I respect the process and trust in the community's judgment to decide the appropriate course of action. On a personal note, I'm grateful to you, Jonesey, for the way you have conducted yourself over these past several years, and I believe you've helped me become a better template editor, even as there's still much I need and will endeavour to learn. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
The links to the new China-related article and category use the capitalization for those pages. If you think those pages should have different capitalization, suggest that at their talk pages. Or do I misunderstand your request? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the code in the templates is the same as the code you requested, except for the typo I fixed. If you have suggestions for changes, or if you see errors, you can make changes in the template's sandbox and view them on the testcases page. You can also edit the documentation page. I recommend that any further discussion happen at Template talk:Designation, not here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2024 (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.
Annual report notes
Hi Jonesey; re your notes on the GOCE annual report here, the figures you flagged as possibly inaccurate are for requests submitted from 1 January to 31 December, inclusive. The figures above that line refer to those processed from 1 Jan to 31 Dec, inclusive. The percentage you flagged in the header refers to these stats (I've now corrected the latter point). Does this make sense or am I wrong? Math(s) was never my strong point!
Also, what to do about the unwritten "Closing words" section? Would you or Miniapolis like to write some closing text? If no-one's bothered, I can remove it before sending. I don't want to tread on any toes, particularly those of the Lede Coord, which is partly why I've left the report alone for a week. But if I leave it too long, nothing gets sent out, which is sad. Thanks for your input there, btw. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab06:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Mattythewhite: Motion denied (or some other legalism). The /doc subpage contains a category, which is the normal place for template categories to live. When you stopped transcluding it, the template page no longer had a category. I'm fine with your edit; just remember to move the category to the template page (inside the noinclude tags). – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
For the record, all that was was me trying to figure out - by looking at the differing source code between the mobile and non-mobile sites - why they acted differently. Ended in figuring it out and finding this fix, which fixed the bug. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.20:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad you found that fix. If you scroll up on the page, you can see that I worked on a fix in 2022 and made some progress, but if you have fixed it the rest of the way, that is super. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's the most efficient fix: I wasn't sure if the first div that only exists if Location=center was actually necessary after the change (it even adds a </div> at the bottom only if Location=center to accomodate it), but just in case that was fixing some other use case, I went with the minimal change. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
By the way, what do you think of my new template for making CSS image crop a little easier to use, {{Easy CSS image crop}}. It doesn't do Annotated Image stuff, but that's pretty advanced and rare functionality, and I don't really want to have to learn enough Lua string handling to make Module:ImageRatio work with an annotated image as the input. I'd imagine something like |[%s]*image[%s]*=.[|}] since it returns the shortest match, and then strip everything before the = from that, but ugh. And I'm not sure if I even escaped the | or } correctly. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.06:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
About the broken syntax, i copied it from the earlier versions of the (section about the participating clubs in the) 2023 Emperor's Cup i retrieved by accident. After further inspection, i believe this mistake was corrected by someone else after i didn't took notice of the "coding error" (i don't know the right term), as the syntax does not present any error in the current version of the (section of) article. I don't think it damaged the article from a visual perspective, though, so i'm relieved. ~~ SoftReverie (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I have seen this syntax more than once, so I figured it was being copied from somewhere. There are still more than 80,000 "missing end tag" errors in articles, of which this was one. Once they are all fixed, there shouldn't be anywhere for editors to copy from, at least in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Query
Hello, Jonesey95,
What do you think Template:Nearest meighbour for whole page/style.css is for? Misspelling? I also don't understand how this editor moved this template without leaving a redirect. That usually only happens if the editor is a Page Mover. But since you know so much about templates (and when pages are mistakenly placed in Template space), I thought you might know. I just happened to spot it on the Move log. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!22:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I have sorted it, I think. When I moved the .css page to the correct name, I noticed that "Leave a redirect behind" is grayed out, as is the checkbox to the left of that option. My wild guess is that CSS pages can't be redirects or targets of redirects, so the normal page mover rights do not apply. A bigger WP CSS nerd than I, like Izno or Redrose64, might know something like that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavin's Milkshake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
It looks to me like I added closing p tags in that edit. I try not to yell at editors, but the MediaWiki software does sometimes complain a bit on the "Page information" page if there are unclosed p tags present. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education (OJMCHE), in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host an International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Sunday, March 10 from 11am-3pm PDT. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter Jewish women artists into the canon. An experienced regional Wikipedian will provided will be on site to teach, support, and guide the process. Participants can select artists ahead of time or on site.
Why? It's an in-line cleanup template that assigns a tracking category. Putting all of the extra stuff directly into a page does not make sense to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Because I don't think it's automatically dated by a bot, and it's easier just to type {{subst:ISBN?}} rather than having to go to the documentation and copy the full code. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 14:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This conversation should happen at the template's talk page. Since the |date= parameter does not appear to do anything, and it does not appear to be used often, why not just remove it? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, mildly interesting. I had put in the date myself, so there was no change. Anyway, it seems pointless if a bot will fill in the date later, and irrelevant to {{ISBN?}}, where the date does nothing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
You have not edited the testcases page. Which test cases show that your proposed changes actually work? That's what "relevant" means in this context. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Where is the test case showing multiple positions that shows the "(s)"? If you have a conditional statement, you need to test at least two possible conditions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll be frank. Your track record means that I can only trust your changes if you show your work. Add a test case to the test cases page that shows your new code working when all of the modified labels should be pluralized. Add or modify another that shows all of the modified labels as singular. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I've reverted the change to the live template, as I think we've miscommunicated. I assumed that, since I had consulted with you and you voiced no further objections after two weeks, as well as the fact that I had both successfully sandboxed and testcased the changes, that it would be OK to implement the changes. Primefac seemed to confirm that the change was OK, before later reverting himself on the same grounds. You haven't provided any further clarity on this, and I feel as if I'm being given the cold shoulder. If you're not interested in mentoring me on sandboxing/testcasing, I'd appreciate if you could clarify that. I've responded to your message on my talkpage regarding my promise, which I did not in fact breach as I clarified, but I accept that I ought to sandbox/testcase all such changes in future regardless if the template is protected or not, and I can promise to do so going forward. I hope you can try and bear with me here, as I am trying. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't see this discussion before I reinstated the edit, which is why I reverted. The edit looks fine to me, but it seemed like part of a "test first before implementing" scheme and I didn't want to get in the way of that. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
No worries, Primefac. I am washing my hands of this one. Anyone who wants to enhance that template should make some sandbox edits and then start a thread on the template's talk page explaining what they propose to change and why. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Help with TFD
Hello, Jonesey95,
I wanted to nominate the template at the bottom of Coptic Orthodox Church in South America for consideration at TFD but I can't find the page that it is on. When I click V or E, it takes me to a generic template page for templates about the Americas. Can you either point me to the right, specific template page so I can nominate it or post the nomination yourself? It's just a collection of red links for a small church that is highly unlikely to expand throughout a large region in the coming future. Thanks! LizRead!Talk!18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That navbox is generated using a sort of meta-template that creates a navbox for any topic provided. There is no guarantee when you give it a term that there will be a collection of articles on that topic. The template documentation provides brief guidance: Examples of inappropriate articles for these templates are .... I could create a one-off navbox instance called "Blue-faced species of bananas in the Americas" by transcluding the template at the bottom of a page, and it would be all red. In this case, I think your only option is to remove the navbox from the article if all of the redlinks bother you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
There is so much I don't know about how templates work. That's why I rarely ever venture into TFD. Thank you for the explanation. Since there is no existing template for this subject, I think I'll let it be since it likely only exists on this page. Thanks again. LizRead!Talk!19:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I have boldly moved all of the pages to Wikipedia space, since they are single-use project pages that don't really behave like transcluded templates with parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Edit notice
Thank you for this; it makes an immediate and positive difference. I have to say that while i don't remember if we've actually interacted previously, i know that i have learned from your technical ability and have, as in this case, taken information or tweaks you have suggested and used them. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello08:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
In response to your query "Why does this keep happening?"in this edit, the problem is <small>...</small> tags spanning multiple lines in Module:NewDYKnomination here:
<small>${STATUS} by ${AUTHORS}. ${NOMINATED} at ~~~~~.
Number of QPQs required: ${QPQS_REQUIRED}
Post-promotion hook changes [[User:GalliumBot#darn|will be logged]] on the talk page; consider [[Help:Watchlist|watching]] the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.</small>
I could fix it myself by bracketing the three lines with {{smalldiv}}, but I'd rather leave it to someone with more experience with modules than me. —Bruce1eetalk08:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I had already worked around it with an explanation and a link to more information in my edit summary, but my edit was undone by SD0001, who did not appear to understand that the invalid syntax was causing errors in every new DYK page created with that Module. I have implemented a different fix with div tags. {{Smalldiv}} would probably also work, but I am never sure whether I can use templates directly in a Lua module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you please assume good faith? This was an edit I did manually when I saw that new nominations were now including irrelevant text in full size rather than small. I did not see that was because of your lint-fixing edit. Also, if you are going to make such edits in templates, can you kindly ensure that the presentation remains unaffected? People put effort in formatting templates to ensure the necessary details catch attention and others don't. It's not acceptable to change the formatting to make a lint error go away. Using the div tag looks like the correct fix, thanks! – SD0001 (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I usually try to preserve the appearance, but sometimes the original editor's intent, especially when they use in-line tags to span multiple lines, is not clear. (A variant of the above assertion could be that it is not acceptable to introduce a syntax error just to get a page to look a certain way.) It looks like I guessed wrong this time. I'm glad we ended up with mutually acceptable markup. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
That edit of mine you fixed...
At some point after that edit, I realized stuff like that was happening, and cleaned up most (I thought all) of the instances where that occurred. However, you obviously found one of the instances where I did not fix the issue. I have since added a "[^']" into my search regex, making my search "[^'],'''''" instead of ",'''''" so it doesn't return pages with an apostrophe before the comma. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That formatting was bizarre before your edits, so it is understandable that strange things happened. Thanks for trying to prevent it in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
West Bengal Film Journalists' Association Award for Best Actress
You removed a {{border}} from West Bengal Film Journalists' Association Award for Best Actress, with edit summary "Please RTFM. Template:Border is for wrapping text. It uses span tags, so it can't wrap div-based elements." This article had a bunch of {{border}}'d [[File]] calls; the one you removed was a {{border}} around {{CSS image crop}}, which was the only one causing a div-span-flip. Another user reverted you; I reverted that user, but that left all images but the cropped one with borders, so I removed all of the borders. It's strange that {{border}} generates div-span-flip lint errors around cropped images but not around regular images. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Anomalocaris: Regular images don't use <div>...</div> elements any more. They used to, but the MediaWiki software was altered at some point in the last few months so that images are enclosed in <figure>...</figure> elements. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you and User:Frietjes are skilled with templates. At Template:US Census population, would it be possible to add an option so this template could also lay horizontally, or in columns?
I mostly edit US city articles, and very often this lengthy template pokes deep into the bottom of an article, such as Hamilton, Georgia.
It looks like the latter template is usable for US settlement populations. I don't know how to program in Lua, so I would not be able to modify Template:US Census population in this way. Personally, I think the pure horizontal layout inhibits comparison of the numbers from year to year, but I see your point about the length of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Frietjes: That would really help with those short articles that have a long history of settlement. Should I leave it with you, or open a discussion on the template talk page? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, very minor question. You offered advice recently on Miniapolis talk page, re: resolving dispute over c/e, and mentioned "the wrong IMO". What means IMO? I checked WP Abbr, Glossary, and Edit summary legend page, but couldn't find, and google had too many high freq irrelev hits. Context was: sentences with awkward usage, one w/ verb tense, the other awk serial semicolons. Thanks! — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk)00:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.
Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC).
Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here.
Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
I can't figure this divflip error out. Template:Letter A few hundred issues due to the two errors on the template, and I don't want to just hack at it with test edits. Cheers, Zinnober9 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
One trick is to look inside the templates being used. Nowrap is a span template, and Smalldiv, which I created to solve thousands of misnested small tags back in 2018 or so, uses div tags. So this worked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Nowrap... of course. With template code not triggering when passed through LintHint, and all the code looking tidy but so very nested, it's just not as easy to read as some other errors. Thank you again! Zinnober9 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. It looks to me that the easiest way to handle this is to get the list of pages, check each page section for the "Why can't I edit Wikipedia?" part that seems consistent between them, and simply replace that ection with the corrected version, which should take care of any variations. Are there any issues with doing this? I'd need to make sure to keep the signature and anything below that, but that should be doable, especially if the <!-- Template:Uw-spamublock --> is always present. — Qwerfjkltalk14:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I have found that using the regexes I linked to does the trick for me. If you have another method that you like and that is reliable, that seems fine to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the first one is valid but incomplete, and the second one is a complete, valid edit. In the first one, a p tag was missed. It looks like an additional or modified regex is needed. Replacing the whole section might be valid; I prefer to make as few display changes as possible when fixing these syntax errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Great work! I checked all of the remaining pages, and about half of them were false positives. I fixed the rest. This task is complete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Template display
I'm going to suspect that you'll get reverted on User:Airtransat236/sandbox/template as that's essentially the same edit I made. I think they want it to appear as {{{text_1}}} left half, {{{text_2}}} right half, as seen here and objected to the corrective edit which for some reason made both appear as 25% width, both on the left half of the page, but they didn't outright state such. I haven't thought of how to keep the 50-50%. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The remaining few table errors, other than User:Halibutt/Archive 15 (which I'll see if Primefac will assist with), boggle my brain at the moment, so if you understand them, all yours if you want them. Thanks for getting a number of other pages the last couple of days; I had gotten to a point where the remaining set of pages were a little puzzling and weren't as intuitive. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been chipping away at them. They were mostly easy to medium until these last dozen or so. Some of them required digging through and modifying User subpages, which is always fun. I spent a few minutes on each of those lsat few and decided to work on something easier, and now they are all that is left. I know that I'll be able to fix at least some of them. It may take a few days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I asked Primefac about it and some other Full Protected pages that appeared on Wikipedia:Linter/reports/Protected pages by Lint Errors, so one of the three of us will get Halibutt/Archive 15 sometime soon. I don't mind who.
While I'm here, Portal:Maine got its layout malformed on Feb 24th. I've poked at it a little with edit preview, but haven't sorted it out if you want it. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Portals are the spawn of the devil. I fixed a few hundred or thousand (I have blocked out the memory) portal page errors back in 2022, getting the count down to a reasonable value, but the pages appear back in the report over time even when they are not edited. I became convinced, without any real evidence, that in order to fix Portal pages, we need to get article space down to zero errors first. I've mostly left the space alone since then. That said, I cleaned up a bunch of sloppiness at Portal:Maine. Editors, including myself, should use Preview more and inspect their edits after saving. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Now I remember one thing about Portal pages: the stripped tags often appear to be spurious or false positives. Most other errors can be tracked down with the help of the ExpandTemplates page, although it can be tricky to read all of the nested divs and tables. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
It was the big empty space and the stuff shoved to the left I was hoping you saw the fix for, but Portals are certainly evil from the code standpoint, and it's fine if you didn't. Feel like reverting to WOSlinker's revision is a bit too overkill for the layout issue so far, but might come down to it if it's still wonky later. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The big empty space actually has some images in it for a quarter of a second, and then it goes blank. I can't be bothered if the primary maintainer of the page doesn't seem to care (and there are no Linter errors). – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Constitutional law of Wales/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC) by using the Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants list.
Special:Diff/1207765901 ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Template:Cite GREC has been nominated for merging with Template:GEC. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
BRFA filed. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)