Jump to content

User talk:Rich Farmbrough: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 32: Line 32:
|}
|}
||
||
{{Drama free days|2011|11|17}}
{{Drama free days|2011|11|28}}
|}
|}
{{Clear left}}
{{Clear left}}

Revision as of 16:00, 28 November 2011

Template:Mirror me

  • This page has been viewed 383949 times. Plus one when I wrote this, plus you looking at it now.
Femto's Box
Th 3
Ed 5
Ms 7
Links
FAQ
Talk Archive Index
follow my blog
This page-

Drama free days
4587


From SignPost

Approximately 3% of editors account for 85% of contributions to the project, according to the statistician, and participation among this group has declined "even more sharply" than the active registered userbase in toto.

Funny that. Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Unchallengeable take downs?

Rich, On the talk page for the proposed terms of use, you mention a takedown that is unchallengeable. While it's possible, I think it's more likely that it's a symptom of our bad communication about it or something (for which I would take responsibility). I don't think we have any that are unchallengeable right now. So, I want to write to ask if there's something I can clarify, or whether I'm missing something on my list? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the matter has come up a couple of times, both on the Talk:Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy talk page of the article in question, and in the commentary to a recent (July) SignPost. The issue is that there only people who can issue a counter notice are the anonymous editors who originally posted the material. On most websites another person could post the material, wait for a challenge and respond to that. Here, since take-down has been implemented as an office action no one can repost the material without going against the office action (and in fact, even if they did, it would be removed by editors in support of the office action) therefore the material, which is freely published elsewhere, since the DMCA was challenged and the challenge not responded to, cannot be posted on Wikipedia. Effectively this makes Wikipedia the most censored forum for this information. Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Interesting. My understanding from the legal team is that a DMCA takedown must be challenged by a party with legal standing, which would mean that it has to be someone who had posted the content. If we were to then suggest or passively allow someone else to post it, we would not be in full compliance. However, I'll confirm that. If that's the case, then we're in compliance with the regulations and others arguably are not. If it's an issue of interpretation, I'll find out why we're not more broad, but since Mr. Godwin structured those originally, I tend to think we're at the broadest level that he (and then Mr Brigham) felt was legally possible. But I'll get an answer and try to report back. Thanks for clarifying. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting time for Helpful Pixie Bot

In a recent discussion on this talk page, you agreed to set a waiting time for HPbot, but you didn't set this for IP edits for some unknown reason. This creates siutatuions like [1] where 7 times in 20 minutes you edit the same article while an IP is actively editing it, thereby possibly creating edit conflicts only because the bot won't wait for an hour or so before making its edit.

The same happened e.g. here with three bot edits in five minutes.

I also notice that the waiting period for non-IP edits only seems to be about 10 minutes, even though you said that you had increased it to 1 hour[2]. Any reason that you don't actually wait for 1 hour, and for IPs as well? Fram (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did set it to 1 hour but the effectiveness became zero as I predicted. I now have it on twice the previous delay, and effectiveness is about 50% at a guess. Rich Farmbrough, 12:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I unblocked this bot on the very clear undertaking you gave me. As you have reneged on this I have reblocked the bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it in build 615. That proved ineffective, so I changed it again in build 616. This isn't causing any complaints from the editors who are adding the tags, which is my touchstone, not, with all due respect, what you or Fram might think. Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
(ec)What do you mean by "effectiveness"? Are there pages that should get tag-dated but don't, due to the delay? Or do other bots get there before yours (and why is that a problem?)? Or something else? Apart from that, any reason that you can't implement the same delay for IPs, avoiding (from today) four bot edits in seven minutes to the same article[3]? Fram (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be interested in the answer to the questions above as it makes no sense to me. I see no compelling reason to unblock this bot considering all the factors (the number of errors it seems to make, and the lack of responsiveness from the operator, the number of complaints on this talk page, ...). Another bot performing the same task seems to receive no complaints and is doing the job perfectly well.

RE This isn't causing any complaints from the editors who are adding the tags, it was due precisely to complaints/feedback from the bot's "clients" that this delay is being demanded. Your dismissive response to User:EEng and failure to follow through showed how you respond to your "touchstone".

To summarise I propose leaving this bot blocked indefinitely as I foresee no end to the problems encountered so far. My patience is fairly well exhausted on this matter and other bots are doing the same work without any problems, so there is no loss to Wikipedia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you treat that other bot differently, since it's editing at 10 minute delay is considered fine and dandy. This is simply prejudice brought about by the slinging of mud, and blocking the bot is bad for the encyclopedia. I addressed EEngs concerns by allowing a much longer delay in his case, as I have done for anyone who has raised the concern. Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
AnomieBot has a twenty minute delay, not a ten minute delay, and uses the same twenty minute delay for IPs... Fram (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnomieBOT running alone has a 20-minute delay. I have some experimental code running that automatically adjusts the delay to match (within reason) if Helpful Pixie Bot has been running faster; I did this because, way back when I started running the task, it was proposed that AnomieBOT use the same delay as (then-)SmackBot and Rich kept resetting his bot to just slightly faster. That seems to be what happened here, too, BTW: Rich turned his bot to about 19 minutes, then 18, then 16, then 14, then 10 over the course of 4 days. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that AnomieBOT was also running at 10 minutes and it doesn't make sense to me that AnomieBOT's delay should be affected by other bot's settings. It's as if you two are competing with each other, for some unknown reason, and I don't see this being helpful to the encyclopedia. This work is completely non-urgent and a delay of 24 hours would seem perfectly adequate to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No competition on my part, just parity. And it lets me know to do things like this. A delay of 24 hours is IMO too long, as on even a moderately active article the bot would never be allowed to edit. Anomie⚔ 15:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you would still get to see new templates regardless of which bot edits first, since Helpful Pixie Bot wouldn't know about them either - and you have code I think you said to capture these cases. Interestingly that is one reason I find AnomieBOT frustrating - that it clears certain hard cases, which in my old (AWB based) daily workflow I would see the morning after kicking off a run, enabling me to keep the bot up to date. Another advantage of an AWB daily run was that an actual delay was built in, due to the time it took to build the list and the relatively low editing speed. A third advantage was far less reads of Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Sigh. Time to unblock this, since the block was done on the mistaken basis that I had reneged on an undertaking to MSGJ, which even if correct would not be a reason for a block. Blocks are not punitive. Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC).
MSGJ. You said you blocked because I reneged on something. If you re-read you will find that I didn't. Please therefore unblock. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC).
I unblocked your bot based on some very specific undertakings which you did indeed renege on. I do not need to re-read the discussion to know this. Based on all that has happened I am not inclined to trust you to run this bot in a responsible manner. As I said earlier my patience is exhausted and I will not be unblocking the bot. If you wish to seek review of this, you may post at the Administrators' noticeboard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it means anything, I miss good old Smack bot; it was fast and reliable as a nuclear clock. At 22:48 I last laid down some tags @ Medal of Honor and as of 02:48 the "nicely behaved bot" has not placed dates. I also liked Smack bot because it fixed any irregularities in the article while it was in there. I used to ping Smack bot with the request template just to have it clean up articles. :) So this delay going on made go and look for what happened to your bot and I find this crap. I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater. Brad (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Wikilove

 Slowking4 has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

while i don't normally applaud bot maintainers, i find your contributions invaluable.

If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Slowking4: †@1₭ 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yum, great! Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

About bird classification

Something to think about while you are blocked. Do you have any thoughts on using data in lists or websites to add details to bird pages with bots or semi-automatic tools. We have been discussing how to update many bird pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Birds#Repetitive_work. I hope to hear from you in about two weeks time. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I was just reading the example "Birds of Zanzibar" at the RFC over lists. One I have acquired, prpeared and consumed a little something, I'll take a closer look. Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC).
Good, you can use your talk page when blocked. Yes, it takes a methodical approach to do these tasks. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK pulling the genus author off Wikispecies does not look hard. The mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC, should we be noting monogeneric families? (E.G. Limpkin.) I presume IBC is authoritative enough to cite for this. The IOC spreadsheet is golddust - do you know the licensing of the notes? Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC).
I will transcribe your question to the WP bird talk page. Please indicate if you would like any further questions copied to there. Snowman (talk)
Is IBC a typo for IOC? What notes do you refer to? Would you agree that there are 903 monotypic bird genera (including monotypic families) listed in the IOC spreadsheet? The IOC taxonomy might be controversial for some birds. The HBW list (here) might be slightly different, because of controversies. Erudite ornithology editors might clean the list manually, if they know where the controversies are. Snowman (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IBC=International Bird Collection =HBW. The IOC spreadsheet has a notes column - we could quote this if it is freely licensed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC).
I expect the notes would be copyrighted, but see with the others think on the WP Bird talk page. I used the shorter spreadsheet. A list of monotypic genera from IBC might be useful somewhere. Snowman (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check on monotypic genrea, I get the same result. Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC).
That is reassuring. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to get a similar list of monotypic genera according to HBW. It looks like I will not be able to scrape their website for this list; perhaps, I have missed something. Do you have any observations on data scraping ibc.lynxeds.com for a list of monotypic genera? You say; "the mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC". This is for monotypic genera, not monotypic species. It looks difficult to me, their might be other websites that are easier to scrape. The HBW spreadsheet might be available - see discussion on the WP Birds talk page. Snowman (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a list from the HBW page last night, I'll post it here later. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC).
As well as redirect creation, interesting questions arise - is Acanthidops bairdi a typo for Acanthidops bairdii or vice versa? Is the Golden Bulbul two species or one? Etc. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC).
Thank you for making the list. I suppose you could park it in a sub-page or remove it leaving it in the page history, if you wanted to. I have copied all 9,918 to a txt file on my PC. Interesting that the IOC list has well over 10,000. For clarity: is this list a list of every bird species on the HBW website? If so, then I could list the monotypic genera separately from it. I have not focused on the queries that you raised as yet. Did you come across a lot of listing problems? Some apparent listing anomalies might be due to taxonomy controversies, and some might be typos and other errors. The HWB list could be quite a lot different from the IOC list, partly because of the different functions of the lists. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked it up elsewhere, but Acanthidops bairdii is the name on the en Wiki species article. In brief outline, I would be interested to know how you made the HBW list. Snowman (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I got he "ii" spelling. Google gives 17k with "i" and 4.5k with "ii". I created the list by scanning all the family pages from HBW. Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC).
Brilliant. How did you scan all those pages? I presumed that the list was alphabetical without any exceptions. Is that assumption correct. Do you agree with 929 monotyic genera according to HBW? I got a perl script to grab the genus name one line and compare it with the genus name in the line above and below. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get 923/926
  1. Herpsilochmus sp nova: New Herpsilochmus Antwren
  2. Otus sp. nova: Santa Marta Screech-owl
  3. Strix sp. nova: San Isidro Owl
  4. Stymphalornis sp nova: Sao Paulo Antwren
might be causeing some confusion. Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC).
IUCN has 10029 aves species. Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC).
Well spotted. I think that they are the only ones listed like that on the full list. I have got all four on my derived list, so subtracting four, I get 925, which still is not the same as yours. What is "923/926"? I am expecting your count to be an integer not a range. I am subtracting one more, because Marsh Antwren (Stymphalornis acutirostris) might not be monotypic if there is a new Stymphalornis sp in that genus. That leaves 924. If there is a difference I could use a list comparer. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is worth doing a monotypic genus list for IUCN. Can you get there birds as a list? Snowman (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have not made a list, but merely counted them. The number depends on the rule one uses. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC).
  • Can you get the IUCN url (with the page number) and the corresponding species? Doing something with these would be useful for WP Birds. I do not think I could fix the IUCN links in the cite references of the on bird pages quickly, so I hope that you will be able to help and liaise with the others soon. Snowman (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have requested an export of the full AVES search from IUCN. This should provide all the desired information. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

References to IUCN on bird pages

See discussion at Template talk:IUCN and on WP bird talk page. These links have plagued the WP Birds project for a number of years. I guess that it would need scraping the website. Any thoughts. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two Barnstars for your great work

The da Vinci Barnstar
For your great work in mediating over the years

Tamsier (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Integrity
You always edit with integrity and honour. A quality I respect greatly. Always there to offer help when needed to clarify Wiki policy

Tamsier (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Barnstars are cool. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

You win

On the Matter of John Shipp, I'm come to inform you that I will be leaving the article alone from here on out. Although I feel that the article is still questionable, consensus is clearly in your favor for the retention of the article. I tip my hat to you for the work and for being patient with even as I worked to get the article axed; most users are not that polite.

Sincerely,

TomStar81 (Talk) 07:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those kind words. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 45

Template: . *

Edits by:

  1. Rcsprinter123 at 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rcsprinter123 at 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Rcsprinter123 at 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost and hlist

fyi... Alarbus (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • You're welcome. Hope you can whack a lot of these a bot or script. fyi, Edokter added some cell padding, so the inline padding and div-tricks should all be simply cut, too. Alarbus (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date templates

In this edit your AWB again added a date template without any intrinsic cause. Please Stop That! Debresser (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone were to add a reference with a different date style, that would be a good thing? Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Шn my understanding, these templates are first and foremost for the date formats as they are used in the text of the article itself. And even then, and regardless of that, if there is no intrinsic reason for an article to use a certain date format (e.g. an article about an English township should use dmy, and an article about a Canadian province mdy), I don't think incidental usage of a certain type of date format should be used as an indicator. Perhaps if there were five instances, e.g., all in the same date format, that would qualify as more than incidental usage. Has this been discussed somewhere? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Canadian usage varies even more widely than American (our Canadian colleagues have told us), although there seems to be a surprising consistency in the WP articles. In terms of difference between ref dates and content dates there is a red-herring in that when wee were writing the MoS we did not want to prohibit (preferably uniform) 1999-12-31 date style in references. On a later discussion proposing that all access dates be in that style, at least two otherwise intelligent editors swore blind that they were incapable of understanding dates in that format, until they were explained to them - otherwise I would have backed that proposal to the hilt. In terms of first usage there is no de minimus requirement, and nor should there be one, it would result in (even more) endless squabbling ("yes there were x dmy dates. but only because you converted my x-1 mdy and one ymd"). If there is a good reason to change (which is really only "national ties") it should just be changed with a suitable edit summary. Extensive discussions on date styles will be found in the archive of MoSNUM talk. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
So here you are, saying the same thing as I do. So then why did you add a date format when there was no good reason? Pray tell. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the reason for accepting different date formats in refs is to allow (DMY, YMD) and (MDY,YMD) not (DMY,MDY) or (MDY,DMY). Rich Farmbrough, 15:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I see. But that still doesn't resolve our argument. Should a date format template be added in a case where 1. there is no substantial reason to prefer one date format over the other, and 2. the only practical uniformity is in references, while the article itself does not have any dates? Debresser (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad documentation

Another template for your bot to date-stamp, please: {{Bad documentation}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shaped up that template a little. So far, the category doesn't even exist. One page uses it. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added to the basic list. Just have to get the bot unblocked yet... Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Didn't know about that. Sorry to hear. No reason to make dated subcategories though, if you ask me. Although dating the templates transclusions probably never hurts. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

references vs. reflist

This seems to be a matter of personal preference; it is my understanding that there is no consensus to change <references> to {{Reflist}} just for the sake of changing it. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations, which suggests either may be used and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 30#References template vs. reflist tag where the topic of changing from one to the other en masse was explored. Please remove this rule from your ruleset. –xenotalk 14:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno, as long as he doesn't make just that one edit, there is no reason he shouldn't make that edit alongside some other more useful edit. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is a reason not to change it: either is acceptable and the references list of the article should be left in the state it was found unless there is a good reason for the change, just as one doesn't change from variants of English or date styles without good reason. <references /> is generally used when there are few references as the font size is larger; {{Reflist}} is generally used for articles with many references. Both are acceptable and one should not use semi-automated tools to change one from one to the other without such editorial justification. –xenotalk 14:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the difference is so minor, that I do not consider that a reason no to see them as interchangeable. In other words: I disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there has been some community discussion about this specific subject that I am not aware of? If so, I think you should have linked to it in your first post. Your words "it is my understanding", on the other hand, seem to indicate that this is only your personal opinion. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS, lead: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason." This is a general principle: we don't change BCE to BC or vice versa, we don't change a ref style to another, we don't add or remove the spaces inside section headers to suit our preference, and we don't change reflist to references/ or vice versa. More specifically, WP:CITEVAR gives "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." There is no consensus to change from reflist to references/ or the other way around. Fram (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The community discussed is linked above in my first post; there are likely others on the same subject. –xenotalk 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps what I wrote above is out-of-date. Since [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 67#styling like Reflist]], <references /> and {{Reflist}} seem to have identical output. Therefore, such a change is purely cosmetic. –xenotalk 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(editconflict with Fram) I didn't find that discussion conclusive, and WP:CITEVAR addresses citation style rather than their representation.
A good reason to change to {{Reflist}} is that the template is more flexible than the hardcoded <references/>. Both in the fact that it is a template, meaning that its functioning can be easily changed by the community, as also and prominently because it can be adapted for example with |2, |3, and other parameters. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The output of <references /> may also be changed by the community, as evidenced by the VPP thread I linked above. –xenotalk 15:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Need I say that that process is a lot harder? Also, there is the argument of the parameters. And there is the "minimise mark-up" argument Rich mentioned below. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 6:1 usage consensus in favour of {{Reflist}}. The font size issue while very important, for accessibility, and one I have brought up on numerous occasions, is the same with both methods, as the presentation is entirely in CSS. The discussion you refer to was started by one user who conflated (regularly) what is meant by footnote style (as in Harvard, APS, parenthetical etc.) with just about any feature of referencing one could imagine. The majority of the discussion is then about columns rather than templates vs mark-up. Guidelines quite rightly enjoin us to minimise mark-up in articles, and this is one small way of doing it. I'm sure you'll see that clarity of the edit page is a critical part of new editor retention. Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
How does changing references to reflist improve "clarity of the edit page"? Apart from that, if there are multiple accepted styles, we don't change the miority one to the majority one. Otherwise, you could also change BCE to BC everywhere (and hey, that's shorter as well!). Fram (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed the only reason we don't is that there are vested interests. It has been usual to deprecate "anything with angle brackets" on article pages - with exceptions, of course. "references" has been one of those exceptions, mainly if not wholly because it did not invoke the evil "90%" size markup. Clarity clearly improves if we use a smaller set of mark-up. New users are not faced with trying to understand the difference between the two, and the canonical template mark-up is simpler and cleaner. It seems to me that the only constituency for not changing the remaining examples en passent is either a) those that have a personal reason to object to my edits or b) those that think some wiki-law is being broken and they have to defend it for the sake of the rule itself or c) those that have a psychological problem with things being changed at all. None, I regret to say, is a good reason. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You are right that <references /> and {{Reflist}} display the same - my apologies for not keeping up with that change that was made to site-wide CSS in late 2010 - I have partially struck my comment above. So am I correct in understanding that such a change would not affect the rendered page? –xenotalk 15:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So am I correct in understanding you aren't on a fishing trip? Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
All here are highly experienced editors, with me probably being the most junior of all. So I think we can do without the drama. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking you to remove a rule from your ruleset for one reason, and found I was mistaken due to a relatively recent change. I am now suggesting that you remove it for another reason until demonstrable consensus exists for this cosmetic change. Since <references /> and {{Reflist}} now have the same output, a discussion should perhaps be held to determine whether the former should be deprecated in favour of the latter, but doing so in fait accompli manner is not an appropriate use of semi-automated tools. –xenotalk 15:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&oldid=462912390"