User talk:BrownHairedGirl

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

This talk page was last edited (diff) on 8 July 2021 at 20:45 by Uses x (talk • contribs • logs)

AWB

I just noticed you seem to be using a version of AWB that incorrectly locates {{short description}}. While you may be using the latest released version, there is a version that corrects this problem that can be downloaded manually. There is info on the TP. Thanks. MB 19:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @MB. I find it best to and easiest to stick with release versions, and avoid the bleeding edge.

I am aware of the issue with {{short description}}, but it's a very trivial factor which doesn't alter the display or (AFAIK) anything else. So when this was raised with me before, I decided it was best to just live with it until fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't affect the article. But it does affect the time of other editors. If I run AWB on an article on which you have recently placed the SD in the wrong location, then I will have to stop and look at the changes and decide whether to make or skip the edit. If that is the only change, I will skip it because it's moving it to the right location is "cosmetic". But this may delay multiple editors in the future. It's really easy to install the version with the fix. I hope you reconsider. MB 18:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, @MB, but as I said, I don't do betas.

I am surprised that such a very trivial issue as fine-tuning the placement of {{short description}} causes such concern. So long as it is above any infobox, there is near-zero chance that its placement will ever have any effect on anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I've acknowledged that the placement is cosmetic and of no concern. The issue is the affect on volunteer time. MB 20:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@MB: And I have explained that in my view, any such impact on volunteer time is a consequence of some editors paying far too much attention to fine-tuning this. AIUI: a) right now the {{short description}} will work if it is anywhere at all on the page, b) the placement by AWB is in a zone which will never cause problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no choice of whether or not to pay attention. Because it is in the wrong place, my version of AWB moves it to the top and I am forced to decide whether to accept or skip the change. MB 20:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@MB: I suggest that you do as I do: pay no attention to the WP:GENFIXes, and concentrate on whatever substantive task you are using AWB for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@MB: This is probably the tenth thread I've seen on the short description layout issue. At this point, the #1 impact on volunteer time the issue is having is likely that we just keep on reporting and discussing it over and over without it actually fixing it. No one can be expected to use a beta version of software (that goes contrary to its definition), so the top focus should be updating the stable release version of AWB. I'm not sure why no one working on AWB has done that yet; it's been months. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Holy smokes! T247694 was resolved over a year ago! ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 00:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Does anyone have an idea about what specifically needs to happen to get that into the official release? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb An official release needed to happen in the first place. Luckily, it happened a couple days ago, for the first time in years. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Guy, guys, please ... just go to the "skip" tab on AWB, and make sure that the "Only genfixes" box is ticked before you start use.

Then ignore the genfixes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Link rot

Hi. I think the threshold (for your AWB script) is too low. To my eye, adding a large cleanup tag (which suggests the entire article needs cleanup from link rot) is a "cure" that is worse than the disease. When (for example) just one out of 125 references has a minor issue. Or one of 50 odd refs. Or similar. While a "link rot reduction" goal is laudable, I'm not sure tagging hundreds of articles for cleanup (many of which are otherwise not suffering from material cleanup issues) is necessarily advancing that goal. Guliolopez (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Guliolopez, I had seen you fixing some of the tagged pages, so thanks for your good work. I had seen some of your edit summaries (e.g. [1]), and was thinking about leaving a note for you.

I considered the idea of a threshold, and discarded it for several reasons:

1. Complexity. AWB is relatively crude in its filtering abilities, with extra levels of filtering requiring custom modules which take a lot more programming, with a higher risk of error. So the most reliable way to avoid false positives is to keep it simple, by using my current filter which catches one or more bare URLs: <ref[^>]*?>\s*https?:[^>< \|\[\]]+\s*<\s*/\s*ref
   (I think that produces a small number of false negatives, but I am not worried about that).
2. Defining a threshold. Anything related to the number of refs is a non-starter, because both the ref count and the bare URL count are not available to AWB. They could be determined only by running a complex custom module, which I don't trust myself to do reliably.
   Using only a URL count would be misleading, because that would give the same answer on a page which 3 refs were all bare links as on a page whose 100 refs included 3 bare links.
3. Small numbers are easier to fix. In the cases you mention where there is only one bare URL, I can see how a tag may seem disproportionate. I am unsure about that view generally, because it seems to me that tags exist to identify problems, and that if we apply a proportionality test before tagging, we risk not marking problems.
   So my view for now is the tag is still helpful, because if he problem is small it can be easily cleared and the tag removed.
   Fundamentally, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, and I for one value deeply the fact that we flag up problems on the face of an article rather than for example hiding them on the talk page. I regard that as an important transparency measure which should be more widely replicated elsewhere, e.g. in newspapers.
4. Tag size. Yes, cleanup tags are all too big and clumsy, but that's an issue for elsewhere. I can only work with the tags as they are.
   However, your message prompted me to do some burrowing, and I see that there is a {{Bare URL inline}}, and I think that it may be possible to incorporate that into my currently methodology. What would you think of that?

I should stress that this is all experimental. AFAIK, there has previously been no systematic tagging of linkrot issues, so that many links had rotted for years. Working on a series of Indian articles, I found that bare URLs were widespread, so I wrote a wee script to allow one-click tagging thereof. But even that seemed laborious against the scale of the problem, so I started experimenting with AWB tagging.

That seemed to work, so I decided to try some mass tagging and see how the community took to it. Some editors like to be able to clear the current month cleanup category, so I am doing an end-of-month run to load up Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from May 2021, and leave June to be free of mass-tagging.

I have another three thousand or so articles lined up to scan and possibly tag, and on experience so far I guesstimate that will amount to 1,000 to 1,500 more tags. Then I will be done for the month, and I won't restart before the end of next month, all subject to more discussion.

Thanks again for your thoughts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guliolopez: I have just tested {{Bare URL inline}} on Kilmichael Ambush. See this edit,[2] where the inline tag replaces the bulky top-of page {{Cleanup bare URLs}}.

What do you think of that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi.

RE: "Wikipedia is a work-in-progress". Indeed. That is a given. To the extent that practically every article on the project could be tagged in some way. But that would be disruptive and not really representative of "responsible tagging". Personally I see more issues (than value) in tagging 1000 to 1500 articles with the same broad tag.

RE: "there is a {{Bare URL inline}} (and it works with the AWB script)" . If the goal is to highlight issues (such that follow-on editors or bots can more readily address specific issues), then that would seem a more balanced solution. And sounds good (certainly much better than broad article-level tags) to me.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Just passing by and noting this conversation as several pages on my watchlist are being hit as well and I was wondering if there was a bot to smack. I'm grunting as I've ReFill didn't work for me though a manual archive lookup did. (I usually use ReFill2 by adding {{Cleanup bare URLs}} and taking the link from the Preview screen without saving). In all events please respond to the person on the talk page of {{Cleanup bare URLs}} who champions its use in all cases. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: I haven't really tested ReFill2 myself, but I note that it seems to require a skilled driver. Those who just whack save on it can produce ugly results.

I looked at Template talk:Cleanup bare URLs, but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Cleanup_bare_URLs&action=history shows no posts since Feb, and I am not going to trawl the page loking for whoeover you might have been referring to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies,: heaven knows what I was looking at.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guliolopez: I am not much persuaded by WP:OVERTAG and WP:RESPTAG. Both are just essays, and while they have some good points, they are in many places far too restrictive for my tastes.

However, I was able to adapt my AWB set up to use {{Bare URL inline}}. This has the advantage of visibly marking each of the bare URLs with [bare url], which editors can search for in the page. That makes cleanup a lot easier, and also resolves your concern about the prominence of the top-of-page tag. I have now tagged about 1800 articles in this way, and hope to do at least as many again before my self-imposed deadline of midnight GMT today.

BTW, this phase of the list-making process has been interesting, because my diff window shows where the inline tags are being applied to each article, which allow me to make a rough tally at a glance. Overall, about 10% of the articles I have scanned needed a bare URL tag, which is lower than I expected. However, the bare URL rate varies significantly by type of article. Landforms are usually free of them, but popular culture topics (football, musicians) have a much higher rate, while an alarmingly high number of articles on Irish town and villages appear to have been spray-painted with bare URLs.

Of course the number may be different on other types of topic or other geographical areas, but that's my take from my scan of this is set of pretty much everything in Ireland+Scotland+Wales+UK politics.

Thanks again for your help in poking me to a better way of doing this.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well it's working to the extent that I've now resolved the bare URLs in Dorothy Dunnett and Garelet Dod from my watchlist - but I'll be watching my watchlist expecting to see (and fix, if I'm in the mood) a slew of grotty results from Refill2, which some editors use to create ugly and unhelpful "references". Seems a useful project, anyway- good luck. PamD 14:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, PamD. That's kinda how I was hoping this might work: that some editors would pick up on articles in their watchlists, and fix them, while others might see the tags when they visit a page.

  I agree about the poor quality of too many uses of Refil2. It's one of those tools which usually seems to produce results on a spectrum from "needs some polishing" to "compete junk" ... but sadly some editors seem to just blindly save its first suggestion, which can lead to refs mangled into complete garbage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be nice if there was something to try to deter people from adding bare URLs! Either at the stage of saving the edit, like the "did you really mean not to add an edit summary?" I get, or the red error messages from some sorts of citation errors, or a message on the user talk page like the one for linking to a disambiguation page. People might just get weary of being hit with that message repeatedly, and change their ways? On the other hand, I suppose they might create really rubbish refs as "not a bare URL"s, to suppress the message but still without offering a sensible reference for the poor reader. Ah well. :::That's an interesting analysis of the correlation between bare URLs and subject areas, above. I got worried when the bare URL in Garelet Dod was to a thesis on hill names, and thought it might have been used umpteen times (there are a lot of hill articles), and checked the editor's contributions at that date and time, quite expecting to see a long stream of similar edits, but was relieved to find it was a one-off - an editor responding to "Needs more refs" tags, I think. Thanks for all your work! PamD 17:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Slapping"

If you know that there is a problem that needs fixing, why do you not fix it? To be true, this slapping of templates is just putting me off from fixing the. The Banner talk 21:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I refer the honourable member The Banner to the reply I wrote yesterday[3] to @Sevenseaocean. See above at #Bare URLs tagging comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

With other words: you have no intent to solve the problems and you are only slapping templates. Very demotivating. The Banner talk 22:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

AGF, please The Banner, and don't twist my words into a meaning opposite of what I clearly meant.

I fix lots of bare URLs and other malformed refs. However, I can do so at a rate of about 30 per hour, whereas I can use AWB to tag them at a rate of about 1000 per hour. The tags help in several ways for other editors to identify the problem, so me spending a few hours tagging is a big contribution to solving the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think slapping down 1000 templates an hour is solving anything. Contrary, seeing your whole watchlist passing by is very demotivating. I doubt if anyone is now getting enthusiastic about solving those bare links. The Banner talk 00:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Banner: I find it disheartening that so many rotting links exist as bare URLs. You, however, express concern solely about the fact that problem being identified and marked. That seems to me to be an ostrich approach.

It is clear that we clearly disagree fundamentally about the utility of the inline cleanup templates. I see only three possible bases for your objection:

1. That you think cleanup tags as a class are not helpful. If that is your view, then open a WP:RFC to propose their abolition. If the cleanup tags are all abolished, then our discussion here will be moot.
2. That unlike other cleanup tags, this particular cleanup tag ({{Bare URL inline}}) does not help in solving the problem of bare URLs. If that is your view, then take the template to WP:TFD. If the template is deleted, then our discussion here will be moot.
3. That there is some manner in which I am applying this cleanup tag incorrectly to each page. I followed the instructions, but I am human so cannot guarantee to have avoided errors. If you think that I have misapplied it, then please take one or more of my edits as an example, and explain how you believe that how that edit should should have been done.

But apart from those three points, I see no reason to continue our exchange. I have no interest in any further rhetorical statements about "slapping" templates, so please stop that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No surprise that you prefer to walk away from this discussion. The Banner talk 06:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it solving the problem, though? I mean, my watchlist is very full now of articles you've tagged from yesterday and today, and I'm not going to go through any of them to fix them. I might look for the extra info if I come across an inline bare URL tag in a section I end up editing, but I'm not gonna go "Oh, here's some work to do, yay!" Though I do appreciate there are people who may well do that. Regardless, though - people keep on adding bare URLs as references, and will continue to do so. Would editors' time be better served by doing something about the cause of the problem, for example? You go to save an edit with a bare url reference, you get a popup warning you it's a bare URL and requesting more data. Or the popup prevents you from saving at all until you've fixed the problem or removed the bare URL. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah - I see PamD already proposed the same thing! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bastun: I think we agree about the purpose of this cleanup tag. It facilitates action by anyone who wants to fix bare URLs. If editors don't want to fix bare URLs, then they are under no obligation to do so, just as they are not in any way obliged to respond to the requests for expansion on any of the 2,332,800 stub articles. In both cases, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY.

A problem like bare URLs rarely has a single solution. As I see it, a solution to this problem has three elements:

1. Identifying existing bare URLs, to facilitate cleanup. My tagging run is a part of that.
2. Fixing existing bare URLs. I do lots of that, but I wish it was less time-consuming, and wish that the Refill tool was not so often used to generate carp. We need more people to work on the cleanup, and better tools.
3. Slowing or stopping the creation of bare URL refs. There are various possible approaches, including technical measures such as a bare URL equivalent of the bot that posts a note on yout talk if you create a link to a dab page. But the more nagging that the technology does, the more likely that editors will just devise workarounds which confuse the bot, but just make the problems harder to identify, like this addition a short word "miaow") after the bare URL:
   <ref>http://example.com miaow</ref>
   That's the point which PamD picked up on below, and it's the same reason that the mediawiki software never requires an edit summary, and only gives a reminder if you opt in to ask for a reminder. Yes, the software could require a certain number of symbols or words as an edit summary, but without a huge AI effort it couldn't require a meaningful and useful summary. So the effect would be to just trigger a flurry of useless or misleading edit summaries, which be worse than nothing.

Anyway, I am working on tasks 1 & 2: tagging some bare URLs, and fixing some. If you want to work on another angle, then more power to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation template without title?

Thank you for tagging bare-urls. Your method is okay, but there is an alternative that's worth considering. Instead of slapping a {{Bare URL inline}} at the end of the reference, you could enclose the bare-url within {{Cite web|url=}}. It has a few advantages. Considering that the overwhelming majority of articles use the CS1 citation style, most of these bare-urls are going to end up within a {{Cite web}} template anyway. Using the template at this point would help to ensure that the article will consistently use CS1 templates when someone will show up to fill the reference with more detail. Adding {{Cite web}} will produce a visible error tag and also place the article in Category:CS1 errors: bare URL. Unlike {{Bare URL inline}}, which needs to be manually removed, the error tag in {{Cite web}} will be automatically removed when someone adds a |title= parameter with text. The only (less than trivial) downside is that not all articles use CS1 or even citation templates of any kind, which is fine, so one needs to check if this is the case before tagging this way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those ideas, @Finnusertop.

I can see the utility of what you propose, by providing a step in the right direction rather than just a warning. However, I am not going to adopt it because:

AWB user being carried to an evacuation helicopter

1. AWB is quite dumb. It's basically just a pattern-matching tool where the user can set actions based on patterns. It doesn't know things like which citation styles are in use (and i don't see how it could reliably detect them) ... and without that detection, an assumption of CS1 will be a screw up some of the time. Such screwups cause major headaches for everyone and land the AWB operator in a world of pain.
   For example, on Monday I tagged bare URl refs on over 8,000 articles. If there was even a 1% error rate ('cos 1% of those pages used a ref system other than CS1), then 80 articles would have been damaged ... so I would now be busy trying to a) identify and fix the errors; b) respond to a flurry of angry posts on my talk; c) deal with a storm at ANI.
   Been there, got that blood-stained t-shirt. It usually means a whole day of stress. No way.
2. Deliberate error. Your proposal amounts to a providing a step in the right direction, but as you note it will create a CS1 error on every page, by design. Using AWB to deliberately create an error on thousands of pages looks to me like a breach of WP:AWB#Rules which would justifiably cause mobs with pitchforks and blazing torches to descend upon me, and might trigger the loss of my AWB rights before I even had a chance to explain my reasoning. So, once again, no way.

Even if this was formulated as a fully-specced bot job, and was preceded by an RFC endorsing it and then scrutinised by WP:BAG, I still wouldn't do it. Because even with RFC+BAG approval, the bot operator would still get flamed to a crisp on a regular basis.

That said, I do like the idea, and if you propose it as a bot job then I think (from what I have considered so far) that I will be happy to support it subject to having error checks built in. I just don't want to be the person who needs asbestos underwear and an armoured helicopter to airlift me out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I was just brainstorming with the idea. I totally agree with your position though. One thing that occurred to me, and is unrelated to my proposal above, is that you don't seem to tag bare-urls that follow the format: [4]. (Uses the url+title syntax but the title is not defined). I'm pretty sure those count as bare-urls as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And it was useful brainstorming, @Finnusertop! A great idea, just dangerous for anyone who implements it. But I have a notion that if the CS1 setup was modified a little, something close to this might be doable safely: use a special param to indicate that it's a bare URL rescue process, so that it can trigger whatever sort of alternative error-handling doesn't get the editor in trouble. Something like {{cite web |url=http://www.example.com/ |title= |bare-url-rescue=yes}}

Yes, my regex didn't pick up that [http://www.example.com/] format. I was aware of it, but in the time available before the end of the month, I had more articles than I could tag just by selecting the other set, so this time round I didn't bother developing and testing a regex for that format. (It's not complex, but I like to check very thoroughly before charging through a big set of articles.)

If I do another run at the end of June, I will process that format too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Stats on bare URLs tagged in May 2021

My tagging of bare URLs ended about 18 hours ago. All the articles I tagged were categorised in Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from May 2021. No more articles will be added to that category, so its size is a useful measure of how tagging correlates with cleanup (assuming that the tags being removed only when the bare URLs are fixed). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles in Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from May 2021
When	Count
End of tagging run on 1 June 2021	15,900
17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)	15,043
06:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)	14,793
18:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)	14,524
19:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)	14,321
12:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)	14,029
17:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)	13,901
17:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)	13,698
14:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)	13,256
Live total as of 20:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)	0

Talkback

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at Special:Diff/1028190391.
Message added Posting here because of my incorrect ping. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drumcondra

Moved here from userpage PamD 05:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Of all places! Bit of an edit issue brewing here...not sure why. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) @Sarah777: It's Drumcondra, Dublin and the text was added by Ardfern in 2007 - See the talk page. PamD 05:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Overcategorisation?

Hi, sorry to bother you, yours was the first account that came to mind in terms of categories. I came across some clear overcategorisation while looking through water polo players, so began this discussion at CfD for it. I definitely think the current level used for that sport: 'gender+nationality+position' is too much. I was also pushing for the deletion of a level up i.e 'nationality+position', but the creator of all of these has quite rightly pointed to the equivalents for ice hockey which have existed for well over a decade. I haven't checked every major sport but I was aware that football/soccer did not have such a level and have since confirmed that baseball and basketball don't either. So which is correct, this isn't really something specific to any one sport so I'm not sure why different rules seem to be being applied? Do you have any opinion on this, or are you aware of any recent discussion / consensus you could point me towards, I would imagine sports-related stuff like this gets brought up fairly often due to the level of interest? Thanks for any input you can give, please reply on whatever page you like and I'll link to any other relevant ones. Crowsus (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Crowsus: thanks for your msg.

The level of categorisation for any topic usually depends in large part on whether there is an editor with the interest and energy to do a lot of categorisation. So progress is uneven, and in general there is a discussion on it only when someone reckons it has gone too far and brings it to CFD, as you have done.

As to which is correct, there are no hard-and fast rules, but there are two main factors at play in deciding how far to intersect categories by various attributes:

1. the size of the resulting categories. A lot of very small categories can be hard to navigate, soo too much intersection can be a bad idea.
2. simplicity of usage. If three categories can be replaced with one, that reduces category clutter on the articles (which helps readers), and increases accuracy -- editors are far more likely to get one category right than to correctly add all three.

I will say more at the CFD discussion hihch you started, but I hope that helps a little as background. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sportsmen from Catalonia

A tag has been placed on Category:Sportsmen from Catalonia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: This category has been emptied out-of-process, so I have opposed speedy deletion. There is some tool which shows the history of how a category was populated, which would help to identify who depopulated it. I can't recall what that tool is: do your perhaps know? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you happen to get the answer, BHG, please ping me. I'm also looking for something like the tool you describe...--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: will do!

BTW, nice to hear from you. Long time no speak, and I hope you are well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Doing good! I hope you are keeping well as well. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The tool typically used for this is User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer, however it doesn't work for this category specifically because this is a container category formerly populated by other categories which were deleted as empty, and the original emptying of those subcategories occurred (per the history of Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories) on April 20, which is more than 30 days ago and therefore outside the range of that tool. I was eventually able to figure out anyway that the emptying of the subcats was performed by Crowsus. Pinging TheSandDoctor as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Crowsus & thank you as well for the ping. Very much appreciated & now installed --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Uhhh....Pppery --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I just checked, and found that Crowsus did a lot of categorisation of Spanish sportspeople which involved some good subcategorisation, but also a lot of systematic depopulation of categories: see e.g. these 500 edits, where contrib #73 onwards involves depopulating Category:Catalan female field hockey players, Category:Catalan women's basketball players, Category:Catalan water polo players etc (the full list of emptied categories is much longer).

Crowsus, if there was a consensus at CFD to delete these categories, a bot would do the job. So doing the hard slog of emptying them all manually looks like an end-run around the consensus-formation process. Please can you explain what was going on here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Pppery, for all your wizardry. V much appreciated. (Sorry! I meant that to be my first comment on this, but it got lost in edit conflict). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I just put entries in both this category and Sportswomen from. There are people to be sorted into both. Should we have these categories is another question. Just a note- I have created countless Sportspeople from categories and filled them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, WilliamJE. That at least staves off speedy deletion.

If there are reasons to not have the categories, the case should be made at CFD, so that others have the chance to object. Just as you have done with many hundreds of people-from-tiny-village-in-the-USA categories. Some get debated, but most are nodded through ... and everyone has a chance to comment if they want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, first I apologise for not using the CfD, I thought something like BOLD could apply. Obviously not and as it's been made clear to me that this is considered disruptive, I accept any sanctions that may arise. It is my firm belief that these categories akin to those of a first-level nation did not need to exist. Catalonia is not a sovereign nation and unlike the UK countries, their sportspeople do not compete officially under the flag of Catalonia in any sport as far as I'm aware. It has no more status in this regard than any of the other 17 autonomous communities of Spain, which were not created although there would obviously be enough Sportsmen and Sportswomen to populate them both at that level and down through several sport branches in most cases.

At CfD (here), the relevant Spanish regional occupation cats were renamed to FOOers from Catalonia rather than Catalan FOOers for reasons of convention as, again, it's not a first-level nation. If you do a search for "Category:Sportsmen from..." it only returns the states of Australia e.g Queensland (also not first level nations, not sure why this is fine but at least it's fully maintained woh actually no it isn't, the above for Queensland has 126 pages and no subcats, if it was being used properly it would either have been subdivided into sport and the various male subcats contained there, or all sportsmen from Queensland should have the category which is clearly not the case - for a start there's 529 cricketers, almost all male); Georgia (for clarity vs the US state); and Northern Ireland (for, I believe, both display and political reasons). "Category:Sportswomen from..." has the above plus the states of India (e.g Bihar) and a couple of randoms: Réunion and Kentucky – the latter is certainly a rogue among US states, it's not like there wouldn't be enough articles there to split them but no other state has done this. So except for the aforementioned, Catalonia was an outlier more or less worldwide for being a subnational entity with its sportspeople divided by gender, even before forking them further into their sports. BTW I didn't delete Category:Catalan water polo players, it was re-named to Category:Water polo players from Catalonia by the bot following the CfD. I possibly depopulated gender subcats of that, but to be honest I've checked a couple of article histories and didn't find anything I had done there, so possibly some (most? nearly all?) of these deletions are actually renames (which WAS agreed at CfD) and that's why they can't be found, from memory there was maybe 10 'Catalan gender and sport' cats that I actually upmerged, including a few very obscure narrow ones which I thought were to be avoided. For instance, after I fiddled with the ski mountaineers there are now 10 articles in Category:Spanish female ski mountaineers and 14 in Category:Ski mountaineers from Catalonia (male and female) which could obviously grow slightly as time goes on but should remain at a manageable amount, no need to intersect further.

BrownHairedGirl has pointed out to me only two days ago (here, to which I took the huff tbh) that categorisation 'rules' for one sport don't necessarily apply to another (i.e I know how it works with football/soccer so tried to apply that to water polo) but when it gets to the level of Sportspeople, the different sports and their rules do interact, and this is where it can become a bit ridiculous, if we were to retain/restore Category:Sportsmen from Catalonia, the ski mountaineers (I think there was 6) would be safely in there assuming their subcat got restored too, but there would be no appetite at WP:FOOTY for creating Category:Male footballers from Catalonia, so the ~500 footballers (there's 568 in the cat but let's say 10% are women) would not appear in it at all, which is a significant omission from what is meant to be a catch-all overview. It also does not really assist editors to add cats when, like me, they may be familiar with one system but adding in another area, like if I was creating a tennis player, I know the tree doesn't go deeper than Category:Tennis players from Catalonia but applying these same rules could allow for Category:Female tennis players from Catalonia which I simply wouldn't search for – I don't think it ever did exist, but for consistency it really should have along with the others I emptied, there are a good few more notable female tennis players from Catalonia than ski mountaineers.

So in summary I believe these intersections were not necessary, but if it is deemed that they are, to be consistent and fair then male+female subcats should really be created for each FOOpeople from Catalonia parent (there's 19) and every article amended, and equivalents should be created for each of the sport subcats for each of the autonomous communities of Spain – and in my eyes that sets a precent for the same to also be done to (keeping focus on western Europe) the regions of France, the Länder of Germany, the regions of Italy. That all sounds like a lot of work (although you guys probably know how to program a bot to sort it) for little benefit, so keeping the level up at [Specific sport or generic] FOOers [of either gender] from BAH [region or city] and BAHish fe/male FOOers for Catalonia, the same as almost everywhere else, seems the simplest solution. Obviously you have my consent (if it was even required) to add all of the above to any CfDs (or block logs etc) that may arise from this. Crowsus (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Innisfallen

Hi, thanks for joining the move discussion at Innisfallen Island. That discussion has been dragging on for so long that we really need someone to wind it up. Would you do that? I believe you have the necessary rights. There really is complete consensus that the present article name won't do, but there has been discussion about where to move it. Moving it to Innisfallen looks like it would satisfy most of us. --Doric Loon (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doric Loon: Sorry, but the answer has to be "no". See WP:RMCI#Who_can_close_requested_moves and WP:INVOLVED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I forgot that! --Doric Loon (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A reminder

We had a conversation[5] last month about newspaper establishment and disestablishment templates and if you could please create them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi BHG, I am sure you know the answer, but is it possible for an admin to remove the IP address from edits without removing the edits itself? Or do you just redact the whole thing? It's based on an IP being paranoid (my interpretation) that they can be identified by the IP used. ww2censor (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Ww2censor: that is technically possible but not normally done unless there is an offensive username or the like. What they are probably wanting is oversight. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Male dancers from Catalonia has been nominated for merging

Category:Male dancers from Catalonia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Note- BHG, I didn't know you created this category when I nominated it for deletion. The category Dancers from Catalonia is totally empty except for this subcategory. IMHO that category should be deleted too per SMALLCAT but we have this discussion first. Question- Could someone have depopulated these categories?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No prob at all, WilliamJE. These decisions should be made on the merits of the category, not the identity of their creator. If it's empty, it's empty.

But in this case, it seems to be a part of the same issue were discussing above at #Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sportsmen from Catalonia, namely out-of-process emptying by Crowsus. I found removal,[6] and there may be more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

BHG, I will take a look at Crowsus edits and your edits too at the time of the category creation. This will probably have to wait till tomorrow or even Friday. My wife is returning from out of town in a few hours and tomorrow is our 32nd wedding anniversary (Hard to believe there is someone who can put up with me that long?) and I have a doctor's appointment in the morning too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, WilliamJE. Congrats on the 32nd anniversary! Hope you have a great celebration.

Good idea to check both our contribs, but be aware that mine may seem odd because I have done lots of categ creation as cleanup of Special:WantedCategories, so there are many cases where I have created a cat without any edits to populate it. I can't recall whether that was one of those, but wanted to alert you to the possibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

to be fair, I don't think this was much to do with me, I did have the idea to check other Catalan FOOers having noticed they went several levels deeper than most other Spanish regions in some cases, but you can see here that I reverted myself on Caballero having seen just how many gender+occ cats there were so assumed there must be different rules for that 'genre' and decided to stick to the sports ones. If I had changed any without reverting back, they would have been at the non-gendered parent i.e now Category:Dancers from Catalonia. I have actually found three more males who should have been included at the Male dancers but weren't, now added. Crowsus (talk)

12:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Crowsus: Thank you for replying and adding persons to the category. As such my deletion nomination rationale reply don't really apply now but is a subcategory for Male dancers needed when there are no females categorized. BHG, I'd like to hear your opinion before requesting that the CFD be closed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: my view is that dancing is an inherently gendered occupation, like acting and singing. So per WP:CATGENDER, the categories should be divided by gender. If there are cases where we don't articles only for dancers of one gender, then we still have a gendered category so that it fits properly in the cat hierarchy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nomination and asked that the CFD be closed[7]. No editor other I participated in it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832

Hi, this is inapplicable, because it's not a category. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Reverted.[8]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with uncited categories) counter has been nominated for deletion

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with uncited categories) counter has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles missing payload orbit parameters) counter has been nominated for deletion

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles missing payload orbit parameters) counter has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Pages where template include size is exceeded) counter has been nominated for deletion

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Pages where template include size is exceeded) counter has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205 Online events: New: July Julies | Finance, economics & banking | Olympic & Paralympic Games New contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: "Mind your elders" Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Issue

Hey, I have an issue. 41 of my edits were Deleted but I don't have access to look at them can you help me. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 18:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Brascoian. Only an admin can view deleted edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

29 of those deleted edits are for a single page, User:Brascoian/Palauni Tapusoa, which was tagged {{Db-g7}} by Brascoian (talk · contribs) themselves and consequently deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs): I am sure that WP:REFUND can be applied for this page. The remaining twelve of Brascoian's deleted edits were to five different articles that were deleted for various reasons. Here are links to the logs:

• Syed Badiuddin Zinda Shah Qutbul Madar - deleted under WP:CSD#A1 (tagged {{Db-g2}} by Brascoian}
• दरवेशपुर श्री कृष्णा गौशाला - deleted under WP:CSD#A1 (tagged {{Delete}} by Brascoian)
• Munaeem Ahmad - deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (tagged {{db-person}} by Brascoian)
• Shruti Reddy (Actress) - deleted under WP:CSD#G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shruti Reddy)
• Yakov Aivaz - deleted under WP:CSD#A7

None of these five were created by Brascoian, two of them were tagged for deletion by other people. Each of these would need a legitimate case to be restored: for the A1 and A7 cases, Brascoian should appeal to the deleting admin shown in the log linked above, but for the G4 case I suggest WP:DEL#Deletion review. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok Thanks you so Much. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC) yeah some of these page are which i Contributed to and I request my own SubPage to be Deleted. Thanks Again. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Genius64868 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this post? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

• News and notes: Elections, Wikimania, masking and more

• In the media: Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money

• Disinformation report: Croatian Wikipedia: capture and release

• Recent research: Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report

• Traffic report: So no one told you life was gonna be this way

• News from the WMF: Searching for Wikipedia

• Humour: Wikipedia's best articles on the world's strangest things

• WikiProject report: WikiProject on open proxies interview

• Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?

• Discussion report: Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed

• Obituary: SarahSV

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Partial revert at Direct Rail Services

I partially reverted your edit as it broke a (ridiculously long) image caption (diff). Letting you know for information purposes, especially if it was an automated edit that could cause the same problem again. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles with outdated impact factors from 2018/2019

A tag has been placed on Category:Articles with outdated impact factors from 2018/2019 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

reFill

Closed due to ABF --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 30 June 2021 (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.

---

Surely it'd be easier to run reFill than to tag all these article which then have to have reFill run on them in any case?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man. Long time no speak. Hope you are keeping well.

In my experience, the answer is no. I can tag the articles at a rate of about 20 per minute, whereas in my experience doing a decent job with reFill takes several minutes per article. Since I can tag about 50–100 articles for every article that I can fix in the same time, tagging is needed to alert other editors to the pages which need attention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I see. I have to undo your edits each time then run reFill though, so it seems like a massive waste of (AWB) time. But never mind, you're certainly racking up a lot of edits. Can't a bot just do this kind of thing? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: discussion closed until you withdraw the ABF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't follow. I have to undo every single edit you're making, then run reFill. I don't see any bad faith there at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The ABF is your suggestion that I am doing this to rack up edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 30 June 2021 (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.

Well no, you yourself said you were racking up 20 edits a minute. I just agreed with you and suggested a bot would be equally suited to the task. But sure, I'll just keep working on the stuff you're doing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

1. I said that I could process more articles by tagging. You have twice ABFed and assumed that my goal was racking up edits. Enough.
2. I am sorry that "The following discussion is closed" is somehow unclear to you. Maybe it would be clearer if I wrote "do not post here again about this", but that shouldn't be needed.

DO NOT REPLY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I guess there's a way of filtering out edits by username from one's watchlist? I just haven't figured it out yet. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Sorry, I dunno. I gave up on my watchlist years ago, because it got too big.

I am doing this tagging as an end-of-month batch, so in a few hours at midnight UTC it will be over for another month. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the "end-of-the-month" advice. It's a good job there's some football on (for a while anyway!) I got over the moment of "why are they editing all of 'my' articles" when I realised the 90% overlap was just coincidence. I guess at 13,722 pages my Watchlist is also a tad too large. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: To filter out the edits by a specific user requires javascript. But using CSS, you can make them take on a different background:

/* make it easier to pick out edits by BrownHairedGirl */
li.mw-changeslist-line a[href="/wiki/User:BrownHairedGirl"],
li.mw-changeslist-line a[href="/wiki/User_talk:BrownHairedGirl"],
li.mw-changeslist-line a[href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl"] { background: lightblue; }

This goes in Special:MyPage/common.css. It alters the background colour of three user-specific links in a row - to alter the whole row again reqiores javascript. You can alter lightblue to any valid colour value according to how prominent you want those links to be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Many thanks, Redrose. That's useful info. I think that might make things worse for me, unless "transparent" is a valid colour choice, lol. Looks like BHG is mercifully having a rest from the tagging for now anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Whilst transparent is a valid colour keyword, it wouldn't make any difference - the default background would show through. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

OMG. There's no escape!! yeah ok, maybe the problem is not quite as serious as that last link suggests... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Tagging bare links

I have looked at a few articles (basically they were later additions to articles I had improved to GA and watchlisted, but not kept on top of) and fixed up some of the references. I agree that refFill (and IABot) would improve the encyclopedia better, as it would allow readers to more easily verify the text given, where as a note saying "this is a bare URL" doesn't indicate how it might be fixed.

I appreciate The Rambling Man is not everyone's cup of tea, but if we can't discuss it quietly here, it might have to go to a noticeboard, which I don't think any of us want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I am v happy to discuss here with editors who AGF, as you have done.

Obviously, the actual fix is better than tagging. The point of tagging is to identify articles where the fix is needed, and with these inline tags to also identify where in the article the fix is needed. So this tagging run is a step towards the fix.

As I noted above, I can tag articles 50–100 times faster than I can fix the refs, so the tagging gets us closer to a solution faster, by alerting more editors to fixes needed. That's the same principle as any other use of cleanup tags.

And you are factually wrong to say that as a note saying "this is a bare URL" doesn't indicate how it might be fixed. See e.g. my edit[9] to Birmingham Boys; the tag generates a linked note after the ref of the form '[bare url]', which links to Wikipedia:Bare URLs. The explanations are there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Note too that the opening worlds of the edit summary used in all of these edits is WP:Link rot, which also explains the problems. I am surprised that you seem to have missed both of these indicators. When I do a big AWB run, I take care to try to make the edit summary as helpful as possible within the constraints of the character limits for AWB edit summaries. In this case, I think that WP:Link rot: tag bare link references with {{Bare URL inline}} is very informative, but of course I am open to suggestions. Do you want to suggest ways of improving these edit summaries? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

High-volume tagging of bare links needs to have consensus because there are millions of such cases. In fact there is already a bot that does the tagging : Template:Cleanup_bare_URLs#On-demand_search_and_tag - which anyone can run, and for which I got consensus to deploy. It's designed so you can't add too many before fixing them first. Precisely for this reason, adding tons of these tags creates unmanageable large tracking categories. This is a special case due to the sheer volume and commonality of bare links. It is controversial high-volume auto-tagging vs. fixing. -- GreenC 18:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment by User:The Rambling Man deleted. He had been asked not to reply further, but repeatedly ignored my requests.

@GreenC: I am not aware of any other cleanup tag where application of the tag is throttled to the rate of fixing. There are several other very widely used cleanup tags, as can be seen e.g. at Category:All articles with unsourced statements and Category:Articles needing additional references.

Please can you point me to any RFC which established a consensus to throttle this one? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment by User:The Rambling Man deleted. He had been asked not to reply further, but repeatedly ignored my requests.

Spree??? Sheesh, TRM, try a little AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment by User:The Rambling Man deleted. He had been asked not to reply further, but repeatedly ignored my requests.

PS I don't see any evidence to support the assertion that there are millions of such cases. My scans before tagging have been finding that about 10% of the articles scanned have bare URLs. It varies from set to set, but 10% seems to be about average, and that's about the same rate as the categories I mentioned above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Found my way here from WT:ReFill, and in these last two sections, I dont think it has actually been clearly stated to BrownHairedGirl that the true concern appears to be stemming from the tag making it more difficult to fix the bare url problem. (Per my understanding at the ReFill talk page at least.) Posts seem to focus on edit frequency or the how as opposed to the technical problem being introduced without an identified root cause at the moment. -2pou (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment by User:The Rambling Man deleted. He had been asked not to reply further, but repeatedly ignored my requests.

@The Rambling Man: not so. You repeatedly assumed that I was acting in bad faith. You didn't take the opportunity to strike your slurs and to AGF, and you ignored my request to stop posting here.

Your confrontational approach is not helping build a consensus. So for the third time of asking, please stop posting here, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@2pou: Thanks for your comments.

However, I don't believe that the the tag making it more difficult to fix the bare url problem. In my usage, I find that reFill very rarely produces a result that needs no further tweaking, so manual editing is needed. Since the wikicode has to be edited anyway, it's trivial issue to remove the tag.

And we really shouldn't be letting a broken tool impede identifying a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• AWB is a WP:SEMIAUTOMATED (assisted editing) tool. "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." It goes on to say "semi-automated processes that operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. If there is any doubt, you should make an approval request." - reports can be made to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The combination of the controversy, preexisting similar tool that had to go through BRFA, and high volume editing, make a case that at a minimum it should stop right away until discussions are worked out. -- GreenC 18:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  @GreenC: OK, with regret, I will stop this run.

  I think it's a great pity. The tagging I did at the end of last month has been very useful to me in identifying articles which need attention. I use the cleanup tags in conjunction with Petscan to clear sets of similar articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Comment by User:The Rambling Man deleted. He had been asked not to reply further, but repeatedly ignored my requests.

  Thank you, BrownHairedGirl. You are a good trusted editor doing what you think is best/right. One idea, without knowing your work flow, is run in small batches, say 20 articles tagging then soon after 20 articles Petscan. -- GreenC 19:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  @GreenC: doing small batches like that would entirely defeat the object of the exercise :(

  1. Tagging lots of articles allows lots of editors to fix any that fall within their area of interest. That massively improves the cleanup rate vs leaving editors to manually scan articles. It also increases the likelihood the fixes will be done by editors who know the topic area and the sources, rather than by script jockeys who save whatever junk reFill emits (it's average output is mediocre, and in a significant minority of cases its output is abysmal. It' still a valuable tool, but as its own guidance says, it needs to be used with care).
  2. Tagging lots of articles allows cleanup to be done by selecting sets using Petscan, intersecting categories with cleanup tags. That means that a lot of work can be recycled, e.g. the article names and location of newspapers, and often complete references.
     Doing small batches break that, because instead of starting with all the articles under a particular WikiProject, I'd need to wade through squillions of categories one at a time. That would be pointless overhead.

  Anyway, I now face a lot bureaucracy before I could resume. Given that you have not even acknowledged my comparison above with other cleanup categories, it looks like an uphill battle to even establish why you adopt this strange 20-at-a-time stance.

  So maybe I won't bother doing a BRFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A meatbot barnstar for you!

	The Tag Horror Barnstar of Meatbot Madness
	Yes, congrats BHG! You sure put the horror into Tag Horror!! Keep up the ticking good work!!. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving on

Ok, so we disagree on our approaches to this issue and I'm sorry to intrude your talk page. I wanted to take the opportunity to apologise for any boorish behaviour, and for anything that might be misconstrued. I hope you believe that all I have here is the project in mind: my focus is on making it a better place. I wholeheartedly, sincerely and without reservation apologise if anything I've said or done has deflected from that aim, especially if it has been upsetting or disruptive to you. Life is short, and my time here is is all about making the things I love better, and I'm sorry if I've messed up with interpreting your own way of doing exactly what I'm doing. We want the best here for the project, both of us. I'm sorry, once again, to go against your request for me not post here, but I felt one last chance was worth the risk. I may not be here long enough to make amends, but I hope in the short term my apology will go some way to saying sorry. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bosphorus Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Istanbul Cup.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't add that link.

In my AWB edit[10], the WP:GENFIXES just removed the redundant piping in [[İstanbul Cup|Istanbul Cup]], but didn't change the link target.

I have disambiguated[11] the link ... but @JaGa, are you aware of this wee glitch in the bot? No big deal, and I am happy to be notified that a fix is needed ... but the mistaken attribution could rile some editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your AWB edit changed the link from İstanbul Cup to Istanbul Cup. Presumably AWB thinks Turkish letters are typos DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks, DuncanHill. So it did.

I will log that as an AWB bug. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I've spent ages poring over some of my edits in the past before I realised the difference between I and İ! DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My eyesight isn't all it used to be, and the diacritic on that character is so fiendishly small that I can't readily distinguish it from a spec of dust.

Anyway, bug report filed at phab:T285941. Thanks again for your help, @DuncanHill. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Mail notice

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

LaceyUF (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Downgrading protection of talk page archives

Hello, I noticed that you have several of your talk page archives under full protection. It is blocking maintenance edits. I became aware of it when I saw that my bot, which is doing a task of fixing html tag errors, is skipping the pages. Is it ok to reduce the protection level to semi or at least extended confirmed protection? That will prevent any concerns about vandalism from full unprotection. If you agree, I can make a request at RFPP. Thanks. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: Perhaps BHG knows about your bot and what it does. Or, perhaps she doesn't in which case you should include a link to the discussion authorizing the bot. Is there an on-wiki page that lists skipped pages? If so, why not link to that as well so what is wanted is known. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, this is the bot task approval - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot. User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 023 and User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 024 are the pages the bot skipped due to full protection. If you click the "Page information" button in the sidebar and scroll to bottom, it lists html Lint errors in the page. Skipped pages are only from two users, the other was an inactive user and I got it directly unprotected from RFPP. Including the above two pages, there are 22 full protected archives that I have listed in User:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ/sandbox. The other pages too have errors that may be fixed by other bots. Lowering protection level from Full to Semi/Extended confirmed will grant access to bots. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: my archives are protected because they are archives. They are not live pages, and as such they should not be edited, not even for "maintenance".

So, in short: No, it is absolutely not OK to reduce or remove the protection levels on any of them. Please do not try to modify my archives.

As Johnuniq kindly notes, a link to the bot's BRFA would help. I would hope that all bots would skip all user talk archives, and I am surprised that your bot is not required to skip all archives.

I find it very unhelpful that you post here without even including the name of your bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

PS Every one of my archive pages has at the top a prominent notice saying This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: is any part of that notice unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have included BRFA link in the edit above. None of the edits modify the actual comments and only broken html markup is fixed. More about this is given in WP:LINT. Gnomes and bots have been fixing Lint errors across Wikipedia for a long time and yes, editing archive pages is allowed for fixing Lint errors as long as it follows WP:TPO. It is necessary because some of these errors make the page unreadable (example). ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: you included a BRFA only when asked. It should have bene there in your first post.

I have reverted all of you bot's edits to my talk archives: see these 7 diffs, which include 6 edits by your bot and 1 edit by someone else.

I am sure that your approach is well-intended, but is is seriously misconceived. In order to "fix" some trivial markup issue which causes no harm, you want me to lower the protection on my talk pages so that they could be edited by most editors. That would leave them wide open to abuse, for no gain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverting these edits will just add the page back to error reports and other bots will do those edits again. To avoid it, please add {{nobots}} to your unprotected archives so that bots will avoid editing it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

These edits fixing Lint errors is primarily for the benefit of readers with older devices that will not be able to handle html errors. There are other technical benefits too, like HTML5 compliance. The edits follow talk page guidelines by not changing what users have said. Mine and other bots have made tens of thousands of edits to archives and only a few people have complained. Anyway you are perfectly entitled to prevent any edits to your archives, just add the nobots template to those pages and bots wont touch it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI, one of your protected archive pages have been edited by Admins too [12]. You may want to discuss with them. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: I will add {{nobots}} to the older archive page, but I can't do it for the current archive (or the pages prepared for future archives) because that might deter the archiving bots. Now I will have to remember to add it to those pages in future, just because you choose to have your bot disregard the notice saying this is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page

So you have created another maintenance task for me.

I have had several edit conflicts in writing this reply to you, because you keep on posting additional smarty comments. Please just go away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

BHG, you do seem to be quite dedicated to helping with backlogs, why wouldn't you want to reduce a backlog that causes problems for certain users and has no visual difference? — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Berrely: because:

1. I am not persuaded that there is an actual problem here. A minor display glitch is a non-issue, so I am not persuaded that there is any actual backlog here.
2. Because I take a firm view that an archive is an archive. Once you start allowing it to be edited, then the door is opened to editors such as those in the section below who want to make changes to the actual text.
3. Because the bot owner is so focused on the trivial issue of an HTML glitch that they actually, seriously, wanted me to reduce protection to a level which would open up all my archives to edits such as those discussed below. That's a can't-see-the-wood-for-the-trees problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue is outlined at WP:Linter. I've seen this kind of activity and I've seen some of the really bad problems which have been fixed by correcting lint errors. You will probably get more visits once the number of errors on other pages has been reduced since that will make your pages more visible. Fixing the problems is standard although it is very much better to have a clear explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I hate to chime in here again, but just wanted to say that I have gone and added nobots template to all your unprotected archives other than the most recent one since the bot very nearly repeated the edits reverted yesterday. I have done this because I as bot operator am required per BOTPOL to sort out any inconvenience to users and you have clearly stated no bot edits are wanted for archives. I should have communicated better yesterday. Sorry for all the incovenience, I won't disturb you any further. Regards. --(don't ping on reply)ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: Many thank for doing that, and also for letting me know. I had meant to do an AWB run to add the {{nobots}}, but was short on energy and got distracted.

Sorry too from me about yesterday. It wasn't a great morning for me in meatspace, and I was still feeling bruised after Wednesday's drama. In hindsight I think I was more grumpy than i should have been. I know that running a bot is an onerous task done with the best intentions, and I am sorry that my responses didn't convey my respect for someone taking on that burden. It's a role which brings little praise from those who approve, but strident complaint from those who object to glitches or side-effects, and I sorry that I allowed myself to add to the heat.

Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Signature typo

I'm having a hard time making sense of this. Editing other people's signatures is also prohibited. If someone tampers with someone else's signature and it goes unnoticed until it's archived, it can never be fixed? How does that make sense? My username is not, nor did I write in my signature, "Nardogy", and I don't want that to be in the archive. It's misrepresenting the record. Nardog (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nardog: an archive is just that: an archive. It includes, typos, mis-spellings, and things which editors (including me) may wish they had said differently or not at all.

The record is what was archived, complete with errors. I dont know how that typo became part of the page before it was archived, but it did. Your edit was an attempt to rewrite the record, which is why I reverted it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't make the typo. Someone else did. The record was rewritten before it was archived. You wouldn't mind a message of yours being attributed to "BrownHairedGirly"? Which policy or guideline says it can't be fixed? Nardog (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nardog: the archive is a copy of the discussion as it existed when it was archived. That typo was made before the page was archived, and since it wasn't corrected before the discussion was archived, it stands.

A character added mistakenly to the end of the username is a minor irritation, but it is no big deal,because the link remains intact. What is a big deal is that an archive should be a static page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, says which page? Would you say the same if someone made a message of yours say something you didn't say and no one noticed it until it was archived? Who decides what is or is not "a minor irritation"? Nardog (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Likewise with my typos I don't particularly want typos in archives in my comments, the idea of archiving is that its not modified in the sense of making actual changes to the meaning as opposed to simple typos. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nardog and Crouch, Swale: an archive is an archive. It's a static copy, complete with any typos or other errors. Rewriting archives is what the Ministry of Truth used to do in George Orwell's "1984".

Thank you both for reminding me why I used to fully protect my archives. Time to do that again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

adam johnson update

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-city-transfers-roberto-mancini-20765553.amp

so not "former" yet, please fix page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.107.76 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Templates

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I hope you are fine there in this horrible situation. I ask you this question because you are the Administrator and Template editor. For example: Ireland XI is a domestic franchise cricket league team founded in XYZ date and the Template called Ireland XI squad is created.For some reason Ireland XI were terminated from that particular league. At this time does the template called Ireland XI should be deleted or not.Please answer me.Thank you !(Fade258 (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC))

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello BrownHairedGirl:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

Hey. I ran into this in passing. You added {{Cleanup bare URLs|date=May 2021}}, but I didn't see any bare urls on that page. Error? Noting that I removed the tag prior to seeing that yours was the last edit (i.e. thinking someone had since fixed the issues). Regards, El_C 16:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi El C

It was kind of you to notify me.

They can be hard to find, but I track them down using a page search: press Ctrl+F, then enter the search term >http, which catches most cases. Sometimes they have a space of a bracket, so I also do a search for > http and for >[http

There was one on that page, which I have fixed: [13].

This is a good illustration of why I reckon it is helpful to tag these bare URLs. Even an editor like yourself actively looing for the bare URLs didn't find it (which is my own experience too), whereas my AWB code catches them all. Before I fixed it manually, I ran citation bot on the page and it also missed that one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Eep, now I see it. And considering as there were only 16 refs, I really should have seen it. Thanks for the tip —I'll remember that!— and thanks (again) for being gracious. Kind regards, El_C 20:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome, El C. My experience is the same as yours, that they are easy to miss.

That's why I accepted the advice to switch my AWB run to use {{Bare URL inline}} ... but that ran into the problem of reFill2 not handling that tag. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

At least I learned something new (WP:REFILL). I'm far too incompetent to use it, but at least now I know of it! El_C 20:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Spaces before cite parameters

Regarding your message "restore spaces before cite parameters to improve usability. @User:Uses x, please stop removing them". The Wikipedia:VisualEditor (an official tool developed by the Wikimedia Foundation) automatically removes the spaces in cite parameters when anything is done with the citation, including moving them. I'm not going to put the work in to scrub through the source to re-add them when that happens as it literally doesn't even matter.

Also, I'm not sure why you're adding archive links to literally every citation, as I've found that to be the greatest determent to usability (I've run into issues with it myself), while providing no benefit. NoMore404 (run by the Internet Archive) automatically archives a version of each page within 24 hours so adding the links isn't saving the information for the future, and when if the links go dead the Internet Archive Bot automatically adds the archive link and marks the link as dead. By adding them to every single citation, it just massively increases the page size making loading and rendering slower, it adds a bunch of useless information to go through in source mode, and it makes it harder for tools to go through the citations as they have twice the amount of links to deal with.

Regards, Uses x (leave me a message) 17:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Uses x

I had missed that you were using the Visual editor. WP:VisualEditor is explicit that the tool is in development stage: VisualEditor still has many bugs and missing features. It seems that unnecessarily mangling the formatting is one of its bugs.

This does matter, because it makes the markup harder to read. I understand now that you didn't do this intentionally ... but please can you try to avoid it in future?

As to archive links, my experience with the bots which handle archived links is that they don't catch all dead links and don't always handle them accurately. IAbot also handles only the IA, which does a poor job with newspapers. Additionally, the bots cannot deal with problem of pages which change, and not longer assert the facts which for which they were used as sources.

Adding the archive links when I create the archived copy avoids all those problems in future. I agree that there is a readability issue, but that applies even with a properly filled-out unarchived ref, and the archive links don't make that much worse. The solution is use List-defined references. When this article has stabilised, I will propose converting it to that form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The archive stuff makes sense, thank you. As for the Visual Editor problem, that's a design decision and not a bug (as you've said, there will always be readability issues in refs anyway).

You're free to leave feedback for the tool if you think that's something that needs to be changed, as the only "rule" in its usage is to have the pipe characters, so personally I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to do a thing.

Regards, Uses x (leave me a message) 20:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Dublin Bay South by-election

Regarding your opposition to my removal of citations which back-up information referenced in the other article, in order to prevent WP:OVERCITE; I removed one opinion piece that makes a passing mention of the relevant text while the other article gives a comprehensive overview of the information, and another which has three mere relevant sentences stating that the party is "expected to select" the candidate while the other citation is a comprehensive overview of when she was selected.

This information is again backed up in near every article, and so it only needs a single citation. I was the person who wrote those pieces of text, I know what citations apply.

As you're making simple thing a problem I'll go ahead and make a talk page comment to resolve this.

Regards, Uses x (leave me a message) 20:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Uses x: two points:

1. The article is still under development. Removing refs while it is being developed impedes that development. Please wait for the topic to stabilise before removing any apparent redundancy. Extra sources may provide extra info or nuance which can be use d to improve the article.
2. In that particular case, ISTR that there was extra info in the cote you removed. I will now have to waste time going back to it, and identifying that issue. I wish you would stop making more work for others.
3. It's not me that's making a problem. The problem is you removing refs from an article under development. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)