User talk:Trappist the monk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ian McGrady (talk | contribs) at 00:37, 11 May 2014 (→‎You reverted an entire article: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

CS1This user is responsible for those
CS1 error messages (help).
en-USThis user is a native speaker of American English.
Comments are welcome. If your comments are about my work on a particular article, please make
them at the article's talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Cat Faced Spider.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for your diligent cleaning up after me. I learned something useful about formatting citations today from you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Duchess of Cambridge

Dear Trappist Please check refs. for "Family of Duchess of Cambridge" page. Why are ref 14 and 31 placed togetyer? Thanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.213.179 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your question. Refs 14 and 31, when I looked at the page were in separate columns with refs 15–30 between them.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in AWB unknown parameter script

You may have found and fixed this bug already, but you might want to take a look at this edit ("Hooker, JD") to see if this problem still exists in your AWB unknown parameter script. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a bug in my AWB script as a failure on my part to catch it. That script is not very clever. Neither, it appears, is its operator.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Infobox Revisions

Trappist-I have already had someone bring this up like an hour before and have since stopped (even though I have seen a ton of articles with "USS" in the name). I have just been trying to standardize the info boxes somewhat but again I have omitted the "USS" from my future revisions. Also what "|Ship badge=" was wrong? I did find one on USS Cavalla but I fixed it. I normally check everyone I edit so i'm sorry I missed one. I'm sorry if I sound blunt i'm just trying to let you know I don't mean to do all this "willy-nilly" so to speak. 85 GT Kid (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also if I put this in the wrong spot i'm sorry but the talk pages are new to me and the help section makes no sense to me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85 GT Kid (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a related issue, you unilaterally added infobox header to the ship infobox template and have started to implement it, again without any discussion. Please stop until a consensus is reached about whether this is a good thing or not. Frankly, I don't think so as it unbalances the page, IMO, but I will be reverting these changes as I see them until the issue has been resolved one way or another. I've started a discussion about this on the infobox's talk page and will notify WP:SHIPS about this as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, you did indeed raise the issue about adding the infobox caption, but I question the necessity or even the advisability of doing so as I believe that it does nothing to improve the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Only bot accounts can have the word "bot" in their signature. It is a way to easily distinguish between a bot or human edit. Please change your signature. Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Crab rangoons: What? My signature has never changed and has never had the term bot in it.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Type in the search bar "User:Monkbot" and then hit enter key or the search button. Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, sorry, the Monkbot, I guess is a bot which assist you I suppose. Forgive me.Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OER inquiry

Hi Trappist the monk, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of HMCS from warship articles

It states in the Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide that a ship whose prefix is commonly used in conjunction with its name can be placed in the |Ship name= spot. It is the fourth point. I would like you to stop removing them, especially from articles like Windflower where the same name and naval ensign was used by two different nations. Thank you for your time, Foxxraven (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear: you are referring the this, the third, not fourth, bullet point under the heading Ship name, right?
  • Avoid prefixes, unless the prefix is commonly used when referring to the ship (e.g. "RMS Queen Elizabeth 2" or "USS Enterprise", but not "MS Splendour of the Seas").
I think that we disagree on how that clause applies. I understand it to mean that prefixes are to be avoided unless the ship is known in the vernacular by the prefix name pair. Very few ships are. In the examples, RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 doesn't use the prefix in |Ship name=; USS Enterprise (CVN-65) does. Some of the other USS Enterprises do, some don't. In the Enterprise case, I wonder if the prefix name pair is commonly used to distinguish the aircraft carrier from the starship.
When a ship's infobox has multiple {{infobox ship career}} templates, as Windflower does, and when the name doesn't change, there is no need for the second and subsequent {{infobox ship career}} templates to use |Ship name=. Even when the name does change, it seems that the correct parameter to use is |Ship renamed= (though it is, I think displayed in the wrong place – should be directly under |Ship name=; I'll have a go at getting that changed). This would seem the place to include new prefixes.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The HMS/HMCS denotes that it is a commissioned ship. If it is renamed as a commercial ship, or it is downgraded to a non-commissioned ship it loses the HMS/HMCS as part of its name. As for Windflower, each time it is commissioned in a new navy, it gets a new prefix, not renaming; it is considered an entirely separate entity, just like a passport. I do not know American naval prefixes, but my guess is that some of those Enterprises are not commissioned ships. Nowhere does it explicitly state that it is to be avoided. It says you do not have to use them. Optional. Because as it is in the infoboxes you've changed, there is nothing differentiating the title of a commissioned warship and all that signifies and the name of the merchant vessel it became after decommissioning, in the case of some of the corvettes you've changed. If you look at newspaper articles in Canada about warships, the HMCS is always part of the title of the warship. You do not call it the Ottawa, you call it the HMCS Ottawa. Ottawa would be a cargo ship/oil tanker. Think of it like Sir Elton John. In official documents, he is always referred to as Sir Elton, not Elton.Foxxraven (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that when a ship is transferred from one country to another, the prefix merely indicates which country holds, controls, and mans the ship. HMS Windflower (K155) was transferred from Britain to Canada and became HMCS Windflower (K155) – same ship, same name, same pennant number, new boss. That is indicated by the |Ship country= and |Ship flag= parameters.
If I read you correctly, you seem to be saying that because a military ship has a prefix, in all cases where one refers to that ship by name, the prefix shall always be used. That implies that in Windflower's article, every instance of the text ''Windflower'' should be changed to either of HMS ''Windflower'' or HMCS ''Windflower''. Surely that isn't what you really mean?
The styling of a knight's name is not the same as prefix. One is an honorific, the other an initialism. Except that they both precede the name, there is no similarity.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is very similiar to a knight's title. It is an honorific to denote a warship acting in the name of the Queen/King. The commissioning of a warship gives it certain rights and obligations that the commissioning of a non-warship does not. That is why only certain ships can carry HMCS/HMS. The origin of knighthood worked along the same way. You were given a title but with that title came certain rights and obligations (originally). Ditto for the HMCS/HMS prefix on warships. Not every ship that works for the Canadian/British governments get that title, for example Canadian Coast Guard ships are given CCGS. They are not commissioned like a warship, they enter service like a non-warship.
As for the HMCS in front of Windflower here is a sample article from a national newspaper with a defense blog. See how many times they throw the HMCS in front of the ship's name. Defense Blog at Ottawa Citizen or HMCS Carlplace where every time they mention the name, it is with HMCS in front of it. It is not considered necessary on Wikipedia once noted at the top of the article and because it does not read well, but it is optional especially for ships that serve with any Commonwealth navy.Foxxraven (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It's much more pragmatic than that, isn't it? A warship is simply a tool that a nation constructs to serve a purpose. At the instant of its commissioning, it has done nothing honorable; it is just an assemblage of steel or wood or iron. It is inanimate. It, of itself, has no rights; it has no responsibilities; it simply can't. Rights and responsibilities are conferred on the crew who will operate the ship. Transferring CCGS Neversail from the coast guard to the navy doesn't suddenly give HMCS Neversail different rights or responsibilities; those vest in the crew.
A knight, on the other hand has done something in his life to deserve recognition by the monarch and the ensuing honor conveyed by the knighthood. I would venture to guess that one can't be a knight from birth. So, no, not similar at all.
We are not Ottawa Citizen nor are we Ottawa Valley; we are Wikipedia. Between those two is a disparity of style. One renders the ship name in uppercase while the other renders the name capitalized. If we are to yield our style to that used by external sources, which wins?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I`ll take this to WP:Ships. You`re ridiculous statement "We are Wikipedia" tells me everything I need to know about whom I am talking with. "We are Wikipedia", oh my goodness, what ridiculousness.Foxxraven (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. I'm pretty sure that you missed the point I was trying to make when I wrote we are Wikipedia. The point is that Wikipedia has its own style, for which see WP:MOS, as do, presumably, Ottawa Citizen and Ottawa Valley. The style that those two use does not and cannot dictate the style that Wikipedia uses. If external style were to dictate Wikipedia style, Wikipedia would have no style.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cod-metrication

I see you are doing vast numbers of edits to ship articles sticking in conversion templates.

You did one where you added a conversion template to a ship's engine power was Nominal Horse Power (nhp). This is incorrect. There is no metric equivalent of nominal horsepower. The conversion template you used would successfully convert Indicated Horse Power (ihp) or Shaft Horse Power (shp) to a metric unit. It has no utility for nhp. Please be more careful.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Script fixed.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.


Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Cite map update/transition?

Any thoughts on when and how transition {{cite map}} over to the Lua module? Any thoughts on any tweaks that might be needed to make it "play better" with the rest of the CS1 templates?

Here are the sample output of a few maps:

  1. Sheet map: 1936/7 Official Michigan Highway Map (Map) (Winter ed.). Scale not given. Cartography by Rand McNally. Michigan State Highway Department. December 15, 1936. Detroit inset. § B10.
  2. Map in atlas: "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers. 1962. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
  3. Map in journal: "New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System" (Map). Colorado Highways. Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. Colorado State Highway Department. Vol. 2. July 1923. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
  4. Map archived online: Tourism Bureau Map of Mackinac Island (PDF) (Map). Cartography by Christopher J. Bessert. Mackinac Island Tourism Bureau. 2009. OCLC 648133817. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 28, 2008. Retrieved June 1, 2009. {{cite map}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. Map in an atlas with page, inset and section specified: "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas. Rand McNally. 2013. p. 50. Western Upper Peninsula inset. § B1.

Looking at some online guides, listing APA/MLA or Chicago/Turabian, maybe our "Cartography by X" should be dropped and we should instead use the generic author/first/last/authorlink (and numbered versions thereof) instead? I'm starting to think while writing this that this is the way to go, and |cartography= should be phased out.

The argument against this is example #1 above: that map is better known as a product of the MSHD and not Rand McNally. Additionally, example #4 is cataloged by libraries under the tourism bureau, and Bessert's cartography is a footnote in the catalog record. Many of the older oil company/gas station road maps (like [1] from Sinclair) are in the same situation where Rand McNally or H.M. Gousha drew the maps, but other companies published them and customized them, and the cartographer is missing from the cover. So now I'm thinking that |cartography= should stay when the creator should be listed in a secondary capacity, but otherwise we should be encouraging people to use the author/first/last/authorlink parameters in most other cases. Also, we should probably have a way to specify the author of the book (where different from the credited author of a map) and have a way to specific editors. (This is an issue when citing the forward of a book, like fn 6 on Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive.)

Otherwise, there are five things I'd like to improve that come to mind at the moment.

  • I would like to shift the edition display to appear after the |title=. Otherwise it's separated from the title by the scale (and cartography) information, as in #1.
  • I would like to shift "(Map)" to appear after the specific map title when it listed in an encompassing work with |map= vs. |title= as in #2 and #3.
  • I would like to figure out how to allow a map to be cited to a journal as in #3, which should have |volume=2 and |issue=7 displaying.
  • I would like to shift the |format= so it appears after a link instead of after the date/year.
  • We might also want to play with the order when a page, map section and map inset are all specified, like in #5. In some ways, page should be first, inset second and section third because the page would be the larger unit, an inset within that page is the next larger unit, and finally a specific section is the smallest. We may also want to implement |sections= just to pluralize the word from "section" to "sections" although the MLA guide does give "sec." as an abbreviation we could use to match with p./pp.

Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 11:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to digest there. But I have to ask: Shouldn't you post this at Help talk:Citation Style 1 where the broader community of interested editors can contribute? I'm not trying to avoid a conversation about migrating {{cite map}} to Lua, but I think that it's one of the bigger jobs and will require some time to accomplish. If we are going to change how {{cite map}} renders citations it would be good to know what those changes are before anyone leaps into the code.
I have it in mind to finish deprecating {{cite music release notes}} and then work on what should be the relatively simple {{cite mailing list}} and {{cite newsgroup}}. After that I had thought to see about {{cite map}}. I will be less available from the first part of May until late June or early July so don't take apparent inactivity as disinterest.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had wanted to run it by you first to get some thoughts on refining things, maybe breaking it into chunks, especially since I don't know what's feasible in how the Lua modules work. Other than the publisher/cartography stuff, most of that is minor output order items, and I doubt most people would notice nor care that insets would appear ahead of sections or that section was abbreviated. I imagine the publisher/author/cartographer stuff will be one community discussion unto itself, while the rest is really so minor it could just be done. Imzadi 1979 → 12:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, bite sized chunks – at least for the initial discussions — biggest chunk first. That way what comes out the other end (we hope) is a list of things to do and to help make sure we don't get mired in long, wandering, semi-related discussions that produce nothing one can hang a hat on. Some work was done by another editor toward getting {{cite map}} into Module:Citation/CS1. Try your various citations with {{cite map/new}} to see what's there.
One of the issues that other editors have pointed out is the rendered order of the citation parameters, particularly dates, and how the positioning changes depending on which other parameters are used in an individual citation. {{cite map}} uses unique parameters that are shoehorned into the output more-or-less according to how they are positioned by {{citation/core}}. {{cite map}} is an opportunity to figure out how best to control the rendering for all of the various templates so that there is a common structure but also flexibility that properly supports the unique characteristics of the individual CS1 templates.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I previewed switching the examples above over to that trial version, the |section= replaced what is now |map= and the latter is unrecognized, the volume and issue information appeared in a strange spot without the page numbers, and the C in "Cartography by" dropped to a lowercase. Taking one of the other examples from above and previewing it that way, and it works like we'd want, minus the capitalization issue.
"New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System" (Map). Colorado Highways. Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. Colorado State Highway Department. Vol. 2. July 1923. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
Tourism Bureau Map of Mackinac Island (PDF) (Map). Cartography by Christopher J. Bessert. Mackinac Island Tourism Bureau. 2009. OCLC 648133817. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 28, 2008. Retrieved June 1, 2009. {{cite map}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Imzadi 1979 → 13:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization is a trivial fix; |map= and |mapurl= were added to {{cite map}} after whatever {{cite map}} support was added to Module:Citation/CS1. What is the #1 big topic for discussion and what do you propose as the starting point for it?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the first desire is to get onto Lua. Longer articles on highways generally use a lot of map citations. We've been steadily trying to get as many of the templates used in those articles onto Lua as much as possible because of template-related performance issues. {{jct}} was a big part of the issues we had with articles timing out, but if cite map were to be transitioned, that would speed up preview times more in those articles.
Next, I'd like to support citing maps published in journals/magazines with proper page location information since that support isn't there at the moment. We should be able to have "2 (7): 12–13" as the page location information in one case vs. "p. 50" in another, and potentially have both followed by something like "Detroit inset, sec. B10." if an inset and section were needed. In doing so, I would shift the order to volume (if a journal), issue (if a journal), pages (if a journal or in an atlas/book), inset (if appropriate), section. That way we drill down from the least to most specific location in the work. I imagine this could be done as part of the Lua conversion.
After that, It would be nice to then look at tweaking the different indicators to fall in the "right" spots. The Lua module already puts the |format= after the link, so it would just be a matter of shifting the (Map) to follow |map= when needed and making sure the |edition= was after the |title=. Looking at: Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan (PDF) (Map). 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers. 1962. p. 17, sec. 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. § Forsyth T45N R25W. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012. I "corrected" for the issue with section and map, but it seems |at= isn't overriding all of the location info... hmm...
The publisher vs. cartographer stuff will be somewhat contentious to some, but other than various views on "correctness", it's not really "broken" because the information is still presented. If we left that to last, the other benefits would still be realized. Imzadi 1979 → 14:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And while we're at one of those steps, it would be nice to add |via= to the template, although I assume that will happen when Lua-ified. Imzadi 1979 → 14:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your first item, getting {{cite map}} into Module:Citation/CS1 is a given; it will happen. But, it should not happen until the map-citing community arrives at a determination of just how {{cite map}} in its new implementation should be rendered.
Because it's possible to render {{cite map}} with all of the parameters in their proper places, in keeping with your second and third items, it seems to me that the map-citing community should:
  1. create a list of the most commonly cited map types in whatever form they exist
  2. create a set of citations to represent what you would like to see from {{cite map}} for each of those maps (don't use the template, instead create these citations by hand; do pay attention to text formatting – italics, bold, quoted, etc)
  3. find the commonalities among these various citations and distill them into a handful of model citation styles that cover the most common map citation needs
  4. associate the objects in the model citations with existing CS1 template parameters; if needs be, create a list of new parameters where none of the existing parameters apply (there is a limit to how many parameter names CS1 will support so don't just create new names for every object in a map citation)
And the caveats: don't try to create a citation style that is drastically different from the general look and feel style of CS1; your model citations should comply with appropriate sections of WP:MOS.
With that list of model styles and associated parameters, I can figure out what needs to be done and have a go at implementing {{cite map}} in CS1.
If |via= is important, include it in the model citations. Do the same if |registration=, |subscription=, or any other particular parameter is required.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot trial

The bot trial appears to have been successful (though it didn't fix all of the |coauthors= entries on the page).

It is probably advisable to add |author-separator=, after the last author name in order to retain the author list format previously in use within the article. -- 79.67.248.42 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Monkbot task 5 didn't fix everything. It's not designed to fix everything. There is enough diversity in how editors use |coauthor= that I've divided the job into four separate tasks. The goal is to pluck-off the low hanging fruit so that editors only have to fix those citations that require human intellect.
I disagree about the addition of |author-separator=,. One of the requirements imposed on any of the Monkbot tasks that replace |coauthor= with |authorn= is that |coauthor= must follow |last=, |last1=, |author=, or |author1=. That means that in the absence of |author-separator= of any kind, the first separator has been a semicolon. If a previous editor chose to include |author-separator=, the addition of another by Monkbot might override it.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the multiple tasks. All understood now. However, apart from the stuff that citation bot converted to last name/first name listings a few weeks ago, the article mostly used comma separated author names with each consisting of last name plus initials. Your changes have introduced semi-colons. There were several other formats present (mostly from very recent citation bot changes or editors adding authors with full first names). I have since edited the remaining coauthors parameters and converted the whole article to use comma separated authors, using author1, author2, etc, where each author consists of last name plus initials. -- 79.67.248.42 (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where the reference contains | authors=Jones P, Doe J, Smith D, Davis M | the reader sees commas.

Where the reference contains | author=Jones P | coauthors=Doe J, Smith D, Davis M | the reader sees only the first author, but the editor intended the reader to see commas.

Both of those forms (and others) were in the article. Upon converting all of those references to
| author=Jones P | author2=Doe J | author3=Smith D | author4=Davis M |
the reader sees semi-colons - a style change that some ardent rule chasers would use as an excuse to revert the edit. I wouldn't want to give them the excuse to do so.

This is why I suggest the simple addition of | author-separator=, | in those particular cases. This is not intended to be a criticism of what you are doing, but instead meant to be a helpful hint to make your chances of success even greater.

Citation bot attempts to do something similar, but is beset with so many other issues that it usually just makes a complete mess of things. If Monkbot can do a better job than citation bot (shouldn't be difficult given the poor performance of citation bot to date) then I wholly approve the unleashing of your new bot tasks. -- 79.67.248.44 (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, with |author= and |coauthors=, the reader sees all of the listed authors:
{{cite book |title=Title | author=Jones P | coauthors=Doe J, Smith D, Davis M}}
→Jones P. Title. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
You're right, commas may have been the original editor's explicit intent, but when the citation contains |last=, |last1=, |author=, or |author1= as these all do, the result is mixed: first author separated by semicolon and the others by commas. Monkbot then chooses the default state of semicolon separators for the citation. I think that this is the correct choice because |author-separator= is a relatively uncommonly used parameter and that it is more likely that the majority of citations in an article don't specify |author-separator=.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a difficult choice, but I guess overall consistency within the article has to win out. Of course, if the reference contains
| last=Jones | first=P | author2=Doe J | author3=Smith D | author4=Davis M |
the reader will see semi-colons between all authors and a comma between last name and initial on the first author but not on the others. There's no (simple) way to win! However, that is a minor issue. Whatever Monkbot can achieve is going to be a huge improvement compared to how things are at present. I have seen some articles with references formatted in more than a dozen different ways! -- 79.67.248.44 (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another odd case here where semicolons have been used to separate the surname from first names. Monkbot got a tad confused! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. I rather think that the confused one was the editor who wrote that citation. Semicolons separating name segments is not a common (I hope) punctuation style. I'm not sure that there is a way around the 'garbage in garbage out' aspect of that particular citation. Single names are perfectly legitimate. I may have to compel the bot to ignore citations where there is only one name segment preceding the semicolon. Task 2 is stopped for now while I think about it.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AWB and pipes

Is the lack of a space before each "pipe" on inserted parameters intrinsic to AWB or just in the way that it is used for particular tasks?

The lack of spaces makes for terrible word-wrapping both in the edit window and in diffs. Is there a way to get AWB to add (as a bare minimum) a space before each pipe? - 79.67.248.42 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point. I'll see what i can do to change how the Monkbot tasks rewrite a citation.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. When word-wrapping goes horribly wrong it can make editing quite painful. I realise in this case the word-wrapping problem was not actually caused by a lack of spaces, but the example adequately serves to illustrate the point. -- 79.67.248.44 (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sig issue

Thank you for your helpful reply here. While unrelated to its content, the way you put your sig on a separate line, with a blank line before it, causes issues for users of assistive technologies, as you end one HTML list, then start another. Please consider omitting the blank line, or better still having the sig run on from the end of your comment, on the same line, as mine does here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an entire article

I am presently working on the gary null article. Granted many of those items require references, but you also reverted much of the article that had been rewritten. This is entirely irresponsible editing. You should be sanctioned for such oblique methods. hello 01:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you are clearly annoyed with users who are editing your edits, but those edits that cover your edits are called revising and editing. They are only fixing edits. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 17:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian McGrady You don't call revisions irresponsible editing. Thanks and happy editing. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 17:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello 18:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC) they wiped out an ENTIRE REVISION without regard to specific problems, that had many other edits. Did you drill back and see all the problems that were fixed that were subsequently obviated? I am aware of revising and editing, but I am also aware of scorched-earth policies. I'll call it like I see it.

As far as I can tell, I have never edited the Gary Null article. Someone here is confused?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello 00:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)with apologies Crab ran goons wrote a response above - I was responding to him -

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trappist_the_monk&oldid=607987656"