User talk:Trappist the monk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Monkbot)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CS1This user is responsible for those
CS1 error messages (help).
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.

publisher vs. work parameters in CS1/2 citations — follow-on query[edit]

Hi Trappist the Monk, I asked for your help a few months ago, see your archive of our conversation. It was essentially about making the choice between publisher and work/website parameters in cs1/2 citations. I've recently been doing some work on some rugby union articles, and the question has arisen in Wales national rugby union team. There are a number of citations that are attributable to Welsh Rugby Union which is an organisation that publishes information on its website www.wru.wales. I've been updating some of the citations and using work=Welsh Rugby Union but another editor has come in and changed it to publisher=Welsh Rugby Union. The changes are contained in this diff. As you can see, he's installed a publisher parameter but omitted work/website. Now in our previous conversation you said "any data in publisher[equals] for these templates does not make it to the metadata" and "It is perfectly legitimate for these templates to have publisher[equals] but they must also have work[equals]" I think I can see why you would want to use the publisher parameter for Welsh Rugby Union as it's an organisation that publishes stuff on its website, so I'm ok with publisher=Welsh Rugby Union, but I think there should also be a work alias included, i.e. website=wru.wales or website=www.wru.wales (never sure whether you should include the 'www') – do you agree and would you be prepared to back me up on that if the other editor reverts me? Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Welsh Rugby Union is an organization that publishes an eponymous publication Welsh Rugby Union that holds "articles". Because this is about citations, we are citing an "article" in a publication. Because publisher-name and publication-name are the same, publisher-name should be omitted. In {{cite news}}, |work= (or alias) parameter should be used because the value assigned to that parameter is included in the citation's metadata whereas the value assigned to |publisher= is not. Readers who consume the citations in Wales national rugby union team via the metadata do not get whatever is assigned to |publisher=.
I don't particularly care for domain-names-as-work-titles. In this case |website=wru.wales is relatively simple and straightforward but there are cases where domain names are too cryptic to be of much use. If you decide to use domain names, the www subdomain name should not be included unless it is required by the site (some sites require www as part of their url though most don't).
Alas, there are editors out there who, for whatever reason, reject the notion that a corporate website can legitimately have the same name as the corporation that owns and publishes it.
I trolled through a handful of the WRU citations. Of the pages with content, they seemed to contain original content so one might invoke MOS:ITALICTITLE, in particular:
"Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized..."
with this caveat though: cs1|2 is not and cannot be governed by en.wiki's MOS without it explicitly undertakes to do so (as it does for date formats). The reason for this caveat is that cs1|2 is a citation style. WP:CITESTYLE permits the use of any consistent citation style. Citation styles may mandate styling that directly contradicts those required by MOS.
Many of the WRU citations that I looked at link to live pages that lack content beyond the boilerplate and sponsor adverts so adding links to archived copies of those pages might be something that needs doing (or find better sources).
Decisions about what happens on any article must be arrived at by consensus of the editors working on that article. While I believe that you are correct in using |work= (and aliases) as you have described, I am not a magistrate who can decree that cs1|2 citation shall be done in certain ways (would that I were, such power would have made these past few months less stressful). You can, of course, ping me into a conversation on this topic should one get started.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy and comprehensive reply (again). I'll see what I can do and might quote you on the metadata thingy, and if it turns into an "amicable discussion" with said editor then I may very well ping you for input. P.S. I've been trying to provide archived versions of those live WRU pages that lack content beyond the boilerplate and sponsor adverts, that's pretty much how I got into this situation in the first place! Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
My first attempt to impose the rule of law :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

NEED HELP[edit]

Hello my name is Alisa. I am from the company q-home UK, we recently bought a Clock Corner in Doncaster and we are searching for a writer, who can write an artical in wikepedia about this clock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisa1239 (talkcontribs) 10:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not that person. If the clock is notable, someday, someone, will write about it. You can also request an article.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I could help Ben Kein (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Just thought it was cool[edit]

Just wanted to say I think your knowledge of gaming systems is cool. Where in at, the southeast in the states, I couldn't tell you one person that has ever had or let alone have the Sega Master System. I enjoyed it although I was a Nintendo to the core. I feel like bringing out my very near mint collection of Nintendo Power Magazine and reminiscing. I have number 48(Batman Returns) through around issue number 140ish. Have have a few earlier ones. The first one I ever bought and still have, is the strategy guide for Super Mario Bros. 3. It was red and I believe number 13 if I'm not mistaken? Anyway, I do not mean to bother and it is random but I don't know anyone that knows about older systems like myself. You probably know more and wanted to give you props on your knowledge of the subject and all subjects that you contribute to. Have a good holiday. AteTuyenTAte6Tin (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)