User talk:Tony1/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Further personal attacks by Fnagaton and DBM will be removed immediately. TONY (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Sorry for not notifying you of that thread, I usually like to check if the subject knows about it before getting involved in commenting. I'm hoping a few admins comment, note no admin action is required, and the things gets archived shortly. Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive titles[edit]

The placement of your last four archives is certainly interesting... Flash of artistic inspiration, or strange mistake? Waltham, The Duke of 04:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fiddling at Layout[edit]

There's a lot of fiddling going on at WP:LAYOUT in the name of copyediting that is deteriorating the clarify of the guideline; it may need the attention of a good copyeditor who understands how guidelines are written, particularly if the fiddling continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Gilberto Gil[edit]

Having done some more work re Jbmurray's concerns about comprehensiveness, copy edited per your recommendations at the failed FAC from May, and asked some others to look over it, I am thinking about renominating at some point fairly soon in the future. Would you mind looking over and leaving some comments on the talk page on prose, if at all possible? --Kakofonous (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


Actually, I did promote it properly - just messed up on the edit summary. It clearly says "Nominations older than 7 days - decision time" - I see no reason for bringing it back... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I already promoted it - On this edit summary there is a red link because I missed the "W" in Wikipedia. Where else do you see a red link? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would (even right now) probably support it. The rule doesn't say anything about the "co-nominators" support, but it doesn't say anything about not counting it either. Also, that was the uploader's support - he does have a right to do that. If you feel it doesn't meet the criteria, feel free to take it to the removal list... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It was nominated 8 days ago... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC) was reverted like minutes before you left the message.... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
For that matter - I do support your proposal. Few people participate at FSC, and we could use more time to get a better consensus. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.[edit]

I haven't nominated anything to FAC or FLC in a month and a bit, so if you've got time, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Apple Inc. would appreciate some comments. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Passive voice[edit]

Hi Tony. Do you have any exercises relating to the passive voice in sentence structure. It comes up repeatedly in FAC, and quite often in the Lead sections of FLCs. It's something I can usually spot but I'm actually not that good at fixing. If you do have anything (or decide to create something), it'd be a nice thing to link to in reviews, and to also practice on. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 06:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I know my FAC nom had some: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Degrassi: The Next Generation. Current FACs with passive voice concerns are: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myst III: Exile. When looking at comments, it seems like people have a hard time switching from passive to active. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 09:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch June 23[edit]

Tony, I moved your additions about impact factors from WP:FCDW/June 23, 2008 to the talk page at WP:FCDW/June 30, 2008, since those are already discussed there. Here is the remaining summary of our changes, and my changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides worked your text from June 23 into Wikipedia:FCDW/June 30, 2008. July 7 for monthly updates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

2 sentences[edit]

(1) In Gyromitra esculenta, which I am polishing up for FAC:

this sentence - with 'at least' meaning 'that date if not earlier', I am interested as to where you would place them in the sentence...or are they redundant.

Toxic reactions were known from the early 20th century at least

(2)Death may occur after 5–7 days' is an 'after consumption needed at the end of the sentence or is it pretty obvious?

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. What about "Toxic reactions have been known for at least a hundred years".?
  2. Depends on the context, but probably it is required; but I don't like "after 5–7 days". What about "Death may occur from five to seven or more days after consumption."? TONY (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

General relativity FAC review[edit]

Thanks once more for your helpful comments at the FAC review. It would be great if you could hide your resolved comments in a cap box template, to make it easier for the FAC directors to see what's been resolved. Thanks! Also, you might have noticed that, beyond your specific comments, significant copy-editing has been going on, so I hope the "rough edges" you mentioned have now been taken off. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives[edit]

I have addressed all but one of your comments and had a question on the other. Your clarification and review would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 18:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my question directed to you on the nomination page. It is a question about your first bullet point that says "MOS breach in position of period: "toughest guys." and similar." I was wondering if you could clarify that for me, because I am not 100% sure of what you are referring to. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 05:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Tony, there were two instances, and both have now been corrected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Los Angeles Lakers head coaches[edit]

I don't get what you mean on your inline criteria, . (Annoyomous24) (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't make it invisible here too, or I won't see it. I mean, your range dashes should be UNspaced, and there are em dashes and a hyphen mixed up there somewhere. Consistent. TONY (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm Tony, why did you write AM I TALKING TO MYSELF? on your own comment on the featured list candidate of List of Los Angeles Lakers head coaches? (Annoyomous24) (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I took it that you were still striking reviewers' text. But perhaps I was wrong; apologies if that's the case. TONY (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of First-move advantage in chess[edit]

Many thanks for your constructive comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First-move advantage in chess, which helped to improve the article and reach the FA level! SyG (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this linguistic process has a name but I can't for the life of me remember what it is...[edit]

OK, I know there is a name for this linguistically, where a word mutates over time to become more similar to another word. I am talking about lorken in this case becoming lorche then lorchel, in the fashion of the similar looking but very different mushroom morchel. As per here. Talk:Gyromitra_esculenta#Etymology_of_.22Lorchel.22...any ideas? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On tip of tongue, but can't do it. I've asked Hoary. TONY (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your kind words of comfort on my talk page, which have helped give me strength in this impossible time. I have long respected you as an editor, and respect you even more as a decent human being. It is people like you who make me see that we at Wikipedia are more than just a group of editors. We are a family. Your kindness will never be forgotten. Jeffpw (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

List of South American countries[edit]

Do you think this is a better format for the article? That way, I don't need to add extra sections with tables. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

Hi! I replied to your note. delldot talk 16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Since you're the only person I know on Wikipedia who's interested in both evolutionary psychology and style guidelines, I'm hoping you enjoy User:Dank55/Essays#Style_guidelines. As always, feel free to make any edits you like. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. We like "[sic]" and not "(sic)", right? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

October 16, 1925[edit]

Few really need to know this stuff.

Regarding date autoformatting is optional and bugzilla, I’m not intimidated in the least by the notion of contacting Jimbo. What’s the worse that can happen as long as it’s apparent we have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart? Before actually contacting him, I would like to get up-to-speed on the facts a bit more. I understand there was a petition with a large quantity of signatures. When there was debate and voting on this issue, what was the vote balance at that time? Greg L (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I was noticing today in my watchlist AWB-conversions of valid, non-linked dates to the autoformatting links. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Eye movement (sensory)[edit]

With reference to your two postings to Talk:Eye movement (sensory) (1 and 2). If at any time I have upset you it was never my intention. To the best of my knowledge the exchanges between us have always been civil and if there is a particular instance where I have offended you, or acted in a way that you think would make me untrustworthy as a mediator, I would appreciate you pointing it out to me. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/SMS Von der Tann[edit]

The editer of this article has expressed interest in moving up the assessment scale (the article is acurrently a B), but I think a check of the article by someone of your calibure may be useful before the articles heads into GA/A/FAC waters. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

re:album covers[edit]

Yeah, I'm a bit frustrated, but I did expect it to happen so it's not too bad. I think that WP is getting too paranoid about fair use, but sometimes you have to accept things for the way they are instead of getting upset about them. --PresN (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Monthly updates[edit]

All yours: Wikipedia:FCDW/July 7, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


CPR Barnstar.png The Barnstar of Recovery
The Barnstar of Recovery is hereby awarded to Tony1 for much appreciated work at Wikipedia:Featured article review. A “save” on a review is always rewarding, and with so few helpers every comment or article edit is an asset. Thank you and keep it up! Marskell (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Want your opinion on a list[edit]

I got List of Governors of Alabama promoted on FLC a year ago. I've done some work with it tonight, toying with the styles, etc., and I wanted to throw it at you. This is more of a peer review request, but since at the moment you seem to be the harshest critic on FLC (not necessarily a bad thing), I wanted to ask you to do your worst. Could you take a look at it and just rip me to shreds on anything you see that's wrong? :) I'd like to clear up this style of list and fix any deficiencies before moving on to the other states. --Golbez (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)[edit]

Please return to the FAC discussion for Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your commentary. Most importantly, see bolded response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style[edit]

Re: Conjunctions and your comment. I was following WP:BOLD. I would be happy to add this to the discussion page and solicit comments; give me a few minutes to add it. Could you please be more specific about which elements of the text don't "seem suitable"? Truthanado (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tony regarding your comment on my talk - it was to make it conform with the whole of the article. All bullets that come after a : (colon) list in this article are capitalised, except the section i changed - this is for consistency. You state that this isn't the case for single sentences, but it is. Take a look Googly75 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices.[edit]

Hello Tony, we've had a couple of people copyedit the article, I thought you might want to take another look at it? Thanks, · AndonicO Engage. 15:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Minus character on Mac OS X[edit]

Do you know how to type the minus character on Mac OS X? I know how to type the regular dash (-), en dash (–), and em dash (—), but not the minus character (−). Gary King (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Varsity[edit]

First sentence, is that a correct endash? Operation Varsity was a joint American–British airborne operation that took place in March 1945, towards the end of World War II. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm ... it's an endash in the text, but on my browser on your talk page, it shows as a hyphen. Weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It's because of the font. Gary King (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Which font? Tony has a font installed on his page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
His talk page uses the font Trebuchet MS. Gary King (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Gary (Tony, how weird that you have a font installed on your talk page that doesn't distinguish between hyphens and endashes :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, from my message above this one, it looks like the dash is even tinier than the en dash. The en dash in this font looks like a regular dash in the normal font :) Gary King (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, you two—I'd been meaning to change it for that purpose, having criticised Anderson for the same thing (except that his problem font is for all of his displays, not just a talk page). American–British airborne operation: Many people, including me, would use an en dash. Chicago, I think it is, gives analogous examples where there's no opposition (Russian-Japanese diplomacy) where they suggest a hyphen. So I think one can't complain about a hyphen. Definitely "Russian–Japanese war" must have an en dash. Has that guy examined his earthquake en dashes? I'll look. TONY (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing excessive links[edit]

"Nominator gives thumbs-up to flushing autoformatting down the pan" reads like a newspaper headline. Anyways, as one person pointed out, the reference access dates are still linked. This can be easily resolved by using the "accessmonthday" and "accessyear" parameters for {{cite web}}. Also, I'm currently working on Theodore Kaczynski; I think I've managed to remove a lot of excessive links, especially compared to the original version. I decided to unlink all of the dates, including the access dates, and I think that I have linked terms only when it is necessary. I hope this is a step in the right direction. Gary King (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary, this sort of thing looks like good bot fodder. However, the accessmonth format looks a lot more cumbersome than the accessdate format. Is that the only way to get unlinked dates in references? Lightmouse (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just had a look at {{cite web}}. One solution would modify the template so that it contains a 'lk=on' and 'lk=off' parameter. Lightmouse (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like this: Template:Cite web/sandbox? Gary King (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think. To make it simplest for users, it would be good if it can accept 'accessdate' as a parameter. For example, would it accept 'accessdate=2006-09-19' ? Lightmouse (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this conversation to User_talk:Lightmouse#User_talk:Tony1.23Removing_excessive_links. Gary King (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Template_talk:Cite_web#Option:_lk.3Don_versus_lk.3Doff Gary King (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

An editor gives an honest reason[edit]

An editor gives an honest reason for linking years: "I like linked years". See Willie McGee (convict). I thought you might appreciate seeing it. Lightmouse (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing it? Yep, going, going, ... gone. TONY (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Elaine Paige[edit]

Thanks very much for the tip, I've just removed some un-needed links from the article, but I was thinking, should I unlink places like Scandinavia, Hong Kong, Europe .. etc? I’ve removed the linked dates as well, but something has struck me, should the dates in the citations be unlinked, and if so, be put into a different format? Many thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Eagle, the three geographical place names, well, they're all well-known to English-speakers, no doubt. There will always be borderline cases (Tokyo no, but Osaka, maybe/maybe not; Kinakoru, definitely). Partly depends on the context, too. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking. As for your query about the cite web template, that's a problem that is being addressed in the coming weeks. Please see section above. TONY (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Greg L: Auto-lemon[edit]

Tony, I’m not sure what your question is. Greg L (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to virus[edit]

Dear Tony,
I see that you are at 6.5 on the real life scale, but do you have time to look at the Lead of this article? I want it to be the "pub quiz" answer to the question what is a virus?.
Best wishes,
GrahamColmTalk 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Tony. GrahamColmTalk 09:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: cite web strategy[edit]

That sounds good. I am not an administrator... but that would be useful when I edit protected templates. Gary King (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Proposals[edit]

Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Aervanath's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

see Wikipedia talk:Build the web#"Build the Web" dismissed?[edit]

I moved our discussion from my talk page over to the WP:BUILD talk page; it seemed more appropriate, and I think other people might want to chip in.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sneak peak[edit]

What does my CAD picture of the IPK have to do with recent MOSNUM changes? Greg L (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  • That caption ties the picture to the subject much better IMO. Greg L (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

List of English Twenty20 International cricketers[edit]

Hi Tony. Would you please revisit List of English Twenty20 International cricketers when you get the chance, and then comment at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of English Twenty20 International cricketers. Do you feel it is up to standards yet? I'm looking at closing it one way or the other ASAP. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 06:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team successes![edit]

Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding autoformatting[edit]

You may wish to see a discussion about adding autoformatting at: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#What.27s_going_on_in_this_page.3F. Some supportive words to users commenting on my talk page might be welcome too. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Date overlink[edit]

For quite some time I used to go about linking up dates for the sake of autoformatting. I've since lost my eagerness to do this. Overlinking is huge problem on WP, some editors seem to think it necessary to link just about everything. I still thing autoformatting is a good think, if we could only do so without the useless & distracting links. If MOSNUM is discouraging date links, there're no complaints from me. In fact, I reckon it'd be interesting to see them all removed: perhaps if WP were to boycot this most glaring example of poor WikiMedia design, the developers might ... just might think to do something about. JIMp talk·cont 01:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a turn-around, too, Jim—from trying to have it fixed to realising that it was stupid and unnecessary at the start. Designing a system that only WPians can see? Ummmmmm. So colour/color we deal with, but 3 January / January 3, we can't? I say this is computer-programmer thinking gone mad! TONY (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My review of what?[edit]

Sorry, I don't follow. You either mistook me for somebody else or I simply don't remember. Care to drop a link? Renata (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that was to Battle of the Kalka River FAC. Renata (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Mea no problemo ;) Renata (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

monthly updates[edit]

Okay, it's still July 6 where I am, does that count as not being late? :)

First, on another subject, I appreciate that there are all kinds of good reasons you don't want to copyedit articles at FAC, but how do you feel about copyediting copyediting? That is, it has been really helpful when other copyeditors have given me a thumbs up or thumbs down, and I try to return the favor. It's a lot easier to look quickly at a good copyeditor's diffs than to look at the whole article. Malleus and I finished History of timekeeping devices today (and we both left comments for work to be done on the FAC page). You know, I should probably make links to the diffs of just my work at the "copyediting" link on my userpage; I'll go do that when I'm finished here. I'm kind of hoping that the FA-Team copyeditors start trading tips and tricks regularly.

Okay, back to summaries. I'll offer my suggestions here, but if you'd rather I post directly to Wikipedia:FCDW/July_7,_2008, that's fine too.

WP:MOS: I checked the diffs and checked your work, it looks good. Are we not mentioning it when someone adds a "disputed" tag (ellipses)? Hopefully we'll get it resolved this month. I've been asking friends, even friends who use ellipses all the time, and they don't like ellipses as a replacement for an em-dash in an encyclopedia article. How would you feel about recommending against the ellipsis (except when used for omission)? That would get us out of arguing about how it should be typed, and shorten the section. (But that's for next month's summaries, I'm getting ahead of myself.) [more to come] - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tags? Rather not. Otherwise every time Anderson slaps one up, it has to be flagged at the monthly updates. I've already got two descriptions of instability there for June; that's enough! Ellipsis dots are totally unacceptable as a replacement for em- or en-dash interrupters. Three periods should be used, not the dreadful wide-spaced ellipsis symbol. Best place to post possible additions to the update is on its talk page. Got a day or two. But you're trawling through a lot of pages in the hope of picking up just a few changes worth mentioning. TONY (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Trivial" date linking?[edit]

This is news to to me. I always link out years related to notable events in an article topic so that if one of our readers wants a listing of the notable events in a give year, they are given the fullest list possible when they click "what links here." That's a matter of the utility of the entire wikiproject, not a triviality. -- Kendrick7talk 04:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Blue Peter presenters[edit]

Hi Tony. It's been a while but I've nominated another list at WP:FLC. I'd be really grateful if you would review it for me. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Blue Peter presenters. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 05:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)/archive1 ... Question[edit]

Hi there Tony,

I was wondering if you can take a quick look at the previous article nomination, and considering that your comments have been address, if you can help either supporting or denying this promotion. Thanks by the way for the good feedback.

Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I just wanted to say thanks for your contribution (directly or indirectly) to have the previous article in Wikipedia, now listed as a Featured List. This will be the first of a set of articles with similar topics for several countries of the Eurozone. The BEHAG is to reach a Featured Topic.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Redundant wording[edit]

Thank you for your words of encouragement on the WIAFA talkpage — they meant a lot to me. If I return, it'll be fun to shake off the rust and get back into the groove. Criteria/policy pages are a nice way to brush up :) — Deckiller 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm taking the fall semester off due to my burnout. I'll probably focus on saving some money before resuming classes in January. But that also means a bit more free time, especially if I don't get to work 40-hour weeks. — Deckiller 17:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Brackets around dates in guidance?[edit]

I see that there are brackets around dates in guidance. They are not needed to explain the point, surely explanatory text is not going to be subject to edit wars over date formats. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Calendars. Lightmouse (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Tony. Thanks for the edits to List of Blue Peter presenters. You said to check out MOSLINK amd CONTEXT, but neither Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Dates nor WP:CONTEXT#Dates or MOS:UNLINKYEARS say there is no need to link dates any longer. I agree that it's a silly concept, but there is nothing that actually says this. Unless I missed it. Regards Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, this bit at MOSLINK says it all, doesn't it? "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, i.e., unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text." CONTEXT refers by link to that statement: "See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking for the advantages and disadvantages of autoformatting in various contexts." TONY (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/JFK inaugural address[edit]

Would you mind elaborating on your comments at the above discussion? I am not sure I understand what you are stating. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 07:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


I don't want you to think that I've been ignoring your message on my talk page. I've been thinking about it, and I don't know how to answer. I can't decide if I'm excited by the prospect or repulsed. Perhaps I'll have a better idea in a few days... -- SamuelWantman 10:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New cite web template in sandbox for different date formats[edit]

It can be found at Template:Cite web/sandbox. The examples should be self-explanatory. Gary King (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick one[edit]

Tony, been busy lately, so sorry for not returning your mail. Will get onto it. Just a quick one, see List of Boston Bruins head coaches. Do you think GC, W, D, L should be right justified to line up the numbers? I know we've asked for it to be the case when dealing with, say, acquisition prices which have many zeros and two, three or more commas. Just curious what your take is. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting[edit]

My initial reaction to [1] was: wtf? On further thought, my reaction is still: wtf? What is the benefit of removing those links? As I'm from the UK, I find it very odd that dates are written Month DD, Year, so I autoformat them to be DD Month Year (other people can view them in whatever crazy date formats that they want). As the article is about something in the US, I acknowledge that the dates should be formatted in the crazy American format, but I don't want to see them. As such, I've reverted your edit. Mike Peel (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, I should probably apologize: you caught me off guard whilst I was in a bad mood.
I think the main thing underpinning my objection is that I like not having to see American-formatted dates. I cope with color (especially when I use HTML) and erroneous z's, but I'm not very keen on them. We have a system in place now that auto-corrects the dates (sadly not the colors and z's), although I will admit it doesn't do it in the best way possible. However, I don't see why we should get rid of it, when what we have works at least moderately well.
I think it would be better to first have a widespread discussion about date formatting (over at the Village Pump, with one of those top-bar announcement things), including talking to the developers, rather than just removing the formatting as you see it. As a community, we can then decide whether to remove them completely, or keep things as they are, or put a better system in place. Either way things go, we could then set up a bot to enforce the standard.
Personally, I think that we'd be far better off using a template for the dates, such that it doesn't matter what format they're in as they all get converted to either the standard for the location that the user is in, or the user's preferences. Alternatively, regular expressions placed in the MediaWiki code could do an equivalent job.
Thanks for being open to discussing this. Mike Peel (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm; I knew that the developers were slow at doing things, but I didn't realise that they were _that_ slow... Having done a little digging, I've found {{date}}, but I notice that there's problems with dates before 1970 with that. :-( I guess I'll have to live in the hope that one day the developers will do something about it, and cope with whatever for now. If things change in the future, it should be easy to change the formatting using a bot... I still suggest that you open up the issue for discussion, so that we have uniformity across Wikipedia. Mike Peel (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, VP is pretty useless—one's post is soon covered up, usually without response. The issue is known among aficionados at MOS, FAC and FLC, but it will take a while to filter through to the troops. When I have more time from Monday next onwards, I'll have a good go at engaging nominators on the matter. TONY (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB vs. Mac[edit]

By "mac" did you mean a Mac running Windows or...? –xenocidic (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I undid the edit because it states it right on the main AWB page: "AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated Mediawiki editor for Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/Vista designed to..." –xenocidic (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, sorry, I'm not quite sure. You might want to ask at WT:AWB. –xenocidic (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not any time soon. I asked the developer before. Since I'm on a Mac, I run Windows on my Mac when I want to use the program, but that isn't too often. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Reedy wrote this at my talk page:


so... maybe windows emu... i guess? –xenocidic (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America[edit]

Tony, please look this over again and let us know if you find anything else. We've worked on things you mentioned and some other things we found. Thank you. RlevseTalk 02:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi1 Could you please clarify which of the three versions you prefer? I'd like to get this promotion cleared, but it's a bit ambiguous. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean[edit]

Your thoughts on the commma situation? I won't change to an oppose based on a few removed commas, but you're the better authority. — Deckiller 02:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Phan Dinh Phung[edit]

Requested changes enacted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bach page[edit]

Done, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson[edit]

Long-term request (no need for immediate input): Tony, please consider adding your brilliance to Samuel "Ticcing" Johnson as it evolves. I've watched it since I joined Wiki, and Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) has finally turned it into a "real" article. Others are helping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree[edit]

Tony, pls revisit when you have a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch gone[edit]

Tony, the Dispatch should publish soon; why did you delete Wikipedia:FCDW/July 7, 2008? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I stayed up until I saw a note from Ral that he was ready to publish,[2] and I had to revert your deletion of the page.[3] Sorry if I did something wrong, but I'm not sure why you removed the Dispatch. Ral left a note saying he was ready to publish, so I restored the Dispatch page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thx; wasn't aware I'd deleted it. What a cyber-klutz I must be. TONY (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
No big deal, except that I stayed up all night waiting for you :-) These Dispatch deadlines are a killer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Tony. I listed some MoS issues at Some MoS issues. Also, I added and populated some subcategories to Category:Wikipedia style guidelines in hopes of getting a better handle on what are official MoS' page and what are not. If you have some time, please take a look. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking craze ...[edit]

... is generally disregarding WP:NBSP, which calls for a non-breaking space between month and day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Catherine of Aragon[edit]

I've just gone an delinked the dates on this article. I was typing up an explanation and wanted to point to the section of MOS(NUM) which mentions the depreciation ... but is it there? JIMp talk·cont 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's in several different places; needs to be rewritten to one, clear place, including mention of WP:NBSP on delinked dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Tony, thanks. You're right about adding the editors' note at the top. Sandy, yes, there should be   between day & month. JIMp talk·cont 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

July 14 Dispatch[edit]

Ha, ha, meter at 2, you're gonna get hit ! I have to start adding a front-end to the interview of Rick Block by David Fuchs at WP:FCDW/July 14, 2008; any ideas for a title? His bot generates the stats for WP:WBFAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

July 21 Dispatch[edit]

Hi Tony. Sandy suggested that since you are at low workload right now that you and I could collaborate on the history of FAC dispatch for July 21. I'm hopeful right now that my workload will be bearable this week, although I might suddenly discover within the next day or two that I'll be working godawful hours for the rest of the week. Anyway, I haven't thought about the history of FAC since I started writing that draft a few months ago. Do you have ideas on what the dispatch ought to include? I'll revisit the draft and try to get back in that mindset today. Karanacs (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree[edit]

When you get a chance, could you please stop by and check out the copy-editing on this article. I saw that your IRL meter went back to "2" and this seems like the right time to ask you about it. JRP (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I see Sandy beat me to the punch. Sorry for the double dip. JRP (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to check the copyediting on this, that's great, and if you want to break up the job, please give me feedback on my copyedit (well, almost all mine), which was largely independent of everything that followed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dispatch[edit]

You're than language pro :P I've started at the clarifications. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America[edit]

Tony, you said "prose is passable" at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America; did you intend to strike your earlier oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
It is hard to appreciate criticism during an FAC, but I always appreciate your skills and comments after the fact, independent of whether the FAC was successful or failed. Thank you. – sgeureka tc 10:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

nbsp in non-autolinked dates[edit]

Tony, the response I got when I recommended to TTT not to autolink dates was, "have any other FACs delinked full dates?" I don't know the answer. I know it's not many. I think if we ask people to put nbsp's in the middle, on top of asking them to do something they see few or no other people doing, that's probably going to kill it off. Do you think we could omit that recommendation, on the grounds that it doesn't match the recommendation to use nbsp when confusion might arise (2 cm, but not 2 centimetres), and on the grounds that the point of our new recommendation is to put the ball back in the court of the devs who are supposed to be automating user date preferences, and as long as they're automating that, they can tell the renderer not to break the line, too? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd much rather not deal with hard-spaces, but Sandy is pushing me. I think it should be a "consider using", not a firm recommendation. TONY (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
And we live with dangling dates that we don't have now? That trades one problem for another (and dangling numbers bug me as much as bluelinks bug you :-). Better would be more selective and informed delinking of certain key articles; its introduction to FAC so far has been less than optimal, with several misunderstandings. That could cause a problem; it would be good to remind some FAC reviewers that delinking is not required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the answer to Dan's question soon will be "yes", as several are doing it. Also, have a look at Samuel Johnson (which I did). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, on this, the wording at WP:NBSP is "Wikipedia recommends ..." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, do you agree with the point that if we ask people to insert nbsp's, on top of asking them to do something they don't see anyone else doing, it's probably going to kill it off? If we're going to kill it off, then I don't want to be recommending it when I'm copyediting. I don't have a strong preference (sorry, Tony!), I just want to know what to tell people. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You're asking the wrong question (WP:WIAFA says FAs comply with MoS, not one part of MoS at the expense of another). Are blue links worse than dangling numbers? I'd say stop recommending it across the board, and begin to apply it selectively to articles with a lot of dates and a sea of blue. Pushing it across every FAC isn't necessary and probably (rightfully) will create an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The last thing we need is to irritate editors/nominators. We need to bring them on board, and doing some of the hackwork at this initial stage by manually removing the lemon from the main text in the most cluttered nominations is a good investment in showing people that the sky won't fall in on us, and hey, look, it really is a better read. So I agree with Sandy about doing it selectively for the moment: choose the highly linked ones: my edit summaries say something like "Removing date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged by MOSNUM, to allow the high-value links to breathe." Usually convinces, and if not, I'll come into debates on talk pages to convince people to give it a go. In the end, if people object strongly, it's not worth picking fights, and is better to move on to improve the appearance and readability of another article that could do with our magic treatment. Thus, I agree with Sandy's advice, although Sandy and I are coming from slightly different perspectives on this: she is not completely won over by the primacy of managing the sea-of-blue issue. I'm working on her. TONY (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Several people are happy with Samuel Johnson (relieved to see the blue gone); if given a chance, people see the benefits. My concern is that it is being suggested across the board at FAC now as if it has to be done (it doesn't), and hasn't been applied or explained accurately, so you've got the setup for a real problem. I don't think it should be forced, and when I see four FACs delinked incorrectly in one day, I know we have a problem. I hope you'll both keep an eye on the way this is being presented and explained at FAC, since I had to correct four FACs. And, part of the tradeoff is clean text in edit mode versus a bunch of NBSPs to make the text display correctly. We don't need every FAC being told to this; it's optional, and a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and the way I'm coming at this ... I don't enjoy having to step in on FACs to tell nominators they've done the wrong thing by following reviewer advice, and they need to start over, when their articles were actually fine before. That's a problem, and I hate to see nominators put in a position of chasing their tails, so y'all have to watch this carefully to make sure it's presented correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the instructions on my page. To me blue links are much worse than dangling numbers. Blue links interfere with my ability to read an article; dangling numbers do not. So I am on the side of doing away with the links when possible, whether or not NBSPs are added. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll freely admit to having been one of those who was resistant to removing date autoformatting, but the example of Samuel Johnson has changed my mind. What's confirmed me in that change of heart is that in more than one article I've subsequently removed the autoformatting from the dates were formatted inconsistently; something that we as logged in users don't see but visitors—the people who really matter—do. And if this initiative encourages the developers to work on a proper date autoformatting mechanism, then so much the better. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Partly because we did Samuel Johnson right from the beginning :-) We got them all, including citations, and with NBSPs. What we don't want, though, is ...
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog on 8
December 1756, and then ate Little Red Riding Hood.
or The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog on December
8, 1756, and then ate Little Red Riding Hood.
Hanging, split dates are as awful as the blue links. I did it right on Johnson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps even worse I think. I may have got this wrong, but I don't think that the current autoformatting prevents those kinds of dangling dates anyway, not without being wrapped up in a {{nowrap}}. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I could be wrong, too, but I'm pretty sure it's built-in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Malleus is right. It is very easy to try out and see that autoformatting does not force dates to hang together. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
My curiosity was tickled, so I had to check; it isn't. I just looked at the HTML source for a date and it looks like this:
<a href="/wiki/February_20" title="February 20">20 February</a>
No nonbreaking space in there. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Built in by some other mechanism: they never wrap. Slide the page cursor thingie on your browser and you'll see the entire dates never split (year included). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Take it back, the year does split. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Retract: I was finally able to force one to split. So they do split under the current system (but the blue link helps the eye see them as one). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
So, is the glass half-full or half-empty? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Depends on your outlook, I guess :-) I hate dangling "stuff" as much as Tony hates bluelinks, so I'll always add NBSPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The same method separates the date from the month just as easily in autoformatted dates. So NBSPs should be added to autoformatting also, if that is possible, if you want to stop the dangling "stuff". —Mattisse (Talk) 21:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
In this case a lot of people got used to the day spilling onto the next line and splitting from the month. Just like when someone's (talk) link is on the next line from their actual signature; looks awkward but you get used to it. Which is why my own signature has &nbsp; all over :) Gary King (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The irony is perhaps that if Tony hadn't undertaken this crusade you wouldn't have realised that autoformatting doesn't prevent the dangling date you (and I) dislike so much. So from that perspective as well as Tony's dislike of the sea of blue, removing autoformatting wins again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
So far, I'm not aware of anyone arguing against the implementation; the issue was that the first four FAC implementations were wrong (delinking only month-day combos and not full dates, and no consistency in citations). I think Tony's mission is going swimmingly :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
So do I, and I'm now a zealous convert to it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Curb your enthusiasm, young man !! (Howdya like the "young" part? :-) We don't want FAC to be overtaken by strictly MoS issues, to open up criticism that we don't review ... um ... Tony's other thing (1a). And then, we have to deal with my current headache (3). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

NBSP part 2[edit]

(outdent) So do NBSPs have to be added to dates that are not autoformatted, since the autoformatted ones break anyway and we have lived with that all this time? Only the nonautoformated dates can be made unbreakable. Seems unnecessary to have to add NBSPs only to nonautoformatted dates, since breaking autoformatted dates did not kill us. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NBSP; it's clearly stated. You can research the talk page history to see who added it, when and why. When it was added, there must have been a discussion and consensus; the issue at FAC is enforcing MoS equally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it is. But, to play devil's advocate, autoformatting didn't prevented dangling dates, so why the new requirement to prevent dangling dates? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Darn ec. Because when Tony added it, it was based on consensus at MOS central. Next, to find that discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Good gosh, those are some of the worst archives I've ever encountered. I had to find it in edit history instead. It appears to be based on Chicago Manual of Style: [4]. And, I will resist efforts to remove it (don't like the whim-of-the-day MoS changes, dropping and adding things to our convenience ... if it's based on CMOS, there's a good reason). The question is not what faulty Wiki software does or doesn't do; it's what other professional publications and style guides recommend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I was only playing devil's advocate, I actually agree with you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If the rationale was faulty, as it appears to be, and based on misinformation, perhaps the issue should be revisited. Being rule bound for no reason does not make sense to me. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Does looking back in archives to understand what consensus was at the time the addition was made make sense? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering that people have been fixated on autoformatting as a result, I am skeptical. But this is your area, so you decided. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The logical conclusion now is that autoformatting should be forbidden, as NBSPs cannot be added. Therefore, the rules are being broken. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That does seem to be the inevitable conclusion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No. The addition Tony made to MoS applied to dates that aren't autoformatted (see WP:NBSP, "between month and day in dates that are not autoformatted"). I don't know what it means until Tony, who added it and who has the CMOS, explains the intent vis-a-vis other style guides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You can be sure that the CMOS does not address autoformatting. It is clear autoformatting has been obsessively supported until now. There is no logical reason to allow autoformatting to break the rules, is there? So why have a rule that the most popular format breaks? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I now realise that autoformatted dates DO wrap across lines. Hmmmph: do you mean you put me through all of that angst because you want to ADD a function as we get rid of the autoformatting.


It's hard enough getting people to change by removing the auto-lemon; I'm not at ALL in favour of suddenly adding an impost at the same time—the hard space makes it MUCH more arduous to do mechanically. I don't mind if it's automatic, but in no way am I supporting the hard-space now I've realised that WE DON'T EVEN HAVE IT NOW WITH THE AUTO-LEMON. TONY (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony, you lost me. I still have no idea why you added NBSP on dates at WP:NBSP; I can't find it in the discussion linked at MoS central.[5] Dates were not part of my argument in that discussion. ?? What did I put you through? I'm just following what's in WP:NBSP. The nbsp on month-days is in NBSP, has been for a while, and you added it, so I'm really lost here. I thought I was following what you added to MoS. :-) It was your addition, but I'm not sure what it was based on (CMOS I guess?) SandyGeorgia (Talk)

It's got nothing to do with CMOS; I don't know why that has entered the conversation. If I'd known that the recent changes to hard spaces at MOS were going to add this impost when getting people not to auto-lemon, I'd never have agreed to it. Look, a hard-space is nice, but it's a TERRIBLE impost to have to type in those awkward keys in the absence of a short-cut (a major fault in the wiki program). Now I'm very feeling very happy if people DON'T bother with the hard space when they remove the double square-brackets. My macro will still add the hard space, but I don't want to complain about missing hard-spaces when dates have NEVER been hard-spaced. TONY (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, our messages are getting crossed. You added the month-day NBSP months ago; I'm trying to understand why. I was guessing it was CMOS. I've only been applying what you added to MoS (NBSP) over a month ago (June 8). I didn't understand it then, but I don't follow all the MoS talk discussions, and I repeatedly asked for links to previous discussions then. I assumed it was something that had been discussed elsewhere. I don't know what you mean by agreeing to NBSPs on month-days as if it was my thing: it was your addition months ago. I had nothing to do with it. Why was it added then ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it should be removed, given the circumstances. MOSNUM now says "consider inserting ...". That's quite enough, in my opinion. I'll deal with this later today. TONY (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I want to wade into this discussion uninvited, but should we also be using NBSP in ship names? It seems that prefixes (HMS, USS, etc.) serve in the same capacity as the other adjectival forms where NBSP is appropriate. However, I'm not a MOS expert (either Wikipedia, Chicago, etc.) so I'm not sure whether this is with precedent or if I am misunderstanding the circumstances where this is correct usage. (So, I'd be suggesting USS&nbsp;Defiant instead of USS Defiant.JRP (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New date info[edit]

Tony, based on History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942), I'm now aware of two more date issues, with the {{citation}} template (which that article uses, instead of the other family of citation templates, cite web, cite journal, cite book, etc.). The citation template is used with Harvard referencing and it prefers ISO unlinked dates, which it automatically standardizes to Day Month Year. But, none of the citation templates deal with dates before 1970-01-01; those have to be manually formatted. Hence, after you went through the Hockey article, I had to do this to one date. The citation dates are in a different format than the article dates, because {{citation}} forces unlinked dates to Day Month Year, while the article uses Month Day, Year. Have a look. And you have to always handle older dates (before 1970) differently, even on the citet family of templates; I had to force that one manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, this is valuable information. So the message for a dummy like me is ... when you see the curly bracket and "citation", always check that the date is in British/Australian format within? BTW, I found a wrongly formatted date in the main text in going through it—my macro screwed up, and I couldn't work out why: ah, they put a wrong comma in. This all goes to show that (1) date autoformatting has been adopted in a chaotic way in templates, which needs to be addressed sooner or later; and (2) I'm finding just what Lightmouse predicted, that a surprisingly high proportion of autoformatted dates are wrongly input. Earlier today, I found a lone British one in a US-formatted article. So I'm now treating my removals from FAC as proper audits. I'll note this cite thing, and will alert you if I'm unsure in the future. Thanks. TONY (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Malleus alerted me to that on his talk page; our non-logged-in readers are our largest audience, who presumably deserve the most attention, but we're giving them the least: autoformatting has been hiding the fact that the non-logged-in users are seeing inconsistent date formats. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, they are our audience. I'm not writing for WPians; I'm writing for our readers out there. I'm too nervous to touch the dates within the templates now, for fear of messing things up. What I need is a short, simple list of dos and don'ts for each of this family of templates. I'm most concerned that if I'm going to bother auditing dates in just about every FAC, I may as well clean up erroneous dates in the templates that our readers see. At the moment, I lack clear directions on how, what, where and when. The templates are turning out to be our worst enemy. TONY (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Premature, since David Ruben is working on them. And, they change so often, I couldn't put together that list if I wanted to. Notice that on TS, I did citations manually so I could avoid the whims of Wiki citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


I believe there is something in WP:NBSP that also mandates the use of nbsp in non autoformatted dates and now is being used as a reference to require them. Is this the intent? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have discovered that, empirically, adding NBSP does not prevent the dates from breaking at approximately the same point they would break anyway, without their addition. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, perhaps I am wrong on that. I may have tested the wrong element. I think, in general, breakage is unlikely. That is why no one has noticed until now that autoformatting does not prevent it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly right, it just doesn't happen that often. Autoformatting has never prevented it though, so insisting on the nonbreaking space between the day and month is adding to the requirements.--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my feeling, Malleus, which is why I've been bold and removed the recommendation from both MOS and MOSNUM (they were inserted in parallel only a month or two ago, without realising the implications for this turn on autoformatting. I agree entirely that if no one noticed the fact that auto dates have been line-breaking, it should only be a "consider inserting ...", not a "do it". This is the current state. As far as I'm concerned, I'm quite happy without; however, don't be alarmed that my semi-automatic macros for removing autoformattings one by one in an article do insert the hard-space (why not, since it's no trouble). TONY (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you use a semi-bot, MS Word macro, or something else? Feel like sharing? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC comment moved[edit]

Tony, I found old commentary at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Museum of Curiosity which you seem to have intended for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Puerto Rican Amazon. (I might not have noticed until much later, except for Johnbod's comment.) I moved it there; please double check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree has been copyedited and needs a revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

One more[edit]

Tony, are you running through a lot of FACs lately?  :-) On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Insane Clown Posse, just underneath a long and solid Oppose that you entered two days ago (that appears to be unaddressed), you entered a Support and a comment that you hadn't opposed. Which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking dates[edit]

I am glad to have your attention. It seems to me that there are two issues:

  1. Should full dates be linked?
  2. Should linked dates be autoformatted?

As I understand it the answer to 1 is yes and you are saying the answer to 2 is no. My problem is that I do not quite understand the meaning of autoformatted. I hope I am understanding the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are talking fast and loose with someone who does not really understand the issues. When you talk of stripping auto-lemon (which I assume means autoformatting), are you delinking dates or deformatting linked dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As Tony says, the first will happen: given that auto-formatting cannot be abolished without some help from above I cannot see us receiving, the dates will be de-linked and with them the auto-formatting will be gone. Personally, I am perfectly fine with this, and I do wonder what exactly the benefit of linking dates is. The links are rather useless, and much worthier ones are drowned by the resulting blue. The only problem I can see (apart from the necessity to correct the inconsistencies), not so much with the de-linking of dates as with the transition from one format to another, is the use of hard spaces. More specifically, how to persuade people to use them. Having them as prerequisites for passing FAC is too much, but they should be recommended in some way. I am allergic to dangling numbers; apparently, the only reason I hadn't noticed that dates broke was the blue mist covering everything. Waltham, The Duke of 23:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I thank His Grace for his supportive comments. However, I don't share his enthusiasm for the insertion of hard-spaces in normal dates. Please note that autoformatted dates do dangle. MOSNUM says "Please consider the insertion of" hard-spaces. I think that's sufficient at the moment, given the gobbledygook we have to type in to get a hard-space (another aspect that WikiMedia hasn't addressed). When I semi-automatically remove auto-lemon, I usually do insert the hard-space; when manually, I usually don't. TONY (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you don't need to type it; there's a button in the character box, first row. Other than that, I realise that it's intrusive, but it's all we have, and I think it's worth it. I've just (in the last couple of days) started removing dates, manually, but I intend to enter hard spaces in every case. Manual checking also has the benefit of often unveiling further errors, although in my case there are no alternatives. Still, I can't complain; wikEd has a nice search-and-replace function.
Oh, and something else... How on Earth have you come up with "auto-lemon"? It's... Urm... Well, it's weird. I think you're trying too hard to sound contemptuous of auto-formatting. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 15:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

O.K. you have gone off on another tangent which confuses my basic understanding of the date. It sounds like Waltham is saying both linking dates and autoformatting is a problem. Don't confuse me with hard spaces at this point because I don't understand that either. While Waltham makes is point of opposing both, Tony1 only seems to oppose autoformatting and does some sort of alteration to maintain the link if I am understanding correctly. As an example, can you show me how I should correct the first paragraph of yesterday's WP:TFA:

Guitar Hero is a music video game developed by Harmonix Music Systems and published by RedOctane for the PlayStation 2 video game console. It is the first entry in the Guitar Hero series. Guitar Hero was released on November 8 2005 in North America, April 7 2006 in Europe and June 15 2006 in Australia. The game's development was a result of collaboration between RedOctane and Harmonix to bring a GuitarFreaks-like game to North America.

The problem is that autoformatting and linking are the same thing. For the sake of a cheap and cherful solution the developers decided to overload linking in the case of dates to include autoformatting. So, to address your specific example, the date in the first paragraphy of yesterday's TFA would be formatted like this: "November&nbsp;8 2005", i.e., with a nonbreaking space between the month and day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Malleus: I think His Grace values non-breaking spaces much more highly than I and many others do. Considering that the existing autoformatting system fails to stop dates wrapping over a line, I don't know what the fuss is about. Put simply, November 8, 2005 is input as [[November 8]], [[2005]]. This doesn't prevent the "8" appearing on a new line; the fact that this rarely occurs and has never been an issue (I wasn't even aware of whether autoformatting did or didn't allow wrapping should be taken into account. I don't mind if someone wants to remove the formatting thus: Novemember&nbsp;8, 2005 and in fact this is the way I've been doing it, mostly, via a semi-automatic process on Microsoft Word, simply because it inserts the non-breaking space automatically. However, a much better way has just emerged, and it doesn't (at the moment) insert a non-breaking space. I just don't care enough about it to apply pressure for this to be added to the new way. So, when the autoformatting code is removed, what everyone sees is the same, and there's no concealing from us WPs what is seen at large: November 8, 2005. Pure and simple; hardly ever breaks to the next line, as now.
Autoformatting and linking, sadly, use the same coding mechanism, but their function is totally different. So, to respond to your query, Malleus, your excerpt would be like this:

Guitar Hero is a music video game developed by Harmonix Music Systems and published by RedOctane for the PlayStation 2 video game console. It is the first entry in the Guitar Hero series. Guitar Hero was released on November 8, 2005 in North America, April 7, 2006 in Europe and June 15, 2006 in Australia. The game's development was a result of collaboration between RedOctane and Harmonix to bring a GuitarFreaks-like game to North America.

The high-value links are now more prominent, which is good for everyone, and we can be sure that what we see is what our readers see. Does this answer your question, Malleus? BTW, no one's forcing anyone to de-autoformat. But when I apply the script, no one seems to complain at all. See MJ entry below, where he's responding to the de-autoformatting, not copy-editing. TONY (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There may be some confusion here; I wasn't making any query. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone will take the time to clear all of this up at MoS before it spills over to an issue at FAC; the jargon is familiar to those who follow MoS, but not necessarily to others. The writeup at MoS is unclear to some editors, who are confused by this whole thing, as TonyTheTiger is ... and, it's spread across several sections at MoS. Further confusion, there are posts on TonyTheTiger's page about this being some new discovery, when Tony1 has actually been working on this issue for ... I think ... at least a year; not everyone understands what this is all about. Tony1, using words like auto-lemon isn't giving clarity to those who have no idea what the relationship is between date linking and autoformatting (two separate but related concepts), and the jargon at MoS doesn't help. Some editors perhaps don't know about or have their user preferences set, and editors coming new to this issue might not even know what it's about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure why MoS is unclear about it—you're referring to MOSNUM, yes? I suppose you're right in that WPians, new and old, have blindly accepted it, many without knowing what the hell it was about. Now disentangling it is our job. Is the text at MOSNUM unclear? I thought not. You have a point about MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT. I can't see how it can be reduced to fewer than two (merge CONTEXT into MOSLINK). They say virtually the same thing; problem? TONY (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tony! I feel very clear about it. It has just taken some people by surprise, I think, and until they think about it they see it as more complex than it really is. As you say, many have blindly accepted it without question. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

O.K., now I think I understand that linking dates in any way is considered autoformatting. You are a proponent of a movement to delink all dates in the text. Now that I have that out of the way, can I ask if you are taking this movement to the MOS pages so that if I follow your advice and stop adding new date links as well as start delinking dates on site, I won't run into people saying I am vandalizing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your post on my userspace, yes I concur linking dates is among the most useless type of linkage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse FAC[edit]

I cleaned up the article per your concerns. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

  • Hi. Since Laser brain striked his opposing of the article's FAC, you might want to reconsider your review of the article's FAC status. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
    • Actually, you did oppose the FAC, and you haven't striked your opposing vote. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

I didn't make it past the lead: a wordnerd needs to look at the dash/hyphen problem. I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi, I noticed that you edited a quote from a book in one of the citations. I assume that was a mistake, correct? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

MJ copy edit[edit]

Thank you for the mini copy edit of the Jackson article. Glad to see someone is up to date with the latest rules around MoS. — Realist2 (Speak) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, does this new guideline extend to dates that are wiki linked in the British notation/style? Sometime I contribute to British articles see. — Realist2 (Speak) 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Great, I support this strongly, I feel that we over wiki link at wikipedia. When there is so much blue it is distracting. Also thank you for the detailed response. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Friend of Noetica[edit]

Hi Tony. Yes, he's also mentioned you to me, more than once. Thanks for getting in touch. I'm sure we have interests in common. I wasn't aware of HWV258, but now that I've checked him/her out, he/she may be interested in my very recent edit (about an hour ago) to George Frideric Handel's talk page about his date of birth. As might you. I'd be interested in your views. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Duh!! Silly me. How could I fail to notice the sig on that page was the same as on this page? That's a sure sign I'm approaching (or have entered) a Wiki-manic phase. Time to slow down, get outside for a while and smell the roses. But that's for tomorrow; there's far too much work to be done here tonight. I have not yet actually solved all the problems with all our 2,000,000+ articles, and until I have achieved my glorious quest I shall not rest. Here I could quote Robert Frost, but that'd be way too predictable for my liking.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Maury (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As a side note[edit]

Is the a reason that you don't want to be an admin? I thought you were won so was quite surprised to see a user box like that. You would have no problem getting through an RfA and I imagine there are many well respected editors who would nominate you. Recently I had a discussion at the RfA talk page about a few concerns I had. At certain hours of the day it is is hard to find an admin and the request page protection can go unanswered for hours. I've see you edit in these quiet hours so we definitely need an admin like you. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, but after my horrendous RfA a few years ago, which I completely mishandled, I'll never go there again. I have absolutely no confidence that RfA weeds out unsuitable people, and such an unmediated process can easily become an abusive, medieval trial. Since then, I've trashed so many FA candidates and been rather uncivil to so many people that the knives would come out immediately: my back would be porous. In any case, I'm quite unsuitable to the admin role, since doing mop and bucket would bore me. I'd rather do mop and bucket writing "how to write" guides, which require a huge amount of hum-drum formatting. On that subject, you may be interested in having a snoop around the page I just finished today: feedback on how to improve it is welcome on the talk page there. The first set of exercises—all I've done thus far—focuses on the use of hyphens and dashes.
Know your Manual of Style. TONY (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have only been here, 13 months so I can't remember your RfA but you have always been civil in my presence, I image you do get a few enemies with the FA thing, but you have to be honest otherwise FA won't be a high standard. Regards. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Date formating[edit]

Tony, you mentioned somewhere you had a script for delinking dates; can you show me where and how to get it please. I spend a fair amount of time delinking dates, linked single years in particular are annoying. So an automated script would be most welcome. I've often though a dedicated 'delinking' bot would be very useful. ( Ceoil sláinte 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a disease, isn't it. The script is dead easy and works very well, but you will need to scrunitise the diff afterwards to ensure that there were no screw-ups. Usually there aren't, but of course removal exposes the underlying inconsistencies in formatting within an article—inconsistencies that I believe should be exposed, since all of our readers out there see them, and they need to be fixed.
The script also needs to be applied judiciously and with sensitivity, at least at this early stage—possibly with a warning on the talk page if you foresee trouble: there's a band of people who say they don't care whether autoformatting is used or not, but find the fact that MOSNUM no longer encourages autoformatting insufficient to support the use of a script to remove it. TONY (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You have to appreciate that this is difficult for those only shouting from the ditchs and not following the argument closely; but is it ok now to delink full dates? eg 10 May, 2008. In both article body and refs? Anyway where is the script? ( Ceoil sláinte 01:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
O, and I hope you don't mind me saying this, but I prefered you when you were Tony, rather that TONY; the caps has the effect of intimidating people that don't already know you :) ( Ceoil sláinte 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
How's this? Tony (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice. How about letting me in on that sript though? ;0 ( Ceoil sláinte 02:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm around as well if there's something you need to do to hook me up with the semibot, Tony. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
As a stray aside [6], of all the versions of Tosca I've heard or seen; no better. Not sure if you go as far as Pucinni, but thought it was worth a mention. ( Ceoil sláinte 02:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


See User talk:Bobblewik/unsorted archive#Date delinking (II) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question in 2006, see link above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "disruption" in the edit summary referred to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I should have linked it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not illustrating a point. I await your responses to the points I made, in particular, my request that you justify your linking of single years like 1951. TONY (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I answered your questions in 2006 (see link above). If that's not to your liking, sorry for you, but the answers I gave then are still by and large valid. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Singular purpose on Wikipedia[edit]

I've decided to narrow my tasks to just copy-editing; I can't keep up with the bull anymore — especially in the fiction section of the encyclopedia. People can tear down our research and/or articles, but they cannot tear down good prose — if it is in the more notable sections of the project. Besides, I need to polish up my writing skills anyway. — Deckiller 03:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Good man. You have an uncanny ability to pick up wasted words—ones that I don't see, anyway. Before we know it, you'll be teaching business writing. Tony (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France[edit]

Hey Tony. Hopefully I've resolved most of you comments. Please let me know what you are happy with. I am going to ask a couple of people to just finish polishing the prose, but hopefully everything else is done. Thanks. - Shudde talk 07:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dashes and hyphens again[edit]

Tony, the lead at Forksville Covered Bridge needs dash/hyphen surgery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that the dashes and hyphens in the opening paragraph are correct; do you have time to look? I thought 10-foot-long bridge was hyphenated. I thought truss-covered was hyphenated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
hmmm, it's not a truss-covered bridge, so are there commas missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony; I'm still unsure on the arch and truss relationship, but at least the unsightly hyphens on the length are corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Just wanted to let you know Ed's RFA was closed some time ago. SQLQuery me! 09:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Another goof of mine. Must look properly at the notice at the top. Sorry! Tony (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No probs. :) You'd be surprised how often it happens. There was some guy who supported an RfA three months after its closure! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi! sory to take a bit - been a busy coupl e weeks with preparing for my father's visit. I asked Durova to MOS-check and copyedit the descriptions of the two early Edison cylinder recordings: Could you have another look at them? Thanks! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Forksville Covered Bridge help[edit]

Hi Tony, thank you for your support and comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Forksville Covered Bridge. I have two questions for you. I just changed decimal feet (i.e. 152.9 feet) to feet and inches (152 feet 11 inches) per the FAC. I am not sure if dashes are required or not, and SandyGeorgia said to ask your advice. Second, if you have the time, you also mentioned adding a bit from the history to the lead, but I was not sure which bit you meant. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for the duplication with Sandy's message, it was not obvious to me from the TOC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that {{convert}} will take feet and inches as input, so the problem is fixed. Thanks anyway and sorry to bother you. If you do want to let me know the bit to add to the lead, please let me know - yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to the lead - they give me a clearer idea of how to redo the lead. I am quite busy right now and will not be able to make many edits for the next several hours though. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Forksville Covered Bridge.jpg <font=3> Thanks again for your contributions, support, and comments - Forksville Covered Bridge made featured article today!
Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Forksville Covered Bridge Interior 3.jpg
Despite making FA, I still plan to do a bit more cleanup on the article and will do my best to address your comments. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ellipses in quotes[edit]

Tony, do you know of any consensus on whether an ellipsis is required if a quotation doesn't begin with the first word of the quoted sentence? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ellipsis needs serious attention at MOS, and I can't bring myself to do it—not yet, anyway. Certainly, if you're "winding quoted text into a WP sentence like this", you'd never use an opening ellipsis. In these circumstances, BTW, MOS does say you can change a sentence-initial upper-case letter to lower case: fair enough, since it looks so ugly not to. I think an opening ellipsis is required at the start of a blockquote (that's my feeling) and wherever else it's important to show that you're opening your quoted material mid-sentence. As for the square brackets around the ellipsis dots, I've never been entirely comfortable with them, and I suspect it's unclear at MOS. Again, can't bear to look.

On these general points, I might ask Anderson's opinion. TONY (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Can't bear to look" knows the feeling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first time you've ever said "ask Anderson"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the second time. TONY (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In academic work, you indicate that you have adjusted case by "[p]utting square brackets about the letter". If I were actually quoting something, this would give fair warning that the matter quoted was originally the beginning of the sentence. If we adopt this convention, which would be compatible with the quote exactly standard we otherwise support, then the only reason to open with ellipsis is to show that you are omitting significant material; "winding quoted text into a WP sentence like this" implies that winding is not the beginning of a sentence.
The guidance question is: do we want to mention/suggest/recommend/require "[p]utting..."? I would mention it but no more; it can be very forbidding.
There are occasional rare cases where you might want to begin with an ellipisis anyway, but the only two I can think of offhand are: When Lincoln said "... our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation," a very evident omission, and The integers, "...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3,...", where there is no beginning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Anderson—good comments. But just one thing: can you really cope with the clunkiness of this over this (see two little quotes in the lead, with "[b]" and "[c]". Isn't it splitting hairs in the context? TONY (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Probably this is further than we want to go. But a real treatment of this involves how exact do we have to be about quotations as a whole, on which there is no consensus.
    • One problem with "[p]utting" is that this machine, and likely others, will break after the [p]; my own comment above is doing so. This is probably worse than inaccuracy over the capitalization. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, I hadn't even thought of that disadvantage. I guess it comes up in no other context. You must edit on a laptop for it to break there. That's hard. I can strongly recommend a 61 cm (24 in) desktop monitor; couldn't do with less. Tony (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question for you[edit]

I asked this one at the Pump, but no one answered. It's about date-linking. Having long opposed the practice and ignored it whenever I add content to articles or write them - along with numerous other MoS tenets - I have recently started hewing more closely to MoS guidelines. Now that I look, though, I can find little guidance on whether date-linking is even recommended. I understand there has been some back-and-forth on the issue, but isn't there some sort of consensus? And if not, wouldn't we do well to forge one? Personally, I'd kill date-linking forever if I could, but hey :D Mr. IP (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded at IP's talk page. Tony (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That's excellent news indeed; thanks for the reply. One of the things I have always feared about conforming to the MoS was engaging in this practice, which I have never even understood the rationale for. It just seems like a straight-up contradiction of our general linking policy. I'd be happy to help with any automated efforts, and will pop over to that talk page. Thanks again. Mr. IP (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft[edit]

Hopefully I've resolved most of you comments. Please let me know if I made it worst. Thank you for your comments also. --Reorion (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

July 21 Dispatch[edit]

Wikipedia:FCDW/July 21, 2008 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking ahead, no hurry: Wikipedia:FCDW/July 28, 2008. That would make Wikipedia:FCDW/August 4, 2008 available for the monthly updates, if you want it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I do it anyway, so it's not as though it's extra work. This time, it will have to be a squeeze: new batch of short-job clients starting Thursday slowly ... ramping up next week, then I'm skiing first week in August. After that, free again. Tony (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lions (album) FAC[edit]

Hey there. Could I get you to take another look at Lions (album)? I've given it a substantial copyedit with help from Ceoil and Deckiller. —Zeagler (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and support. Your guides have been very helpful, as well. Am I correct in assuming that, since you didn't strike your original comment, you believe the prose now meets the criterion but further copyediting is still in order? —Zeagler (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite web[edit]

I see that {{cite web}} is now auto-formatting dates in its date parameter. This now means the hundreds of pages I have added brackets around the dates look silly and the thousands of pages using the template will now have autoformatted dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well. I knew it didn't have an easy fix, so I stayed away. It's hard to tell what they've done, but just every FA I've checked is now messed up. Oh, except for one, whose author had the foresight to stay away from the darn cite templates and do them manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we need to be using the {{cite web}} template any longer? I've used the {{citation}} template in my FAC, and it seems to work just fine. Or have I missed something? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Strike that, I see I missed something. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
They were only fiddling with cite web, and it's now reverted. I'm not sure what they were trying to achieve, but it doesn't seem in line with my understanding of what I thought they were aiming for. What has yet to be done, and what needs to be done, is a coordinated discussion of *all* of the different templates so that they fix everything globally. Not My Job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What I can't figure out is why they are working to link cite templates rather than delink them. Oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The {{citation}} template seems to do the job perfectly adequately, so far as I can see. (I've fixed the issue that caused me to strike my earlier comment.) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is a new set easier than patching on the fly? The day the fields in WP:CITET match could be an international holiday. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously. I've been scratching my head over why that isn't addressed (globally), and why they don't make {{Citation}} agree with the other cite family, and *then* worry about fiddling with date formatting last. Priorities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has been reverted. I think they fixed so that it handles brackets and no brackets the same.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Iran is a huge and developed nation(nuclear technology, continental missiles, and many many other things), however these are not reflected and only some untruth propagandas are reflected to the world. with great ancient history (Persian Empire). and it is like a bridge between Roman and Indian cultures and european countries and Asian countries, having and influenced both of the cultutres. i.e. western(France, German) and eastern countries (like China and India). Thats why I placed it between.

France, UK, ... , Iran, ..., China, India.

This is their own problem that they are confusing a Semitic (arabic) word Iraq (originally in arabic pronounced as ARAGH!) with Aryan (Indo-european) word Iran (which is meaning Land of Aryans)! --Wayiran (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not persisting to place it there, I just wanted to say my reason for doing so. --Wayiran (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Of course i check i take a look at the discography. I think i always does a good job, its nothing about who the nominator is okay so don't worry okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Tony, where does the MOS say that autoformats can't be used? I saw your edits to Madman Muntz and don't understand the decision to remove date autoformatting and replace with straight text. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reponse on Consequence's talk page. Tony (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sounds fine to me. Thanks for posting the info to the talk page. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor?[edit]

Would you mind reading over the F-20 Tigershark article and comment on any prose you find tortured? You seem to have a much better feel for this than I do, and I'd like to get as much of it patched up before I go to FA with it. Maury (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Script for removing date-autoformatting[edit]

Hi Tony, I want to try out your script for removing autoformatting. I've added the script to my monobook.js, replaced your name four times with mine, and refreshed my cache. Now what? How do I make the script run? I am reminded of my grandfather, who kept yelling "Whoa!" to his car. I have been yelling "Run!", but the script just sits there, smirking. Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to any article you want to run it on. Click "edit this page". At the top you'll see a row of tabs (history, move, unwatch ... further over to the right (you may have to widen your window or scroll horizontally) there's a tab that says "all dates". Click on it. The autoformatting will be removed in a flash. Wait for it to produce the diff below (could take a few seconds). Inspect the diff and check for any glitch that might have occurred. Save.
Let me know how it goes. Tony (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem. Somehow—I still don't see why—half the instructions weren't showing. I've fixed it, though. I'd still follow my manual installation instructions until I sort out a query with Gary King (re his short-cut suggestion above). Tony (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
No luck so far. I've never used the monobook for anything, and it may be that I've set it up incorrectly. I'll do some more research and try to figure out if that's the case. Finetooth (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
How about trying Gary's suggestion of a short-cut above. Blank your monobook page and paste in the simple import instructions, with parentheses and quotes. Tony (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Yes, that did it. In answer to Gary's question about bypassing the browser cache, yes, I used Control F5 after each change to the monobook. Now I will try out the script, hooray! Thank you both for hanging in there and talking me through this. Finetooth (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem, Finetooth! Tony (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I was wondering if I could use the script that I saw you use on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7) and The O.C. (season 1). I saw the link to User:Tony1/monobook.js in the summary, "Script-assisted removal of date-autoformatting per MOS. Main text and table now consistent". Is this the only thing I would need to copy to my userspace or are additional .js or .css pages required? Also, how do you run it? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 04:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

By all means, Matthew. To be on the safe side, I usually paste an explanatory text on the talk page of the article a couple of days before applying the script, asking for feedback; I haven't yet encountered objections this way [Correction: two objections out of about 50.]. I'm sometimes bold in FLCs and apply the script with only the edit summary as advice where some dates are autoformatted and some aren't (in the main text and the table(s)), or when I know the nominator if fine with it.
Here are the instructions for installation and usage. The aim is to make WP better for our readers where possible, without upsetting anyone; please remember that many WPians don't understand autoformatting and the complex issues surrounding it, and that others may non necessarily go along with the removal of autoformatting. Be measured!

I use two basic pre-written postings at talk pages. For all articles that are not nominations for featured content, I paste in this:

Dear fellow contributors: MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for raw date-formatting, irrespective of whether or not a date is autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links for our readers. Tony (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For FACs (and most FLCs), I paste in this text below; it deals explicitly with potential conflict of interest, and commits you to a bona fide disregarding of the issue in your review and declaration (you'd need to change the two "FAC"s to "FLC"s for featured-list nominations):

Dear contributors: MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for raw date formatting, irrespective of whether or not a date is autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. If anyone objects to my proposal to free the dates of autoformatting in the main text (using a script) in a day or two on a trial basis, please say so below. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

Critically, since I’m an FAC reviewer, I want to state in unequivocal terms that whether or not contributors object to this proposal will have absolutely no bearing on my review or declaration at FAC. I’m proposing the action because FAC is an influential process, not because nominators might feel under obligation—they shouldn’t. Tony (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony (talk)

Hi Tony. Thanks for the installation instructions. I'm unable to find the usage instructions though. I noticed your monobook.js page included User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js. I'm assuming this must be included in the copy/paste and not something that is completely separate from the date script, so I'm further assuming that there should be a new button or something to run the script. Unfortunately I can't find it. It also appears that Finetooth is having the same problem. Best, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I also noticed that Omegatron's script uses Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/addLink, though according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts, it's depreciated. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
All you need to do to get this script to work is place importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js'); in your monobook.js, and then click on "all dates" at the top of the page. I don't see what all the fuss is about? Gary King (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This short-cut would be excellent, but I'm just pursuing a few queries with Gary before changing my instructions to his suggested method. In the meantime, the manual copy and paste is recommended (see cap above). Tony (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The edit summary I get is "Script assisted. Units/dates/other", which doesn't show his name (but it links to his script, which I think makes sense so that if others want to use it then they use that one so any changes that are made will propagate to other people.) I'm not a big fan of complex installation instructions and messy code, which is why my monobook is nice and clean. Gary King (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

←Yes, you're perfectly right, Gary: Lightmouse has said this is fine. Simplifying procedure under the cap above. On the Omegatron thing, anyone who has suggestions, please let Lightmouse know. Tony (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

addLink can be replaced by addPortletLink When you remove datelinks [7] shouldn't the dates be consistently either DMY or MDY? Seems like it's only doing half the job. I have tools for the other half of the job. Gimmetrow 13:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the date links at FAs[edit]

I see you are running some sort of bot that removes the linked dates in FAs. Thank you! Those links were so unsightly and not at all helpful for the majority of Wikipedia's readers! I can read in peace now. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome, Awadewit! The move appears to be very popular, with rebuttal by a contributor at only two out of many many articles. Tony (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


This is not the correct way to proceed with this issue. You cannot point to any consensus and, because of your strongly held opinion, you are relying on personal experience which may involve an observer bias. The correct way to do this is not to try to sneak it through but to start a discussion aimed at changing the consensus, widely advertised. In this case, I would say that this needs to be mentioned at Village Pump, Community portal and even Recent changes. This is a very large issue (because of its long history on the project and in terms of the vast number of edits so it neeeds the widest discussion possible. Perhaps we could even get the developers to finally cook up an alternate nonlinking method if we make a big enough fuss (which I would find the optimal solution). Rmhermen (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I came here to say i support your removal of the auto date format. While I agree in principle, i've just noticed the comment above. I trust that procedurally all the "i"'s are dotted etc, and that there is consensus for such a (desirable) change. --Merbabu (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your supportive words. As I've said on that Rmherman's talk page, if it weren't so popular a move, her/his opinion might have traction. And ... what do we do that doesn't "rely on personal experience"? I don't like the accusation that I'm trying to "sneak" in a change. This sounds like an extremist stance.
But the clincher is that I typically post a note on the talk page beforehand inviting objections (none thus far, but it's early days); see the talk page of Australia, for example. At MOSNUM talk, where the address of the script has been linked by someone else, I've advised caution and sensitivity in the use of the script. After a trial of a hundred or more of those prior postings and subsequent applications of the script, we'll reconsider the issue.
I'm very happy for more people to be applying the script in this ask-first way. Please let me know if you wish to participate. I'm systemically going through certain categories of FA at the moment, although it's mostly a case of waiting sufficient time after posting the prior notice at this stage. Tony (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding my voice to the "please stop" side - there's no consensus whatsoever to proceed in this manner, and merely moving from page to page on an individual basis is not the proper way to go about this. While I'm confident that you mean well, a change of this magnitude requires a wider discussion and consensus. Further to this, the wording of your edit summary ("Script-assisted removal of date-autoformatting per MOS") leaves the impression that the MoS mandates removal of the formatting, which is certainly not the case. It is also generally discouraged to change from one optional format to another, as with spelling. --Ckatzchatspy 08:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
If it weren't such a popular move, and if the changes to optionality hadn't occurred so gradually over more than a year (at MOSNUM), your misgivings might have traction. Asking beforehand on talk pages seems a perfectly reasonable scheme. Out of many articles, only two people have objected, in which cases the change was not made. Ah, and one FL nominator who later changed his mind. Tony (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but please don't dismiss concerns with an offhand "might have traction." (Twice, actually.) The passion for this change originates from your personal preference to avoid the coloured links. As such, removing them from articles one-by-one (without seeking consensus for what is really a much larger-scale operation) is not the proper way to go about this. Look, I can understand your concern, and I think there is merit to the idea of handling the date-formatting and link system differently (as you've commented upon on your user page.) However, the solution is to fix the system, not to remove a useful feature based on personal preference. --Ckatzchatspy 19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that your "useful feature" has for too long been hiding what the casual readers of this site have always seen, inconsistent date formatting within a single article. I can think of no argument in favour of date autoformatting (as it's currently implemented), and I applaud Tony for his persistence in driving this issue. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your script at €2 commemorative coins[edit]

Hi there,

Thanks for running the script, however it seems it has a side effect, please see the changes it created and you will see a very weird line inserted. Please take a look before we revert that change.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Miguel—thanks for your feedback; we're dealing with this issue now, and in the meantime I've reverted the article, of course. Tony (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

M-28 FAC[edit]

It appears that the date issue at the FAC has been resolved by Polaron and myself? Did we miss any? Any further comments would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This concerns the use of ISO dates in the main text, which is quite separate from the autoformatting technical issues above. Tony (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there are so few dates linked in the text, and the reference templates are all auto-formated as well, my personal preference is to leave the text's dates alone for consistency. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, but perhaps centralise feedback on the talk page, where the post was made. Cheers. Tony (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely related to date linking[edit]

Tony, what is your opinion of how {{harvnb}} creates links in the Notes section to the appropriate reference? See how I'm doing this at musical instrument. It's blue everywhere, but it serves a different purpose than date autoformatting. I suppose I'd rather know your opinion now than later when I bring it to FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it very much in terms of its instant locating and highlighting of the reference/notes information. Pity they have to be blue. Why doesn't everyone use this? Tony (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The disadvantages are 1) increased load time, 2) increased complexity within text in coding, and 3) you have to navigate back via the "back" button, which may not be intuitive to readers. I don't object when others use Harvnbs, but I personally hate chunking up an article's load time (probably because I mostly work on very heavily cited medical articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess I like the template with its few in-text parameters over my alternatives. Cite xxx usually takes up two or more lines of text when you click Edit which intimidates a lot of editors. Also, you have to click Back if you go down to the Reference level, but if you are just viewing the note, you can click the carat before the citation to go back to the footnote you were on. I did not consider load time :( --Laser brain (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying they're a net negative, Laser; just pointing out to Tony some pros and cons. On Wiki, there are many methods of citation, and probably always will be; it's a fact we have to deal with, because WP:V is a core policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the causal logic in your last sentence. Why does V policy imply a plethora of citation templates? Tony (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Me a favor too?[edit]

Under off-wiki pressure or I would do it myself, but would there be any way you could list Comet Hale-Bopp at Featured Article Review for me? It was promoted back in early 2005, but I think it fails 1(a) and (c) and maybe (b). Specifically bad sections include "Unexplained" and "Hale-Bopp's legacy". If you're unable to do so, well, I guess you could ask someone else to, or I might get around to it when real life issues are resolved... but who knows when that will be. Mahalo, Tony. --Ali'i 15:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So that's a 'no' then. :-) Okay. I'll get around to it one of these days. Mahalo anyway. --Ali'i 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Tony, would it be possible for you to make reviewing Michael Jackson one of your priorities if you have the time. The article is currently doing well with 5 supports and one oppose, however it has put me under a lot of pressure and I'm not sleeping properly at all and beginning to feel sick. I'm seriously considering removing the nomination and having a good nights sleep. I would like to hear your thoughts, if you believe it is not up to standard I will probably remove it shortly for the benefit of my own health. — Realist2 (Speak) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a five hour sleep per your suggestion, then my dad woke me up, still I feel a little better and my watchlist didn't move which was great. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the age thing on the Jackson article per your talk page suggestion. — Realist2 (Speak) 22:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg[edit]

Tony, I found Ima Hogg partially delinked today: I finished the work. Consistency within featured articles is a concern (at least for me, in an article I've worked on); perhaps this script could be adjusted to do the full job so that articles aren't left with inconsistency in date formatting? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Conferring with Sandy on this. I can't identify where the inconsistency is, and whether it has merely made obvious to WPians what our readers have always seen. Tony (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The script is doing text, but leaving citations unadressed. In a "perfect world", an article shouldn't be left in a halfway state. If the text is going to be delinked, citations should be simultaneously corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See Ima Hogg after the script [8] and now. [9] In this case, I had to delink the date parameters and convert them from ISO to Month day, year, and move accessdate outside of the cite template, since cite templates are messed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
So the answer is simply to exclude that citation template from the script's ambit? You're talking to a dummy here. Tony (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I don't agree. I'm concerned only that the script doesn't mess up the citations. Those stupid citation templates can stay the way they are until the community cleans them up. The script does main text, except that I've noticed it does treat some citation templates well; we just need to exclude whatever that horrid ISO one is. Hate it. Tony (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Trying out the script on Balch Creek last night, I encountered the same thing as Sandy, and my solution was the same work-around. Cite web yields either a blue link (autoformatted) or a red link (not entered as 2008-05-05, for example). It won't tolerate deviation. My solution was to manually remove the accessdate parameter from each citation and to re-add it as "Retrieved on May 5, 2008" or whatever beyond the end of the template. This is a bit clumsy but makes the date-handling consistent throughout. Maybe the Citation set of templates would solve this problem more handily; I don't know because I have never used them. Finetooth (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Correct. It's not hard to understand and it's not hard to fix. Leaving FAs inconsistent and incompletely delinked is not optimal. If scripts are partially delinking dates, those articles should be completed. A halfway job trades one problem for another. As shown at Ima Hogg and Samuel Johnson, it's not rocket science and it is possible to leave an article in a conistent state. Leaving FAs in a partial state by an automated script doing half the job is not ideal. If a script is doing this, the entire picture should be corrected. Getting the cite templates fixed isn't hard, but nobody is paying attention. Citations are not inconsequential on Wiki; see WP:V (policy). They are at least as important as text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. The citation templates need to be fixed more broadly, and it's too much to ask the script to do any more than avoid them. They are often internally inconsistent, and that's what our readers already see. The script isn't a miracle worker: it works on the main text. If anything, once people change their attitude to bright-blue links in the main text, there should be significant pressure for action to coordinate the scripts and fix their technical vagaries. Until then, they can wallow. Tony (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, consistency within an article also matters. I worked on Ima Hogg, so I took the time to finish the job. I don't want any FA I've worked on left in a halfway state by a script. Notice that Samuel Johnson, Ima Hogg and Tourette syndrome are correctly and consistently delinked. The problems in the citation templates are the same problems in the text, and they are equally as important. Focusing on text and ignoring citation templates makes little sense to me; citations are an important part of our articles. I don't want a script leaving articles I work on halfway done, particularly when it won't take much effort to sort the whole issue correctly, if people will just pay attention. Finetooth figured it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It may end up being just busy work though, if the various templates are ever fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This topic is being discussed at Template talk:Cite web. I have no idea what they are talking about. Feel free to contribute there. Lightmouse (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that they know what they're talking about either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, why don't you go apply pressure on the cite-template people, then? Again, first things first, and cleaning up the main text is the priority. That is where autoformatting is the greatest disadvantage. Cite templates already cause a sea of ungainly blue right at the bottom of articles, thank god—huge tracts of ugly formatting—and just why there should be at least three of them has never been clear. They can fix their own house, I say, and I think you are entirely wrong to try to mix up that issue with that of the main text. Tony (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Tony, why is it that the "accessdate" parameter, per link provided by Sandy, is being removed and the replacement is like a manual editing (and outside the template). I thought ISO formatting is prefered. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Where did you get the notion that "ISO formatting is prefered"? Did you read that on a guideline page somewhere? WP:WIAFA and WP:MOSNUM both call for consistent citations, which the current cite templates can't provide because programmers are fiddling with them (and have actually made the problem worse). Further, cite web specifically says: "date: Full date of publication in the same format as the main text of the article. If in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17, must not be wikilinked; it will be linked automatically." The only current way to comply with WIAFA, MOS and this call for "same format" is to format the accessdate manually. Problem solved, not against any guideline that I know of and the only option open to us until the developers fix the mess they've created with cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Partial strike and see below, I quoted date not accessdate, and we're forced to use the awkward construct below for unlinked dates. In other words, they prefer ISO, automatically link them (going the wrong direction), and we have to key in a more complicated construct to have citations agree with the article (what article text ever uses ISO, so the cite tempaltes are backwards). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Cite web misdirected people to date=ISO until recently. But it doesn't say that for accessdates. Gimmetrow 04:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Further, anyone who wants to do it the hard way can do this instead, which will only work until the next time the developers mess with the templates, so the best solution IMO is to just avoid developer whims and do them manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hoorah, I wonder whether this call to do citations manually should be promulgated more widely than on this talk page? It seems to me that we're finally arriving at the realisation that the citation templates are a great disadvantage, not least of which is the surrendering of editorial control over the display. Why, I ask, is there a plethora of uncoordinated templates? And can someone tell me what the actual advantage is of using them? Are they not more work to key in than just doing it straight? I suspect that, like date autoformatting itself, this is a programmers' toy that has been unwisely embraced by the community.
The same programmers' wonkery can be seen in some infobox date templates, where it's clearly more complicated and takes longer to key in the info string than keeping it simple and manual, often with little or no advantage. Tony (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll tell you why I personally like the templates: it's almost obvious immediately when you've got something wrong. If you do references by hand, a host of errors can slip in, however careful you are. I should know: I'm currently trying to ensure that my book's 54-page bibliography is consistent. It's a bloody nightmare, especially with fiddly things such as multivolume works or journals in Spanish (am I putting in the dates of months in Spanish or English... aargh! sometimes one, sometimes the other!) etc. etc. A template ensures consistency. (I'm also a big fan of having just the one template, which is one reason why I like {{Citation}} and not the plethora of "cite xxx." But that's also because I love the {{Harvnb}} template, one instance in which the web really can win out over hard copy.)
Anyhow, that's my 2c. On other fronts, I realize we've not be in touch since I went away, and that you were off my watchlist as a result: how've things been? --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 06:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
However, this doesn't deal with what to do with existing usage of the templates, especially where editors wish to removing date autorformatting from their main text. Tony (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
How to deal with delinking is given in my three examples below. Pick whichever one the article uses; it's straightforward, no reason a script can't do it, and should not be controversial. We don't need to concern ourselves with the bigger issues of citation templates, and we don't need to settle for articles that end up halfway. The three examples, depending on which citation method is used, show how it's done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, as much as I prefer to cite manually so we don't have to be subject to developer whims, I have changed Ima Hogg yet again so that we can have a complete set of examples. These are three articles, with dates completely delinked and correctly and consistently formatted, in three different styles, as samples:

  1. Using the cite xxx family of templates (cite web, cite book, cite news, etc.): Ima Hogg
  2. Using the {{citation}} template and international date style: Samuel Johnson
  3. Using manual citation method: Tourette syndrome

Anyone who wants to format dates consistently within an entire article (not just the text) should be able to follow one of those three examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


(from my talk) Hi Gimmetrow: do you have any ideas about how the script might be modified to deal with this blasted citation template problem?

It looks like you and Sandy want accessdates in DMY/MDY rather than ISO. Is that the problem of which you speak? Gimmetrow 00:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any particular desire (I formatted citations manually on TS to avoid these ongoing issues with dates, and as of yesterday, some citation templates are hiding accessdates, which I think is utterly stupid, but that's another issue). The question that Tony asked on your userpage as I understand it resolves to:


Consistency within articles
The same format should be used in the main text, footnotes and references of each article, except for:
  • dates within quotations and titles, where the original format is retained;
  • explicit comparisons of date formatting.
If the autoformatting function is used, the underlying formats need to be checked for consistency in the edit box, since autoformatting conceals such inconsistencies from logged on users who have selected date preferences. Inconsistencies will be displayed for all other users.

and, WP:MOSDATE says:

*ISO 8601 dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison.

But then, Template:Cite web says:

Choose a date format from the following options that matches the main text of the article.

Template:Citation says:

accessdate: Date when the url was accessed. Unlinked ISO 8601 format is preferred.
(although it easily handles Month day, year, see Samuel Johnson, setting aside the current glitch due to the endless fiddling by the programmers).

Various other citation templates, depending on the daily whims of the programmers, do different things.

So, MoS (depending on its frequent changes) is out of sync with the various citation template preferences (depending on their frequent changes, like yesterday). Citations generally prefer ISO date formats but (some) accept regular date formats and linking differs depending on the template; articles are expected to have consistent dates throughout, and yet ISO is discouraged within articles and encouraged in citations, so by definition, MoS is breached most of the time. MoS and citation guidelines haven't developed in parallel. Citation methods and MoS guidelines have developed apparently without awareness of when they contradict each other, but this problem has been largely camouflaged to Wiki editors with date preference settings.

What's new. There is a script that is being used to delink dates within articles but citations (date and accessdate) remain linked, resulting now in not one MoS breach, but two (inconsistent autoformatting/linking and inconsistent raw dates). I haven't added this script to my monobook, so I don't know how it works. I believe the question is whether the script can be adapted/programmed to resolve the current contradiction at WP:MOS. Can the script also convert dates and accessdates to the same format being converted to in the article (and since I haven't run this script, I don't know what it's doing)? Can the script resolve the issue that we now have different date formats in articles and in citations, as well as different autoformatting in articles and in citations?

Considering that the script is delinking dates in articles and writing them as either Month day, year or Day month year, the question is whether the same script can correct citation dates. This would mean, for example:

  • As in Ima Hogg, on cite web, convert whatever date it finds (ISO or whatever) to an accessmonthday and accessyear parameter.
  • As in Samuel Johnson, convert an ISO to a Month day, year or Day month year format.
  • etc.

It seems to me that the whole issue would be much simpler if MoS didn't demand date consistency throughout articles (including citations), and the citation templates could go their own way without us having to worry about this at FAC. An option would be to allow ISO dates within citations, as long as they are 1) consistently formatted, and 2) consistently linked or not, but MoS doesn't currently provide for this. And, since I usually write articles and citations in a way that dates are consistent, I also see the value in a consistent date formatting and linking throughout, and I suppose that's a worthy goal, so I really don't care which way this is resolved, as long as MoS doesn't give me guidelines that are contradictory and difficult to achieve or enforce at FAC. The current situation is that MoS is out of sync with reality and citation methods, and I have little choice but to promote articles that don't comply with WP:WIAFA crit. 2. When I've gotten questions about how to resolve this at FAC, I've had to tell editors that I have to overlook MoS on this, unless they want to do the work manually as done at Tourette syndrome, Ima Hogg and Samuel Johnson (I've also done a few others at FAC, so we do have a couple of MoS-compliant FAs). Can this script achieve consistency within citations as well as within the article? If not, an option is to rewrite MoS to conform to the most common citation methods. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Response: Yes, I agree that MOS should do the realistic thing for the time being, and demand consistency only within (1) the main text of each article, and separately, (2) within the citations list; this would acknowledge the reality that an uncoordinated situation has developed in which date autoformatting is inserted manually by editors in the main text, and at the behest of developers' whims in little corners of the project for both citation (and let's not forget, infobox templates), over which editors usually have little or no control. MOS can demand consistency throughout all of these article components until it's blue in the face, but this has never been the case—I know it's not from the many audits I've conducted of raw date formatting (including those in templates). MOS is already breached on this count, then, and not just by the ISO date thing.
Giving editors control over their articles in all three areas cannot be anything but a medium-term goal, but is achievable now in the main text with little trouble, by persuading editors of the advantages and assisting them in the freeing of dates from autoformatting. This, I believe, is the engine-room of cultural change. It will be much easier to persuade the template guardians to bring their outputs into line by adding optionalities when WPians come to accept the benefits of dispensing with bright-blue underlined dates in the main text; that, of course, is where it does the most damage. Tony (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


There is a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents regarding your edits to Talk:Australia. This is not quite as pleasant as is preferred on this project. Apparently this is about a thread being removed by AussieLegend. I can't find this edit, so if you could please provide a diff, that would be helpful. Rather than cause disruption on the talk page, it would be best to bring such concerns to administrators' attention in such situations. With that said, please keep it cool on talk pages, commenting on the content, not the contributors, and when you believe others are not following similar advice, bring it to the attention of administrators to sort it out. LaraLove|Talk 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Before casting aspersions on me, you might have cast your eyes back to the comment that provoked it. You are coming to conclusions based on a highly selective view of the discourse. I do not appreciate this. Tony (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
No, Tony. I dropped a casual warning to you and asked you to bring your concerns to administrative attention. You have now done that, so I will act accordingly. Just because others are acting inappropriately, it does not give you right to act in kind. LaraLove|Talk 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Tony, It's been a long time since I pinged. Was mostly inactive the past few months. Since my activity levels have risen, I've decided to get a FA and FL this time around. I was wondering if you are still open to copyediting. I've chosen Amateur radio in India‎, an article I raised from scratch over the past few days. I'll probably list it on Monday as I am waiting for some (non-wiki) experienced amateur radio operators to review it. Let me know what you think of the prose. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the first third, and will return soon. It needs a massage throughout before nomination. I don't normally copy-edit, but in the case of your India-related articles, I'm keen to see them highlighted. Tony (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dominant functions[edit]

I'm not sure how else to explain the close relationship between augmented sixth sonority and the dominant seventh sonority. What exactly is unclear about what I've written? --Blehfu (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Response on his talk page. Tony (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Origins" of aug sixes[edit]

Personally, I would explain it as such.

  • x6 chords are closely tied to all other predominants in function, and likewise in construction; each in sense borrows from minor chords (b6 and b3 degrees) and applied dominant V/V (#4)
  • x6 chords can be the product of chromatic voice leading and/or embellishment, which was explored and exploited particular in the 19th c., towards the goal of scale degree five

I haven't read a harmony textbook lately so I'm not sure how the ivory tower elucidates on it. --Blehfu (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Delighted to hear that word "predominant". I've had trouble getting it accepted in this context (there's nervousness about treating the cadential 6/4 as V6/4 – I've had to fight the single-chord analysis people who cling to I6/4 and are unwilling to accept the underlying harmonic structure, and aug 6 so often goes naturally to V6/4, especially Ger6/5, with two common tones). But I think since the savage war last year at the Inversion article, opposition to V6/4 has softened a little.

To take your points in turn:

  1. (1) Unsure whether I'd make that claim about a close tie with N6; one of the vectors pushing towards V is really quite different, isn't it? (2) To conceive of aug 6 chords as V of V comes up against the basic brick wall that the bass is very much not part of key V. I don't see how it can tonicise V, and I'm sure it's A & S who point this out.
  2. I think this was very much an 18th-century thing, too. I'd always assumed that this was the obvious way it arose from the parent chord, way back – by chromatic passing-tone. See an ideal example in the dragon scene in The Magic Flute: F–F#–G sung by Tamino.

I'm not in the ivory tower, but the musical scrap-heap. Tony (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm speaking in more general terms: x6 tends to act as a predominant (in this context); it is only related to V/V insofar as it "borrows" #4 from it. Perhaps instead of "construction" I mean voice leading. --Blehfu (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, you've prompted me to think through it a little further. Yes, raising 4 to #4 is part of tonicising the dominant, but is achieved using an approach-chord that is entirely within the scale of the dominant key—almost always either V of V or viiº of V, with an added 7th above the root of the approach-chord as an option (still within the dominant scale). The essential presence of the flattened supertonic of the dominant scale rains on that parade completely: I can't imagine a more antithetical tone to a key than that. I think both the flattened submediant and the raised subdominant tones function to move to chord V (not key V) of the underlying key through what Allen Forte calls "the law of the half-step" (the strongest vector in all voice leading); they add impetus, colour, and sometimes drama to the movement, for sure, but I don't see how they can tonicise V, even momentarily. Tony (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am by no means implying that any variant of aug 6 can tonicize V. I agree with everything you're saying, I think perhaps it is that I am unable to express myself clearly. Also, are we discussing the "origins" of x6 or the "Dominant functions" section of the article, or both? I've lost track.

  • I agree, V can only be tonicized by a secondary dominant. However, #4 could be approached via another pitch in the dominant scale, as well as by chromatically altering 4 to #4, i.e., IV V6/V V

...I think see where the misstep might be:

  • My comparison of x6 with V/V is not in the role of V/V tonicizing V, but in the role both can have as predominants. Indeed, sometimes V/V does result in a modulation, but other times it is just a coloration of ii, just like, as you say, x6 is a coloration of ii, IV, or vi. Furthermore, both share a common voice leading in #4-5. Perhaps the article should read thus:

From the Baroque to the Romantic period, augmented sixth chords have had the same harmonic function: As an altered predominant chord (typically the supertonic or subdominant) leading to a dominant chord. This movement to the dominant is heightened by the semitonal resolution of both ♭6 to 5 and ♯4 to 5; essentially, these two notes act as leading-tones. This characteristic has led many analysts to compare augmented sixth chords to the secondary dominant V of V (in its role as a predominant) because of the presence of ♯4, the leading-tone of V, in both chords. In the major mode, the chromatic voice leading is more pronounced because of the presence of two chromatically altered notes, ♭6, as well as ♯4, rather than just one in the minor mode.

Of course, there's a more elegant way of stating that somewhere, but I'll have to dig around for it. --Blehfu (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an addendum here, but in the case of the Lydian dominant, it is essentially the Fr6 with 2 in the bass, and it is used precisely as a dominant, i.e., the examples in French sixth sonority as dominant. Not in any Bach chorales, though, of course. :) -- (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting[edit]

Hello Tony, I am writing because I saw in the Mozart article history, that you removed date autoformatting per MOS.

I've seen that done before by another user, but I searched for the guidlines in the WP:MOS and haven't found anything. In particular Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_autoformatting and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death do not seem to say anything on the subject. I'm asking because I quite often engage in writing biographies of (obscure) musicians and always link the dates of birth and death; hence I want to know if I'm doing something wrong. Could you provide me with a link or excerpt of the relevant policy?

--Atavi (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Atavi, thanks for your message. You're not doing anything wrong at all in autoformatting dates, which is at the option of editors. However, it should be none or all, and all the same, appropriate format throughout the main text whether autoed or not. In addition, none of the auto-dates should be broken or only partially done—a surprisingly common problem.
However, that doesn't stop my trying to persuade people of the benefits of removing date autoformatting. You do realise, don't you, that the preferred format is displayed only for some Wikipedians, and for none of our readers out there—they see the bright-blue underlining with the raw input format.
It's entirely up to you, but you might consider scanning the Mozart and a few other articles that are freed from auto to see the benefits. The differences between US and international formats ("February 19" versus "19 February") are laughably trivial, and I believe not worth the disadvantages you see capped above. Let me know what you think; we're keen to receive feedback. Tony (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi again,
I just noticed that there are a lot of discussions in your talk page on exactly this issue. I should have taken a look before writing; thanks for not hitting the roof over the repeated question...
Now, to the point, my own opinion is that when I read WP articles as a visitor (not logged-in) I don't particularly mind the blue underlining in dates. However, I do agree that this may be distracting or even confusing to other people.
As you might have guessed, I use the auto-formatting option, actually YYYY-MM-DD,...
I don't particularly mind the "missing" links in dates.
One remark I'd like to add is that there are a number of templates, such as the citing templates or the Old/New Style Date templates, e.g. Template:OldStyleDate, use autoformatting for dates.
As a conclusion, I think I agree with what other users have said: rather than go in article-by-article trial basis, a discussion should be initiated to reach consensus on the issue, which would be recorded in the Manual of Style and go from there.
--Atavi (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

date template[edit]

Hi Tony, You mentioned at Wikipedia talk:MOSNUM that the idea of a date template that formats properly but doesn't link had been proposed/tried but either vetoed or didn't work. I really can't understand why that wouldn't work. Can you remember where/when the discussion took place? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Quill's talk page. Tony (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Delinking dates[edit]

Hi Tony, is User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js the script used to delink dates? (Just confirming rather than reading through all of the above!) —Giggy 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the script that delinks a complete date (February 1, 1990)? --Efe (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does, when the "all dates" tab is clicked. SImplifying monobook procedure in my "Instructions for installing", above, now that Lightmouse has given his blessing. Tony (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking this here, hoping someone will answer. I have pasted importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js') into my monobook.js and refreshed cache. I do get the date tabs at the top when I go into edit mode in an article. However, when I click "all dates" or any of the date tabs, the autolinked dates in the article do not change. No delinking takes place. There is an "improved diff" button, but it registers no change. Does anyone know what could be wrong? Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what is going on. Try it on at least five articles. Quote at least two examples here. Lightmouse (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Among articles I have tried: Dhamtari District, Oymapinar Dam, Ellis Rubin, Albert Tirrell, Bobbie Joe Long, Open the Door, Richard. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Those articles work for me. I suspect that the problem is in your monobook. Try deleting everything in your monobook except the Lightmouse script. If that works, we will know that there is a clash and we can try to resolve it. Lightmouse (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented out everything in my monobook except: importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');. And I reloaded. But it still doesn't work. It is probably something dumb I am over looking. Very frustrating. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It shows "Current revision" and "Your text" as diffs above the edit window, but they are both the same. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I copied your whole script (indiscriminately because I don't know one thing from another) and now it doesn't work at all - even the date tabs don't show at the top. So I am one step further along in knowing that the "import" was working to some degree. Perhaps I was not using in correctly once I had the edit window open. Are there special instructions? Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I follow Tony's instructions and click one of the "date" tabs (all dates, dates, units, dates + units) and nothing happens. If I save the page anyway, the history shows no edit was made - as if nothing happened. I am using Firefox Could that have something to do with it? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope. I'm using Firefox and it works perfectly well for me. Have you got javascript enabled? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes! All my other tricky little scripts (which are now commented out) worked. I can't understand it. I have copied it correctly enough to get the tabs to show; also the edit summary shows that Lightmouse's script has worked, e.g. "Script assisted. Units/dates/other" in the edit summary. That I should be denied the pleasure of removing date autoformatting is so cruel. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually like linking complete dates. =) But for other editor's preference, I'll try to install so that it will not be a burden for me delinking dates. Thanks for dropping by Tony. --Efe (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I see it very boring to read an article with no blue links. On the other hand, I don't know what is the rationale behind linking those dates where in fact, it gives nothing but just a mere date and notable events that took place on that date. --Efe (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Efe, it would be very rare to find an article without wikilinks aside from the autoformatting of full dates; don't worry, WP will never be boring! The rationale behind autoformatting (which looks like linking, but isn't) is to render in the WPian's preferred formatting). However, the disadvantages (see grey cap further down on this page) are many and the advantages frankly rather trivial. Tony (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks for the explanation. BTW, I tried to install the script by adding it below my existing monobook.js but it doesn't work. Do i have to create another link/page? --Efe (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I copied the style of your talk page. =) --Efe (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)[edit]

Hello Tony. I know you understand fair use better than me. I'll be out for two days and I still have some hot discussions left on this FAC. The issue is all about fair use and I firmly believe theres something wrong. Correct me if I am mistaken. Forgive them if they are wrong. Thanks Tony. Good day (good for two days) =). --Efe (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a clear request—you mean there's something wrong with rewiever comments, or something wrong with the FU justifications? Tony (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The article was given a c/e and I think I took care of the rest of your comments. Although I did leave one concern about nbsp at the review page. Thanks! Blackngold29 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Its the justification of the FU. Just because it meantions guitar etc they can already add the audio sample? --Efe (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Another thing, the justification on the inclusion of an extra cover image. --Efe (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit of Anekantavada[edit]

Hi, Tony, thanks for your comments and tip. Editors from "league of Copyeditors" had already gone through this article and still you could manage to point out those little glitches. Can you suggest someone who can do a good copy edit on this article.--Anish (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp might know someone who's interested in the topic and skilled at words. He used to be a bureaucrat, BTW. On my ancient list I have "Fowler&fowler", "Snalwibma" (but science), "Samsara", "Samir". Also take a look at the edit summaries in the edit hisotry of Ahmedabad. Try other India-related articles. Tony (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers as figures or words[edit]

Somehow I had the idea that the division between using the numerical version and spelling out a number was 9/ten. However, reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Numbers_as_figures_or_words, I do not see more than a suggestion regarding this. Further, it says nothing about consistency in the article (e.g. if spelling out numbers over ten, then do so consistently unless there is a reason to do otherwise). Could you straighten out my thinking on this issue. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 13:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting in citations[edit]

Hi, Tony, I saw your message regarding date autoformatting at Talk:Bob Marshall (wilderness activist)‎. I personally have no issues with a script removing date links from the text, and the same goes with the other FAs I have worked on; less busy work is good. One question, though: does this MOS update pertain to dates linked in citations? Published and accessed dates? Are the citation templates still autolinking those fields? Sorry if you've already answered this a million times, but since I regularly review articles for GAN and such, I thought I should explicitly ask now rather than make a mistake later on. :) Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 15:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there some brief example of the sort of changes the script will do? I saw this notice at Talk:Daylight saving time #Proposal to remove date-autoformatting but it wasn't clear from the notice what changes were actually intended to be made. For example, that article uses ISO dates within citations (they're more compact) but American-style dates within the main text, and I was hoping the script wouldn't futz with that. I made this change to Daylight saving time to try to head the script off at the pass, but don't know whether this will suffice. Eubulides (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your enquiries.
Maria: this is being address as we speak at MOSNUM talk under a title that may not quite capture the intention. You might wish to make your opinion known there; I see that Sandy supports the proposal, which is that consistency be defined not in terms of total consistency throughout a whole article, but within each of (1) the main text, and (2) the citations; i.e., the main text could be either US- or international-formatted and the citations ISO, consistent within each. This would acknowledge the reality that citations templates have grown in an uncoordinated way and in many cases breach the MOS requirement not to use ISO. It is technically feasible to use the script only in the main text. Hopefully, the citation templates will be herded into a more flexible and coordinated facility in the medium-term, but ... don't hold your breath!
Eubulides: date autoformatting would be removed from the main text only—I'm pretty sure that the notice states this. The diff is checked and existing inconsistencies within the main text raw formatting (which our readers have always seen) will be either manually corrected or a note left alerting contributors of their existence. I hope this answers your question. Please let me know of any concerns you have. Tony (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold Feet (series 1)/archive1[edit]

Thanks for your comments in this FAC. I didn't have time to address them before the FAC closed but I'll work through them over the next few weeks. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney[edit]

Hey Tony, I took your comments at the FA review for this article and I'm trying to revise the lead for it at User:Jh12/Draft4. I'm not very good at this sort of thing, but do you think you could take a look to see if it reads any better? I may need to get help and simply rewrite it. Many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midtown Madness[edit]

Hi Tony, per your suggestion Deckiller has done some copyediting on this. If you could take another look it'd be appreciated. Enjoy the skiing! —Giggy 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

August 4 Dispatch[edit]

Wikipedia:FCDW/August 4, 2008, reserved for monthly update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you just pop something in there, Jbmurray and I can take it from there. Have fun ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Date autolinking[edit]

Yo Tony, I saw your comment at Talk:Thích Quảng Đức and had a few comments. I'm happy to see the WP:FAC cadre engaging the wider community on the date autolinks, but when canvassing/notifying, could you give a link to the centralized discussion (or start one if there it isn't already extant)? It's more consensus-friendly than notifying of a decision made. Thanks, Skomorokh 13:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no problems with removing date autolinking. Do you need me to put the articles I shepherded to FA on a list somewhere? Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm away for a week, from tomorrow. There's no list as such, and at the moment I'm gathering data on reactions to the proposal messages I've posted on FA talk pages without running the script. After we know the wider reaction, we'll know where to go from here. By all means your articles can be de-autoformatted if no one objects. Let's talk about it on my return. Thanks. Tony (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yo Tony, I responded on my talkpage; would it not be a better idea to have the discussion centralized rather than diffused to FA talkpages? Skomorokh 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tory Island FAC[edit]

Thankyou very much for your comments in this FAC, the article has now passed. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Well done, and thank you, for trying to get rid of it! Hope it works. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Systemic functional grammar[edit]

Hi Tony. I saw an old comment of yours on the SFG talk page and noticed you say you're interested in it on your user page. I've changed the main article quite a bit today in an attempt to get it up to scratch and I'm in need of one or two others to help out, particularly with stuff on phonology, children's grammar and how SFG relates to other linguistic approaches. I'm wondering if a) you have time to get involved after your holiday, or b) you know other people who are available to help. Cheers for reading, and have fun on your skiing trip. - Snookerfran (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates etc[edit]

Hi Tony, I really don't think that canvassing individual talkpages with notes about date-autoformatting is really appropriate. I know that you have strong feelings on the matter, but date-autoformatting won't be discouraged/cast into oblivion by the quagmire that is MOS/MOSNUM, until a new system for autoformatting is developed, which is rightly low on the developer's priority list. If you are going to canvass, then you could at least add some advantages for the date-autoformatting to go with your list of diadvantages. I think this is a very minor issue, and there are much larger issues that should be tackled first, mainly the current overlapping mess that our are MOS pages. Woody (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see one even weak reason here for not posting notices requesting consensus at an article talk page, if that's what you mean by "canvassing". Canvassing is normally thought of as asking along people to a debate whose support you can count on; pointing out the advantages of removing the autoformatting from an article is a very different matter—no one has to agree, either. In fact, it's a trial, to take note of opinion. But I suppose you object to that, do you?Tony (talk)
I can see one weak reason: repetitive and duplicate discussions on 2 million pages, seems quite a good reason not to carry on this way if you ask me. This is canvassing for your position, asking article editors to adopt something new after you have changed the MOS to meet your own opinion. I am not opposed to trials and discussions, that is what we have "Wikipedia talk:" discussion pages for. Do we really need a trial to see whether it works in an article or not? Just find an article you have written and convert it to non-autoformatted dates and use that as an example. Woody (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You frame this issue as though it's a one-horse obsession. This is clearly not the case, judging from the surprising amount of goodwill and positive comment, on this page, at MOSNUM talk and on the talk-pages of articles. There are a few strident objectors (yourself among them?) and a few people have expressed mild objection; this appears to be far outweighed by the thrust of community opinion.
However, the sample size is much too small to be as reliable as we wish, so it is necessary to provide a means for feedback on more than styleguide pages, and on more than just a few article talk pages. After systematically generated data are gathered, we'll be in a better position to judge where to go from here. Until this is achieved, I for one am not applying the script.
I think it would have been more appropriate for you and DeepBlue to merely express your substantive reasons for objection rather than to personalise the debate on the Canadian Victoria Cross page (sorry, I have no time right now to look up the exact title). I was taken aback by the ferocity, and I'm sure the other guy was too. Since you're now a sysop, I trust that you'll act to calm discourse wherever you can, and will not stand in the way of discussion by those who want what they believe are significant and long-overdue changes in the project. This one is hardly rocket-science, and many people outside and inside the project are perplexed at why WP took on an apparent programmer's attempt to provide a solution where there was no problem, back in 2003, was it? More importantly, I'm still unsure of why you object so strongly to the move. BTW, I entirely support the right of you or anyone else to object to the change. Tony (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I know you are on holiday, (I hope you've got plenty of snow) so I will make it nice and brief. I don't think it is a one-horse obssession but you are the major proponent, I see you as the figurehead of this who is pushing it through. I wouldn't call myself a strident objector to the change, actually I am rather coming round to it, I just object to the inconsistency of it all. Why change only some articles without a centralised discussion. I didn't personalise the debate, and I apologise wholeheartedly if that is how it came across; I don't think I behaved in anything other than a calm manner and I again apologise if that was not the case. In terms of open discourse, I am not stepping in the way, conversely, I am encouraging it: just in the correct dark corner of Wikipedia. Anyway, enjoy the break and I am sure the discussions will continue, just tell me the result when it is all over! ;) Best regards. Woody (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse FAC[edit]

Because you reviewed this article on the 14th, I thought that you might be interested to know that it has gone through a thorough copyedit, and should be ready for FA status. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC))


I think we were grandstanding over dates or some such a while back and you left me a nice message which I never quite replied to, which is remiss of me. But I wanted to say it isn't really me you need to get on board. I don't like standards, but I won't fight a lost cause. For me, Wikipedia is big enough that everyone can have a patch. It is a shame we can't fork, I've often thought it would be wonderful if we could fork off our better articles to a front-space, as it were, and treat the rest as the back of the shop, tooling, working and not worrying if they never get fixed. A true reflection of life? It's less likely that that will happen now, and standards are rolling out. I concede this, but I intend to have my say here and there where I can. Anyway, all the best, Hiding T 21:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote on unit symbols for liter[edit]

We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

1998 Comfrey–St. Peter tornado outbreak[edit]

Hey, Tony, if you happen to check in and have time, can you opine on the dashes in this title? It was halfway moved to a spaced endash, and then moved back in the midst of me trying to correct the FAC page to the new name, leaving a mess of redlinks on the talk page and at the FAC, so I want to make sure we get it right before attempting all the moves again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorted now, I think. After a few wrinkles, we got Waltham's spaced endash. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: Anekantavada[edit]

Anekantavada is a featured article now. Thanks for your support, improvements and suggestions taht helped to promote this article--Anish (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide's FAC[edit]

Hello. An article I nominated at WP:FAC, Candide, is receiving some criticism for its prose, and I know you to be a very good copyeditor... Would you mind looking at Candide when you next get the chance? Thanks! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I found someone else to do the copyediting in time for the FAC, seeing you were on vacation. Feel free to ignore my above request, which is not as important now as it was when I wrote it. Thanks anyway! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Syntax and grammar[edit]

Please Mr Tony, can you teach me one or the other? Seems I'm lousy at both. (Hey, dig that pro-drop last sentence.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

You have my full support. Your summary of the problems with date-autoformatting are clear and precise. Nice one. Where do I sign up? SilkTork *YES! 02:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PLC, Sydney reminder[edit]

Sorry if you've already seen it, but I just wanted to remind you of the archived message at User_talk:Tony1/Archive_1#63342411651 in case you missed it. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Since I haven't really read through the article much since it was nominated 3 weeks ago, I printed out the article and played with it on paper, patrolling for commas. I think I did a decent job, but I'd welcome feedback. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with script[edit]

Tony, I'm having problems using this script. In the edit window I have two tabs -- [delink iso] and [part dates], and they allowed me to delink isodates (2008-08-08) and stand alone years, but not full dates such as [[8 August]] [[2008]]. Is this how it is supposed to be? Matthew Edwards (talk contribs  email) 05:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Matthewedwards Editing.JPG I don't have the "full dates" tab. Perhaps because I have the additional admin tabs for page deleting etc? I haven't been to MOSNUM lately. I have to head out for an hour so I'll check back. If you can think of anything about the script, that'd be great. I've also asked Lightmouse but he hasn't got back to me yet. Matthew Edwards (talk contribs  email) 05:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I've looked: this is one for LM. Also, I didn't mention that "dates blah" will do piped year links. Avoid, of course, for pipes such as "1999 in baseball". The "all dates" tab has been purposely programmed to avoid pipes. Tony (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've supplied him with the same image. I noticed he's not an admin so he may not have been aware of it. With regards to MOSNUM, I don't see Greg's yellow proposal... How was the skiing? Did you stay in Australia or go abroad? Matthew Edwards (talk contribs  email) 06:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Breakneck speeds, but no broken neck. Yes, in this country, where it's twice as expensive and half as good. Nevertheless, the best season in more than five years. We'll need to ascertain whether all admins have the same problem. Or maybe it's a matter of the add-on functions you've selected in your prefs. Tony (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Glad you enjoyed yourself. I didn't realise Australia had the weather for skiing. I've discovered that Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs and WP:WIKED both conflict with the script. Just in case anyone else comes to you about this, WikEd is incompatible with any script, add-on, or extension that relies on or changes the text edit box. The reason is that WikEd replaces the normal text area with its own rich-text iframe. Many of these scripts will still work if WikEd is temporarily turned off by pressing the WikEd logo.png button, making the changes, and re-enabling WikEd. Six Tabs replaces the regular "cactions" tabs with


edit hist   Discussion edit

and seems to override any other scripts that adds any extra cactions. I've removed SixTabs from my monobook and found that I have a whole bunch of new tabs from other scripts that I didn't even realise I was missing! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Also Tony, if you add the following lines to your monobook, you get pull-down tabs, which means you don't have to scroll across to find the one you want. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 19:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu'); importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css'); importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Compact Navigation');

(outdent) You might want to explain this to Lightmouse. I did this when I discovered WikEd disabled the script and Lightmouse had never heard of WikEd and therefore did not pay my explanation much attention. I spend many frustrating days with Lightmouse's script before I discovered the problem. This information needs to be passed on to others who may undergo this frustrating experience! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that I've actually given up with Lightmouse. I raised the problem with him, and his response was... not as helpful as I would have expected, and was basically "You are missing <this>, <this>, <this>, and <this>. Don't know, don't care." Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, I'm sorry you've had trouble with the script. Damn it: I hope it can be sorted out eventually. Thanks for the extra strings: great not to have to travel over to the left side to reach the "all dates" tab. But who's the dork who programmed the pull-down buttons to be in the centre rather than the left of those huge horizontal spaces? I wonder sometimes at the inability of programmers to look at basic time-and-movement issues before they program. I'm still using it, but where can I raise this issue?

I fixed the issue by removing SixTabs and replacing it with the pull down menus. WikEd can be temporarily turned on and off, so that isn't a problem any more either. Regarding the central placement, the programmer is User:AA, though he's just begun an extended wikibreak. I've actually left a message with him regarding an additional tab for the discussion menu: a "new section" tab. If he doesn't reply in a week I might just add it myself. I personally don't want to mess with the alignment though because I don't know how many users are annoyed by it. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, I did not say that I do not care. I know that it is frustrating when software doesn't work. My response was based on my inability to help you, perhaps you over-estimate how clever I am. Lightmouse (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Before it becomes official...[edit]

I would like to ask if you could gice the page United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate a look over and leave some suggestions for imporvement on my talk page. Its not too far out from FA-class, I think, but I would like a professional opinion on what could be done before going to WP:FAC. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

dates wiki-linked[edit]

I have seen you removed all wiki-links for dates here. May I ask why you did this? Tomeasy T C 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for your message. Yes, I boldly acted at Netherlands, whereas I usually post a notice at the talk page for up to a week. I guess I'm lulled by the overall acceptance of, and in some cases enthusiasm for the removal of DA. You may be interested in reading the capped list of the disadvantages of DA at one of the talk pages (this would have appeared at the talk page). Please let me know how you feel about it.
Interestingly, I arrived at that article from the Dutch WP (I don't speak Dutch, but am interested in the langauge). There, DA is never used, of course, although I notice that the Dutch WP has lots of linked years, which engWP now firmly deprecates. Tony (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. Actually, I was not aware of the auto-formatting functionality at all. Now, that I have learned about it, I understand the arguments to discard it as well as why it was installed in the first place. So, from this point of view, I do not really care about the issue.
The functionality that I related to the linked dates was the context provided by the link. That seems to be gone with your approach. I found it sometimes helpful to follow a link for the year to see what else happened by then. Do you think this functionality should be removed? Or do I misunderstand something?
You've claimed that "engWP now firmly deprecates" the use of linked years. I think this is the related MOS section to your claim. However, I do not see backing to your claim there. Rather, editors are explained how to do apply linked dates. What agreement did I miss? Tomeasy T C 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Tom, This is relevant, I think. There are other places, too. Tony (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If it was the new policy to discourage linked dates, I think, this should be mentioned right in the place where linked dates are explained. The link you provided rather says the obvious, namely that a link should not be created, if it does not provide relevant context, and this also applies for dates. It does not discourage linked dates, if they matter.
You did not comment on whether you think linked dates are never needed. Is that what you intend with this alleged policy change, or is it the auto formating that you want to dispose of, or both because they are inseparable and one has to go for the sake of the other?
Last but not least: You were referring to a recent policy change. The link that you sent me does not show this at all. I have checked this article for March and the passage that you declare relevant did not change since (and probably since much longer). Can it be you do not provide me the full information? Probably, you've had discussions about this policy change, presumably with consensus to put it into effect, and then you decided to change the articles accordingly. I would be interested reading something like that. Tomeasy T C 08:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure whether you're thinking of linked chronological items, including single years, and date autoformatting (DA) as one thing. They're really quite separate issues, but commonly misunderstood as a single one because the DA mechanism is, sadly, entagled with the linking mechanism, one of the worst programming decisions ever made, IMO. The MOSLINK link I provided does point to the deprecation of 1980 and the like, in the second bullet point. For DA, it's better to go to WP:MOSNUM, where there are two relevant sections (easy to find in the ToC). Please note that there are proposals to loosen the long-standing demands of MOSNUM for consistent date formatting throughout entire articles, which is widely ignored by editors. See MOSNUM talk for that. Let me know if we're still not talking about the same thing. Tony (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If you read my second comment, you will see that from this time on I discriminate between the two functionalities. Let me thank you once again for helping me understand this with your first comment. So, I think there is no misunderstanding in that sense. I am indifferent whether to keep the DA or not, but I found it helpful to link some dates, if this provides useful context. And: MOSLINK does not deprecate linked dates, if they are useful. As I understand you, you want to erase this functionality, because it is entangled with the DA functionality, which you actually want to get rid of. Is that right? Further, I would conclude that there has not been a policy change as you claimed initially, as long as you do not provide evidence for it. If so, I am sorry to say, I would feel taken as a fool by you. :-( Tomeasy T C 11:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Tom, it's not policy, but in styleguides (an important distinction). The change has been the gradual evolution from the mandatory to the optional. Editors are now empowered to use or not use DA as they judge best. I encourage people not to use it, for all of the reasons expressed in the capped explanations. Tony (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
"which engWP now firmly deprecates"... Anyway, I think we are fine now and thanks for the distinction of styleguides and policies. I will simply not use the brackets around dates by default anymore, as I did so far. Rather I will use them only when I really want to provide context to other events on that date. This will, of course, be the case quite rarely. Tomeasy T C 11:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

Actually, I think you overstate the case. It doesn't say that ISO 8601 formats aren't allowed, just that they're not common. And since I see them all over the place, I kinda discount that. (I am watching this page) - Denimadept (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Your name has been mentioned at WT:CITE. Although I hesitate to ask you to join the mess there, I do think your views would be valuable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I mentioned that this page has rapidly detriorated into one of MoS's biggest messes, and it's an important page. I have limited patience for fiddling with numbers and dashes and trivial items that continue to surface at the WP:LAYOUT page, while important pages that support WP:V policy fall into such a state of disrepair that it becomes unuseful at WP:FAC. I continue to believe it is urgent that someone invigorates WP:MOSCO to get some cohesion to all of the MoS pages. While I am dealing with FAC and FAR, what to do about GimmeBot, the Dispatches, and my own ongoing work (which I'm neglecting, for example WP:MEDMOS and many articles that need my attention), I just can't take on MoS cleanup, but someone needs to do it. It's getting worse by the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening up Pandora's Box[edit]

Tony 1, It was I who initiated the messy exchange but I did want to have a discussion on the issues of citation guides and layout rather than having an edit war. I would also like to seek out others like yourself who may have a good perspective on researching and bibliographic notations. FWiW, I will also refer this note to SandyGeorgia who also may be an assist here. Bzuk (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC).


Hi Tony,

I have a concern about this edit. As I understand it, the Arbitration Committee specifically ruled a while back that either wikilinked dates, or non-linked dates that conform to local practices, are acceptable, and that edits that do nothing but change from one format to the other are prohibited (due to their tendency to lead to edit wars.)

As it happens, we at WikiProject Oregon have recently discussed the issue, and I think it's fair to say that most of us would support the format you seem to prefer. We're also not really a group that's prone to edit-warring. But, I thought I'd check in with you -- either to let you know about the problem with this sort of edit, or, if my information is out of date, so you can bring me up to speed.

Thanks, -Pete (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just found that your reasoning was quoted in the WP:ORE discussion I mentioned. I skimmed through it, and I'd say I entirely support your reasoning. However, I still think it's out of synch with policy and that ArbCom ruling; I'd rather work with you to change the policy, than have further edits like this made. I suspect there would be broad support for what you say. -Pete (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Pete. My response is at WikiProject Oregon. I did point out that edit warring is highly unlikely to occur, and that a note was posted on the talk page more than two weeks ago, with capped reasoning and a formal proposal. Tony (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply there, and sorry for missing your talk page on Oregon State Capitol a couple weeks back. The only thing that's holding me back from enthusiastically endorsing what you're doing is the reluctance of people like EncMstr (talk · contribs). He's a highly productive member of our project, and a very smart guy. His well-reasoned disagreement with your assessment gives me pause. Not to say that it convinces me. I'll be interested to see what he thinks. Anyway -- I'm glad to see some movement on this issue, thank you for taking the initiative and making such a strong effort to communicate about what you're doing. -Pete (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I notice there's another "Pete" posting in the discussion on MOSNUM -- just want to point out that ain't me. -Pete (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

M-28 (Michigan highway)[edit]

Tony, can you revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-28 (Michigan highway) please? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DA - clarify?[edit]

Hi, Tony1! Could you clarify some of your comments on WT:MOSDATE? Specifically, (1) I'm confused that you advocate local control, but also advocate a site-wide policy of discouraging auto-formatting.

(2) Next, I'd like your take on this thought: The strongest benefit I see to auto-formatting is that (for logged in users) dates always display the same way. So even when the refs use ISO format and the text is entered with textual months, I still get the same format all the way through. By removing auto-formatting, I would estimate some 80% of the articles on here will have dates in more than one format.

(3) In your latest comment on WT:MOSDATE you say:

(T)he code is not worth fixing, for most of the reasons under the cap that has been promulgated here and elsewhere.

Are your reasons "here and elsewhere" the list of six "disadvantages"? I'm curious as to what you think about my response to those.

Thanks, Tony1! Just trying to get my head around the issue and (4) why people feel so strongly about it. :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Satyr. I hope you don't mind my inserting numbers in your comment above, so I can more easily refer to your points. In reverse order:

  • (4) Yes, its intriguing that a small clutch of people do feel emotional about it, while most WPians take a more practical, reader-oriented attitude. My feeling is that those who value computer programming as a skill and a tool for improving the project are aghast to see the discarding of a major, long-standing, ubiquitous function. To them, it may seem like a backward step, a needless sacrifice of a function that, superficially, seems to finely tune the text to their particular taste. While I understand that stance, I have no sympathy for it. In the heady, exciting days when DA was put forward, people had little experience with wikis and with the reader-oriented issues we've now had time to reflect on. I think this psychological environment favoured technical novelty and innovation without stopping to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages. Once a technical feature becomes established on a wiki, it's very hard to challenge. However, the time has come to do so, and the maturity of the community is evidenced by the popularity of the move (once people think about it), and the neutrality of many WPs who perhaps haven't thought about it much, but don't mind dropping the blue in principle.
  • (3) Can you link me to where you originally responded to the capped reasons? Yes, I was referring to those.
  • (2) "The strongest benefit I see to auto-formatting is that (for logged in users) dates always display the same way." I think that's not a great benefit, given the tiny proportion of readers who are registered, preferenced, and logged on. I care only about our real readers, out there. Your 80% estimate may well be correct, but even with the DA for manually keyed-in dates, many articles are inconsistent; there'll be your own pref in the main text, and then ISO in the refs. Some of the refs typically include US or international formatted dates, too, either DA or DA-free. The citation template thing is a serious issue, but I'd prefer not to solve everything at once. My good friend, SandyGeorgia, would prefer this all-at-once route, but I see myself as more willing to tolerate structured inconsistency within an article, at least in the short- to medium-term as we try to corral and coordinate the templates. I do insist, however, on a single format in the main text, where the smooth, easy reading of running prose can be interrupted by DA then DA-free, or US then international (raw) format. And of course, it's much easier to read a list of refs without inconsistencies, sure. All in good time.
  • (1) A strategic combination of local and site-wide policy is already essential to the running of WP, as it is to all national/local governance. It acknowledges the need for both global strategies and cohesion, and the shaping of text to local conditions. There may be conflicts from time to time, but they're part of the deal. I don't see it in terms of discrepancy or inconsistency.

Let's talk more. Tony (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: your note about removal of date formatting[edit]

Please feel free to do so at any article where I am the major contributor (listed at User:Savidan/Contributions). I don't feel strongly enough about it to go through all my past work, but I've stopped writing with the dates formatting that way. Thanks. Savidan 04:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That should tide us over until the guideline changes again...:) Savidan 15:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to count me as a positive response for Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood and Tomb of Antipope John XXIII here. I'm very satisfied. Savidan 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just e.s.p. I guess. I've been following this DA issue pretty closely ever since you brought it to my attention. I'm surprised that its been meeting any resistance at all... Savidan 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


..has just been quoted at me as a guideline on how to write a list. Including...

  • If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criterion is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).
  • If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."

This tends to fly in the face of our recent avoidance of bland openings. It's hard for me to defend my position when a guideline explicitly states it's okay. FYI, it's List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes that we're discussing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions at the FLC. The bigger issue is modifying WP:LIST so we can't be accused of double standards. How do we go about that? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Well, I figured someone had to - things were staying open for months, even if they had passed, and things like that.

Of course, it's not ideal, since me not voting would be counter-productive to any sort of throughput at the moment, and I also want to prime the pump a bit by nominating things so that people do keep checking FSC. Happily, I have enough friends willing to close, or at least to make the decision on whether it passed, and then I can fix up all the 63 notifications necessary. =)

By the way, try out the new nominations system I put in - it should be a lot easier =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent; yes, it's not good to lose your reviewing role, but a plus overall. Featured lists are on a much better footing now that they have a directorate. Tony (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Operation Brevity[edit]

Your thoughts about this issue? I'm not very familiar with military jargon and whatnot. Specifically, I'm interested if you also think "back" and "out", highlighted in the discussion, are redundant. — Deckiller 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So you pretty much feel that those two words should remain in the prose? Otherwise, I think we agree almost word for word on everything else (some of the other points you made I highlighted on the FAC talkpage, though I think your solutions are stronger). I think the reason the other changes were not made was because the copy-edit had not been done yet. — Deckiller 00:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. It deserves attention, and I hope the contributors are going to be cooperative. Tony (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
My CE abilities are not generally up to scratch in terms of FA standards, and I have been too involved with this article to bring fresh eyes to it. However, I do believe that it is close. If I attempt a copyedit of one section, of your choice if you wish (though preferably one without the phrase "exploit towards" in it), would you be willing to review my efforts? If you find that I am able to bring it up to an acceptable standard, I will then try and complete the rest of the article. If not, I'll leave it, and do what I can to assist the main contributor find a better copyeditor. --FactotEm (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes? No? --FactotEm (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No probs. I'll drop a note back here when I'm done. Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Done --FactotEm (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to be absolutely clear, the copyedit is in my sandbox. The article remains untouched for now. --FactotEm (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to have a look. I appreciate it. If the whole article is improved, so that the prose suffers only from a similar level of 'surface glitches', would that be enough to overturn your oppose? I need to know whether it's worth investing my time to attempt the same treatment for the whole article. --FactotEm (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's such good material; you ought to have no qualms about sprucing it up. Best to get a collaborator to go over it after you've done your work. I see this as an investment in you as an editor in this topic, so maybe your editing might focus on trying to pick up things from an unfamiliar reader's POV. That's the hard thing—distancing yourself from the writing process so your close familiarity with the meanings doesn't interfere. It's expert vs non-expert, familiar vs unfamiliar. Tony (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I fully appreciate the difficulties of being too close to a subject, and on balance, I think I will be disappointed if I attempt this within the timeframe of the FAC. I'll take a more leisurely approach, and see if we can't get this one through on the next attempt. Thanks for your time. --FactotEm (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PS It's very much a narrative account. That can be a strength, but could be a weakness unless the reader is let into the human side, the earthy details, in just a few places. Otherwise it might be just "this division withdrew, that division advanced". Do you have access to more personal accounts, experiences? Perhaps the diaries of inidividual servicemen are quoted in a few sources .... If that dimension could emerge in just the right places and amounts, it will become a well-known source itself. Tony (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See your point, but 'just the right places and amounts' is quite a trick. Academic really; I'm not the primary contributor and don't have any of the sources, but I'll point the main editor this way. --FactotEm (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi again, Tony. Do you reckon you've got time now to look at SFG? It's a real mess at the minute, and I'm not sure the basic metafunctions summary I drafted is an improvement on what was there before. Might need to scrap it and start over. Anyway, I'd really appreciate your input on what the article should look like in the end: how much detail to go into, what does and doesn't belong, that kinda thing. Thanks! - snookerfran (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NFCC question[edit]

Tony, I've begun to gather thoughts on the creation of a dispatch discussing the review of "non-free" images. I may have stumbled upon a wrinkle (i.e. something not generally adhered to) and, as you're someone who's been involved in the writing of the non-free content criteria (especially in regards to the precision of language), I thought I might run it by you:

  • NFCC#4 sets forth "Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia." (emphasis mine)
  • Publication is "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending"

Would it not, then, be that case that Wikipedian-created images (i.e. derivative works) of, for example, sculptures would fail? How can this image be reconciled? Could the issue be gamed/resolved by, say, uploading to Flickr or a self-published website first? If I'm being too literal, do you happen to know how the criterion was meant to be interpreted and/or what it is intended to prevent? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this interesting question, Elcobbola. I can't answer it, but I know exactly who can: our experts at WT:NFCC. If you don't mind, I'll copy this to that page. Tony (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
That's fine; my faith in the ability of WT pages to produce well-reasoned answers to these sorts of questions is...minimal, which is why I tried here first. If you think there's validity to the issue, however, then that is perhaps all I really needed and, indeed, that page is an appropriate next step. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
They're pretty good at NFCC; they're keen to support their day-to-day efforts at policing images. Tony (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this proves my point. Maybe I'll ask on the Commons. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pending Dispatch list[edit]

... at Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#Pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


I'm not sure -- did you see my reply to your comment at User_talk:Sdsds#date-autoformatting? (sdsds - talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC of U.S. Route 491[edit]

Tony, Thank you for the review. I believe I have addressed your concerns. Please comment at the FAC, if you have additional concerns. Dave (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

aug 6[edit]

Hi, just had a look at "Harmonic function" there, and I love what you've done. Tony (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there-- I have to admit I'm a little confused, or else just pure senile. Which article are you referring to exactly? Also, I checked my contribution list, and I don't have any for August 6 (I was in the backwoods of Ontario at the time). --Blehfu (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, "augmented 6th". :=) Tony (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you kindly. --Blehfu (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a topic I actually know something about, so I felt I could flex my editorial muscle. --Blehfu (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

'dem ~!@#$ Date links and delinks[edit]

Completely, well maybe not so completely, uninvolved editor jumping in on the Colonies Chris and BillCJ conflab. All parties need to take a "deep breath" and remember that experienced and knowledgeable editors like yourselves can become very worked up over an issue, especially if there is some investment involved. From my limited dealings with each of you, a consistent effort to work for the betterment of the project is evident. I believe what began as BRD exercise, has now been elevated into a dispute of personalities. None of that should apply in what is essentially still a "content dispute." FWiW, Chris, you have probably a gathering consensus bolstering your deprecating of autodate formatting but where you link that campaign with a general "paring" of common wording wikilinking, it can look like a nefarious attack. BillCJ, this direction of evolving standards in editing will take some "push and pull" and AGF still applies. Tony1, I am gaining a begrudging admiration of your tenacity and willingness to stick your neck out, but one of your earlier perspectives my be applicable, paraphrasing or rehashing an axiom" "not all battles are worth fighting in a war..." Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the copyedits[edit]

Barnstar UTSH.png The Utah State Highways Barnstar
Thanks Tony, your feedback is tough, but very good. And as you probably now know more about Utah highways than anybody else in Australia, I award you this. Thanks for helping Interstate 70 in Utah and U.S. Route 491 reach featured article. Dave (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Dave. Keep up the high quality and the state bureacrats and construction companies might use them as a resource. You may consider trying to forge an ongoing telephone/email relationship with one or two professionals in those institutions; announcing that you promote their work through the seventh-most-popular Internet site in the world is always a good entree. Why bother? Because they might be willing to offer advice, or make available documentation about, say, planning or technical challenges, or interesting features, that is currently unavailable. With their permission, you could enrich your articles with this additional layer of information. Think of aiming for a Featured Topic eventually? Tony (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for c/e[edit]

Hi Tony :) I was wondering if you'd do me a favour by looking over Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation) for prose etc? It's just become a GA and I'd like to take it to FAC in the near future. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know if you noticed because it was while you were skiing, but there were utterings at WT:FLC of perhaps doing a WP:FLR, before they go to WP:FLRC. I know you were interested in this idea a couple of months ago and started a discussion at WT:FLRC about it. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


I see you're working on that page; I left a list of mega-complaints on the talk page. It needs rationalization as well as clarification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pedal point[edit]

If you didn't want to talk about the article you simply need not leave messages on its talk page. If you don't wish to talk with me about it you simply need not continue to engage in discussion. If you have a problem with the way I engage in discussion you may contact me on my talk page and discuss it specifcially. In regards to your comment, "Oh, Hyacinth has spoken," I can only assume that it is a defensive reaction to my questioning of your orders. You attempt to trivialize my comments by ironically treating them as commandments so as to draw attention away from your own assertions and demands. Hyacinth (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsure; the psychoanalysis is beyond me. I don't comprehend the message in your first three sentences. I was put off by your previous posting there. Where did I issue "orders"? Who's being defensive: you or I? Tony (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Date unlinking[edit]

Thanks for your support on this. After the last knockback I was just about ready to pack the whole thing in. I'm off for a week's holiday now, entirely computer-free, so I'll be interested to see how things have developed when I get back. I sense there's a groundswell developing in favour of unlinking. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen check[edit]

Tony, this has come up on several FACs, and no one seems to have nailed it down yet. For example, see Leonard Harrison State Park:

*Overlook Trail is a 0.6-mile (1.0 km) long path to Otter View, a vista looking to the south ...

Is that hyphenation correct, or should it be

* ... 0.6-mile-long (1.0 km) path ?

If it needs another hyphen, the convert template doesn't deal with that, so what should editors do? Do they always need to recast the sentence, or should they just do the convert manually? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Either "a path 0.6 mile (1.0 km) long", or "a 0.6-mile (1.0 km) path". Tony (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pine Creek from Otter Vista, horizontal.JPG <font=3> Thanks again for your hyphen help - Leonard Harrison State Park made featured article today!
Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Colton Point and Leonard Harrison State Parks Map.png

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany[edit]

I have properly reworded the first two sentence per you suggestion. I am a bit confused over the sentence "total tobacco consumption by military personnel declined in the later years from 1939 to 1945" where you said there are five redundant words. I have removed the word "tobacco", but can please clarify the other words, I am bit confused. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What about "tobacco consumption by military personnel declined from 1939 to 1945"? That seems to strip it down to the essential meaning. Do you know how to locate potential copy-editor collaborators? Tony (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)