User talk:Ohconfucius/archive36

Why are you still changing access dates that are consistent within an article and allowed by the MoS (per MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:CITEVAR), as at Cordyline pumilio? Please stop now. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your script assisted edit to List of British Army full generals ([1]). While mostly beneficial, please note the the Bombay Staff Corps (and similar staff corps) is a proper noun and as such all its initial letters should be capitalized. Not sure if this is a script bug or intentional but grateful if you would rectify. Thanks again. Greenshed (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, I appreciate your good intentions in regard to "Edmund Charaszkiewicz", but he was not a "British person of Polish descent". He was a Pole who ended up in Britain due to the vicissitudes of history. He could not return to Poland, so he stayed in Britain. That is not sufficient reason to change the spelling used by the article's original author. Please do not change the spelling again to British. To prevent further confusion, I have deleted the "British persons of Polish descent" category.

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still a strong national tie. American English doesn't make any sense in that context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stanton. @Nihil novi:I also tend to feel the period of enforced residence British Isles still counts as a strong national tie. It's not like the Philippines, which was colonised by the USA and thus Philippine articles tend to be in US English. Poland has no such ties with the US. It's not down to whether he voluntarily spent time there, but the fact that he did that makes a difference. If an individual was educated in Britain in their youth and without any other sojourns in US territories, it would be the same. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I propose applying Oxford spelling, which uses the suffix -ize in words like organize and recognize because -ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, -izo (-ιζω), of most -ize verbs. Oxford spelling is used by many British academic and science journals (e.g., Nature) and many international organizations (e.g., the United Nations and its agencies), and in many British literary works, including the King James Bible, the works of Shakespeare, The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie, and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis.

The -ize spelling is common for academic, formal, and technical writing for an international readership. The spelling affects about 200 verbs and is favored because -ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, -izo, of most -ize verbs. The belief that -ize is exclusively an American spelling is incorrect. In Britain, both the -ise and -ize spellings are used.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that suggestion. Seems reasonable enough! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ohconfucius, for introducing Oxford spelling into the "Edmund Charaszkiewicz" article!

Nihil novi (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I see you have been active cleaning up various formatting issues, for which I thank you. In amoung your edits however I see you have been tending to remove any words & numbers in parentheses from case titles - for example in your edit to Wilkie v Commonwealth you removed the (No 2) for the second external link, which left the page confusing the two different cases. As this example the words in parentheses disambiguate which case is being referred to, helping to maintain the accuracy & verifiability of wikipedia. Find bruce (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have now noticed you have been introducing errors by purporting to correct the spelling of quotes from the Constitution of Australia, legislation and court cases, eg [2], [3], [4] & [5]. Please stop. Find bruce (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, which has allowed me to fix a bug in my script. Please note that, except in R v Kirby article, there is nothing to indicate that the words ought not to have been changed – they are not bounded by quote formatting. Quotes ought rightly to be protected from arbitrary change (but wasn't in the case of R. v Kirby because of a script glitch). The errors were made in good faith, and I don't really think that your tone was warranted. Anyhow, my apologies. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you think there is some problem with my tone. In any event, it would seem my fundamental point is not clear. "Overruled" is a legitimate word and I am unaware of "over-ruled" being commonly used. The use of "-ise" or "-ize" is context sensitive, at least in Australia. As an example the Macquarie Dictionary lists "recognise" and "recognize" as being equally used spellings. Where the spelling of a word such as "recognize" is acceptable in the context of an article, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Where an article uses spelling consistently, there is no valid reason for a change in the absence of consensus.

Similarly in relation to wikilinks, I am at a loss to see any legitimate explanation for changing "Williams v Commonwealth (No 2)" to "Williams v Commonwealth", or why you or your script thinks that a wikilink to Oxford University should be replaced with Oxford that is a link to the city of Oxford.

My polite request was for you to stop running a script that requires a substantial amount of rework to restore the articles to a context appropriate spelling. Find bruce (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we were slightly talking cross-purposes.My point was that there was no indication within wikicode that the passages were quotes, so the script could not parse them as such. I was indeed unaware that Macquarie recognises the Oxford "-ize" on the par with "-ise" in Australian, and I thank you for pointing it out. There is no argument about the other points, for which the relevant scripts have been adjusted. I see now that you intended your message to be polite, and I take it as such. However, I'd like it noted that I consider the final sentence "Please stop" as being rather abrupt, and what caused me to comment about your tone. G'day! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we are able to resolve things. I can see your point about what I intended to be polite can be seen as being abrupbt & I will try to avoid that in the future. Thanks. Find bruce (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ohconfucius. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohconfucius, I had to fix the article 2017 Brighton siege following your script. You removed all the Facebook video references which were official Victoria Police media briefings which created citation required tags. AnomieBOT had to rescue orphan refs. Your script changes website info to publisher for cite news and work info was removed and publisher only info. Cite AV media was changed removing publisher info and changing work to publisher. This is the second article you have run scripts. Clearance Diving Branch (RAN) article was changed. In cite news info was removed newspaper which was the official title. Cite web changed website to publisher. Cite episode the title info was changed to work. It takes me considerable time to rectify your changes.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Augh! If that's the case, Ohconfucius, please fix it. One of the most constant sources of frustration (multiple times per day almost every day) that I have as a citation cleaner is people constantly putting the work title in the publisher field, which is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's the same thing as confusing The Magical Mystery Tour with Apple Records, or Garner's Modern English Usage with Oxford University Press. For {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, and various others (but not {{cite book}} – bug has been reported to WT:CS1), |work= is synonymous with |website=, |journal=, |newspaper=, |magazine=, |periodical=. It's desirable that all of these be replaced with |work= for consistency and brevity. It also aids conversion (e.g. of mistaken uses of {{cite web}} when {{cite news}} should have been used, or whatever). For {{cite book}}, |work= should be an alias of |title= which is divergent from |title= in other templates, the {{cite book}} equivalent of which is |chapter=.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Melbguy05 and SMcCandlish:I'll fix the ref names where problems exist. Two things:

• WP has clear policy not to refer to primary sources and self-published sources except for very special circumstances. The only exception is where a link is provided to the subject's own website. I do not think any of those exceptions apply here. Twitter, FB are notable among those SPS. Therefore, the script automatically strips citations that refer to these. Editors ought to find notable secondary sources that substantiate or formally mention the elements that are included in any given article. If no secondary sources exist to cite, then that tends to suggest the information isn't notable to start with.
• As to the use of the |work= and |publisher= parameters, it's exactly the problem that Stanton describes, where editors populate the wrong field which consequently gives rise to incorrect italicisation. Someone in their wisdom decided to create confusing parameters and I'm happy to build regexes for these were it not be for my fear of the false positives that would start appearing immediately. And where the source is a well known one, such as News.com.au, putting additional publisher is not recommended. There is no problem with |work=Navy News, but |website=RAN Clearance Divers Association is clearly wrong as it's an organisation and not a publication (this is an instance where the |website= parameter is misleading). News.com is a website whose name in WP is not italicised (not yet, anyway), so the use of the non-italicising |publisher= parameter is correct. Furthermore, as a red herring now that I notice it, that site is not owned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation but by Rupert Murdoch, so its removal was correct albeit for the wrong reason. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  There are lots of cases where primary sources are permissible, ranging from WP:ABOUTSELF to providing attribution for quotations. And not everything on these sites is primary anyway (when they're not, the site should be in |via= instead). I think this behavior by the bot is beyond its approved scope. I.e., if you proposed a bot to delete primary and alleged primary source citations of these sites, that bot request would be denied. What it should probably be doing is adding {{primary source inline}} to these citations, so that they're tagged and categorized as probable but not 100% in need of cleanup. Even a primary source is better than no source. The correct solution to a statement cited to a primary source when it is not something (per WP:AEIS) that can be drawn from a primary source is to remove the claim, not the source for it. That's something that requires human judgement as to a) whether the case in question qualifies, b) whether the cite to a usually-primary site is in fact primary, and c) what the affected material is.

  Next, the "incorrect" italicization is subjective and debated trivia (and if eventually the debate ended, in favor of no italics, then just a temporary matter of template limitations). The real issue is that the metadata is all F'ed up, and the citation is confused and confusing, harder for readers to use to verify that our content is accurate.

  Additionally, the entire idea that "News.com is a website whose name in WP is not italicised (not yet, anyway), so the use of the non-italicising |publisher= parameter is correct" is totally, utterly false. That parameter is for the publishing company, only. Never, ever, ever for the name of the work (whether it be a conventional title like Salon or a domain name like Salon.com. Whether MOS:TITLES is being obeyed in a particular article or not, and whether that guideline will have a rule to not italicize titles of online works or not (it does not) has no bearing of any kind on what parameters to use for the correct data in citation templates. Their style is presently fixed, but in theory they could be adjusted to not italicize |website= if a) we had an actual consensus that domain/host names used as tiles not be italicized (there is no such consensus), and b) the |website= were re-documented and re-coded to be for hostnames only (throwing an error if one is not used), and c) |work= were re-documented as required (in that form or one of its aliases) for non-hostnames, throwing an error if one is used. I.e., |work= would have to no longer include |website= as an alias. If this is what you want, good luck. It will take multiple RfC and months if not years to gain consensus for that, if it ever happened. You can't just impose it via bot in a WP:FAITACCOMPLI manner. I hate to be so strident about this, but this is serious matter, and the ideas you're presenting are ones that we've been over before multiple times in great detail without consensus emerging for them.

  PS: In the event that a publication's title and publisher have identical or even near-identical names, we do not use the |publisher= parameter. This even applies to traditional offline publications; e.g. we use |work=[[The New York Times]], not |work=[[The New York Times]]|publisher=[[New York Times Company]], not just |publisher=[[New York Times Company]], and never in a million years |publisher=[[The New York Times]] or |publisher=[[The New York Times|NYTimes.com]]. That's just blatant citation data falsification for WP:POINTy style trivia viewpoint advocacy purposes.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the input. I will modify the script in light of your comments. I clean up a great many citation errors, and I can tell you that all those proscribed forms you mention above exist. I think that editors often cannot be bothered to read the citation templation documentation, and fill in the parameters wrongly.

• Thanks for addressing it! And, yes, the "put random stuff in whatever parameter" problem is rampant (thus my "constant source of frustration" comment) and mostly affects online sources, though I also very frequently encounter things like |publisher=BBC News, |publisher=International Journal of Basketweaving, etc. (And a different kind of error: |publisher=Google Book, |publisher=YouTube – those are properly |via=). For websites, I think the similarity between (or even exact equivalence of) the name of the work and the publisher for most online publications leads to much of the confusion. People don't see a "traditional" title at "foobar.com" or whatever (like Foo Bar: Barian News for Fooites, just a "FooBar.com" decorative logo, don't understand that's the actual title, and don't find a publisher name in the copyright info other than something like "FooBar.com Inc.", so they aren't sure what to do, and put |publisher=FooBar.com and that's it. PS: A further complication is that when it comes to such an entity, something like "A. B. Ceesdale worked as the FooBar.com systems administrator from 2003 to 2012" is correct style even if you're in the "italicize domain names as publications" camp (i.e. "The news was first published in FooBar.com"), because in the former case "FooBar.com" is being addressed as a business entity with employees, like New York Times Company, not as a publication (source). Unless we settle on a "never italicize a publication name if it is a hostname" (unlikely, but possible), we'll eventually have to address this in MOS:TITLES, since after 16 years people are still doing it wrong on a daily basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're referring to the removal of "newspaper" from Navy News newspaper, I don't believe it actually belongs in the title. In any event, the mention "the official newspaper of the Royal Australian Navy" ought not be in the field. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  True. That's a marketing tagline, not a subtitle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ohconfucius. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harry Littlewood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Moment in Time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the logic of removing "language=en" from reference wikicode? Sure it's ignored, but when it comes to translate an article into another language, if the language of a reference is not provided, then it makes the lives of translators an absolute nightmare. Every ref I add, due to experiencing this myself, I try to add "en" in the language. I can't understand why you'd want to remove them, it seems a little silly (and a waste of time and resources) if you ask me. UaMaol (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just clutter, and wastes more resources here than removing it both for WMF and our readers. Any source that doesn't have something like |language=es is assumed to be English on this wiki, just like sources with no language parameter at es.Wikipedia are presumably Spanish. This isn't a "nightmare" for anyone, just common sense. It's not like every wiki is going to support the English-language parameter name |language= in their own templates, anyway. So, the copy-paste-parameters-while-translating argument doesn't fly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stanton. Well, exactly. The moment to tag a source |language=en would be at the point of using the reference on a sister WP project. It serves no meaningful function here on en.WP, as it English is the default. I would add that it is not a wasted of time as I do not look to perform insignificant edits. The change, whenever it is performed, is always part of an edit where there are more significant changes to the form or formatting of articles. My advice to you is to save yourself the bother of adding "en" in the language – the time you spend doing that would be more productive spent elsewhere. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 18:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with both of you points. Resources would be better spent elsewhere indeed for both matters, but considering you've mentioned it, I'm going to continue using it. Let's waste both of our time and resources... UaMaol (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UaMaol:Your prerogative, of course. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bernie Sherlock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kells (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ohconfucius. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 3,290 pending submissions Purge to update v t e I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you prefer linking like "Napoleon Bonaparte" rather than "Napoleon Bonaparte"? I see no advantage at all in the first construction and it looks bad to my eye. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't sasy why exactly. I don't go consciously changing "Napoleon Bonaparte" from "Napoleon Bonaparte". I suspect it may have been an automated simplification of piped links. Which article are you referring to where I may have changed this? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's something the script does: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=818428944&oldid=818386367. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much, as someone foolishly piped "Napoleon Bonaparte" to "Napoleon", instead of using the piped link "[[Napoleon Bonaparte]]". It's what redirects on WP are for. The script picks up redundancies within links and created the simplest link. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohconfucius. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nick Yates, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Stupified after removing copyvio. Still might be good for AfD, but not speedy now. . Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Will consider that route in due course. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angelique Rockas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-apartheid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just wanted to draw your attention to your recent edit at Alexander Macdonald, 17th of Keppoch, in which you changed the existing ref name "macdonald391" to "macdonald391A", "macdonald391B", and "macdonald391C". These three had the same content, so didn't need different ref names. This is clearly not a big deal (and I never would have seen it, had not one of them generated a ref error), but I wanted to mention it in case this is indicative of a larger issue with the script-assisted fixes. If not, ignore me. And ignore (or correct) me if I'm misunderstanding something here. Thanks! :) Jessicapierce (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohconfucius. We seem to be treating the |website= and |publisher= of Template:Cite web differently. With your script you changed "|website=Newnham College|publisher=University of Cambridge" to "|publisher=Newnham College" on Jenny Morton. To me this is incorrect. According to the template page "website: Title of website" and "publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)." In this example, the website is Newnham College but it is published by the University of Cambridge (as shown by the cam.ac.uk of the address). Could you explain your reasoning? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa, as can be seen at Help:Citation_Style_1#Work_and_publisher, |website= is an alias for what ought to be works or journals – these are normally italicised according to our style guide. The example used in Template:Cite web, "Encyclopedia of Things", reflects this, as the encyclopaedia would clearly be be a reference work in publishing terms. The field |work= is therefore not intended for Newnham College, which is not a "work" or "journal" according to any known definition. As such, a more appropriate way to express the information in that case would be |publisher=Newnham College, or |publisher=Newnham College, University of Cambridge if you insist on a greater level of completeness, and the |work= would be left blank. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure where you have got the above from. As per Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher:

• "work: Used by some templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} (where it is aliased to newspaper), {{cite magazine}} (aliased to magazine), {{cite journal}} (aliased to journal)": the reference to aliases here means that the |work= is named differently in cite news/etc, not that only newspapers/journals/etc can feature in the work parameter.
• On websites, in most cases "work" is the name of the website (as usually given in the logo/banner area of the site, and/or appearing in the <title>...</title> of the homepage, which may appear as the page title in your browser tab, depending on browser); otherwise use the site's domain name. If the "work" as given by the site/publication would be exactly the same as the name of the publisher, use the domain name. This clearly shows that the website name is what goes in |work= when using Cite web.
• As for |publisher=: "publisher: the name of the company that actually published the source". This parameter is about which company/organisation/etc has published the website; it is not for stating the name of the website itself.
• "The "publisher" parameter should not be included either for mainstream, widely-known newspapers, or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work/site/journal/etc." This shows that |work= has prominence over |parameter= and it is the latter that is left out if they are the same; not |work= as you have suggested.

Therefore, going off the above the options for the example we are discussing are:

1. |work=Newnham College and |publisher=University of Cambridge
2. |work=Newnham College, University of Cambridge (and no |publisher=)
3. |work=newn.cam.ac.uk and |publisher=University of Cambridge

Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Octavia Agrippa, I promise you I didn't make any of it up. CS1 is certainly one of those guidelines that is involved, and there may have been discussions that are not reflected in the template documentation. I clearly remember bringing up the issue of publisher/work, and possible confusion subsequent to the creation of the |website= alias, but I was told instructions would be made unambiguous. Maybe user:Jonesey95 can help? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following the documentation, I would use option 2 above, per the banner on the web site. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright Ohconfucius: I know what its like to do something a certain way because you're sure that's the way its supposed to be done, only to have the supporting evidence for that practice has disappeared/maybe never existed as remembered. Thanks for your input Jonesey95: the banner does currently support that option, it did formerly simply say Newnham College. Does this mean you'll adjust your script Ohconfucius? Or what ever it is that would need changing; the technical side of Wiki is my fortey. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you offered, maybe you'd like to take a look at my sources script first, to see how it can be adjusted for the above, and then maybe what other improvements you can suggest to to it as well as my other scripts. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read my reply again. I meant that the technical side is not my fortey. I wouldn't know where to start! Sorry, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PRC Barnstar has been nominated for merging with Template:People's Republic of China National Merit Medal. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may be interested to cast your vote at Talk:Hongwu_Emperor#Requested_move_28_March_2018. Timmyshin (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent some time trying to fix Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen because the formatting of the operation name "Operation Restoring Hope" was broken (second paragraph). I traced it down to your change in December, which replaced backticks by single quotes. And so

which they called '''Operation ''Restoring Hope''''' ({{lang-ar|عملية إعادة الأمل}} ''`Amaliyyat 'I`ādat al-'Amal'').

became this:

which they called '''Operation ''Restoring Hope''''' ({{lang-ar|عملية إعادة الأمل}} '''Amaliyyat 'I'ādat al-'Amal'').

You'll notice that the backticks in the transliteration were replaced by single quotes and they became part of the formatting. The side-effects on the parser were interesting: the very first single quote became a literal, Operation became italic, Restoring Hope normal, the Arabic text bold+italic and the triple single quote ended the bold so transliteration became italic until the final double single-quotes. It looks like the only way the parser could make any sense out of this was to drop the very first single quote.

My fix was to change one single-quote into a '.

Now, Ohc_format_MOSPUNCT() has a regex for converting stuff into single quotes, including backticks. That makes sense, but blindly doing quote replacement from a script will break formatting. I suggest you remove these this regex quickly and review the others to make sure they don't introduce any more mistakes. I see you've been using these scripts extensively for years, and it makes me a bit uneasy.

Cheers! Isa (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohconfucius: Are you actually watching your talk page? Isa (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now modified the script so that it should now not tinkle with these instances of quote marks. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)-- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Isa (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, I presume you've addressed the wrong insertion of "$" in Warsaw. I can't work out why this happened on only three lines.

And this one, too, if you would. Cheers. Tony (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't work out where the problem came from. As you noticed, I ran the script on Warsaw, but the errors were not repeated. So I left it for now, until the problem resurfaces again. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohconfucius,

I am a fan of your Engvar script and really use it a lot, but one thing I've been missing was the ability to convert BE -> AE. Because of this, I took to your code edited a bit. Please see User:Lordtobi/USEnglish.js for my overhauled version and this diff for all changes.

What did I change exactly?

• Added "American English", "Australian English" and "Indian English"
• Aligned code style and indentation
• All spellings now add their respective template
• Commented out the custom regex functions, as they seemed to note quite work properly, and the protect function as it was rather useless when used manually (you can comment them in anytime, of course)
• Fixed a few syntax errors and refactored a few function and variable names and comments so that the code is more sound (if you require these function names elsewhere, I can change them back)
• Fixed the import of the regex tool script so the toolbar on the left is only shown once
• Removed some unused code
• Streamlined many code bits, including concatenating all edit summary functions into one
• Updated 404 links

I would appreciate if you overtook this new code intro your script for everybody (including me of course ) to enjoy! Lordtobi (✉) 17:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I'm still progressing with more bugfixes, I'm curious what you think about my changes and if you would consider overtaking them into your own script. Again, if you need any of the functions names in other scripts, I can renamed them back. If you think functions like Indian English are unnecessary, you can simply comment out the toolbar entry. Lordtobi (✉) 22:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the fixes. I will incorporate them shortly. For information, I am not interested in going down the road of tagging articles {{Use Australian English}} and {{Use Indian English}}, as there are no differences between these codes as far as the script is concerned, and I was never in favour of the proliferation of these templates. I will incorporate the American spelling when I have a few spare moments. In the meantime, you might be interested in looking at my test scripts – They are slightly different but I need the same changes to be mirrored. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Lordtobi: The script was written to avoid false positives of words such as proper nouns such as here, so I was wondering why you thought to use [a-zA-Z] instead of [A-Z]. Regards,-- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding tagging, I read somewhere that it is always more useful to tag with the most appropriate tag where possible, not any sup-topical one. EngvarB is or should be equivalent to British English, so people could leave people the freedom to use whatever they want. Otherwise you can just comment out the Australian and Indian options (but leave their replacable regexes in so they are replaced by the script) and enforce British.

Regarding capitalisation, I though that words that need be Brit-icised can also be at the start of the sentence. Proper nouns can always be a problem, just like quotes. If you feel like you should rather have sentence beginnings as manually changable exceptions, put back [a-z].

Regarding your test scripts, what exactly do you wish me to do with them? Lordtobi (✉) 13:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordtobi:Specifically, there are only two mosnum scripts in use – the test script (that only I use), and the production script. They have diverged to the point that I have difficulty maintaining them. The history is now a bit blurred, but it may partly have been caused by some upgrades to my earlier test script from Pathoschild which facilitate calls to their script. For some reason I could not replicate to my production script, and the script is no longer used. I was hoping that I would find the time, but mainly that there would be some outside intervention, as comes along from time to time . Both scripts work more or less correctly, but I now no longer know which of those changes need to stay and which need to be ported to the test script (and which ones are no longer relevant), so it would be great if you can find the time to take a look and realign them. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Ohconfucius - Is there a particular reason why your script removes instances of Template:Use Australian English and replaces with Template:EngvarB? -- Ham105 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohconfucius, Just a suggestion but is there anyway a change can be implemented that doesn't touch the dates in the singlechart templates (See this for example) ?,
Using this tool on the singlechart templates causes the website url to be incorrect (ie clicking the UK Single cite goes to http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/ instead of http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/20131020/7501/),

I wasn't sure if there was a way this could be changed as many editors could use this obviously not realising it renders URLs useless, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Davey2010: I've copied Ohconfucius' script and fixed the issue you are describing (through function call reordering) here, as long as it is not included in the main script, you can import my version to achieve the wished results.

@Ohconfucius: In order to fix the issue, the "ohc_ISO_to_xxx_in_citations" and "ohc_xxx_publication_dates" need to be called before "ohc_unprotect_dates" is called. Furthermore, you accidentally commented out "ohc_protect_dates" instead of "ohc_delink_dates" in the "ohc_all_to_mdy_driver" function. You can see all fixes I performed here. In the edit prior, I applied formatting and syntax error fixes, and removed a dead link. My updated version should be save to be copied over into your script, otherwise you can manually fix it as described here. Lordtobi (✉) 22:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that I had built in the relevant protection, so I was baffled as to why it didn't work. Thanks for that. I've now tweaked the script accordingly. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies forgot to reply here, Many thanks Lordtobi & OhC, –Davey2010^Talk 18:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the code, line 188 throws a "Too many errors" warning. Should I be concerned?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Script uses some lazy tricks (multiple variable definitions etc.) that cause JavaScript warnings. Because of a larger quantity of those, Wikipedia issues the warning you see. Unless your browser crashes, it's not an issue. Lordtobi (✉) 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohconfucius just wanted to let you know I have observed an error while executing your "Fix Sources" script. For Time (magazine), if its piped in the work parameter to the previous wikilink and shown as [[Time (magazine)|Time]], it removes the second pipe and leaves it bare as Time (magazine). Do you know why? I hope I was able to explain the observation. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OhCo,

• My first reaction to your WP:G11 tag was "but its an iconic girls choir! It must not be deleted!
• Looking through the references, I noted that they would mostly appear to be sources from the organization itself, listings of the performances of the choir, and passing mentions in otherwise reliable sources, as you already wrote in the WP:G:11 nomination
• I also note that there is no Wikipedia article for its purported parent organization "Australian School of Performing Arts"
• I considered
  • listing the article at WP:AFD as an alternative to speedy deletion
  • declining the speedy deletion, and saying just go back and clean up all the puffery
• That said, while in my opinion the subject of the article may meet the WP:GNG, I agree that article, despite its long history, meets the WP:G11 criteria.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, OhCo. Thanks for your thank, and for putting up with my verbiage above, which was basically me thinking aloud about why the article shouldn't be deleted, especially as I am of the antipodean persuasion. Young people singing together - like The Princess Bride, ice cream (broadly construed to include similar vegan and allergen-free frozen desert foods) and the Ramones - is something that everyone likes. It wasn't an easy decision. Notice of sorts: if anyone watching here wants to contest that speedy deletion, let me know in any way you chose, and I'll do my very best to help out. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ohconfucius. I hate to say it, but your User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources script is engaging in an outright error, which is affecting thousands and thousands of pages:

• "new media sources will be non-italicised by default; names suffixed .com, .org, .net, etc are classed as 'publisher' and unitalicised"

This is an abuse of the |publisher= parameter, is against the template documentation, and is emitting incorrect COinS metadata from our templates. This needs to be stopped, and is probably the no. 1 most frequent citation error. These must go in the |work= parameter. There is no consensus whatsoever that these should not be italicized, either. Every time someone has proposed this, the idea has failed to gain consensus. A major work is a major work is a major work; being online instead of on dead trees, and having ".com" in the title (now a common part of many registered trademarks) doesn't make it magically different. If the publication's title really is SweClockers.com then it really is SweClockers.com. If its title really is just Salon, not Salon.com, then |work=Salon.com is just a citation error that needs to be corrected. It's something someone will need to go to the site and look at, if we have no article on the publication. It is an order of magnitude more preferable for |work=Foo.com to appear when it really should be |work=Foo than for this to wrongly be converted to |publisher=Foo.com, which doesn't even conceptually make sense; the publisher is the company or other organization, only – not a publication, not a website, not a server, not anything else (except perhaps the special value "self-published", but that's better done with {{self-published source}} after the citation template if it's a WP:ABOUTSELF-permissible primary source, or with {{self-published inline}} after the </ref> tag if it's not).

This one may also be implicated:

• "functionally, correct italicisation will be performed by switching to an appropriate parameter (to or from |work=, |newspaper= or |journal= <–> |publisher=); '|work=' is used to achieve italicisation when switching from |publisher= as the script cannot customise to the citation template being used)."

Anyway, I've been wondering why so many people seem unable to conceptualize the difference between a publication and a publisher when the medium is digital instead of paper (= somehow can't tell the difference between The Amazing Spider-Man and Marvel Comics, or between The Magical Mystery Tour and Apple Records, or between Game of Thrones and HBO). I think what's really happening is that your popular script is auto-inserting this error, by the thousands. I can't even begin to estimate how much of my own time has been consumed correcting this error manually. In some long articles it happens 20+ times.

Please fix this ASAP. Man, I really wish I'd known this script was the cause of this bad-citation-data problem several years ago. It's taken a long time to track down.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This one might need some tweaking:

• "remove unpopulated parameters within citation templates"

That might be inadvisable for a few cases, especially |page= or |pages= for a book or journal cite when there is not also a populated |pages=, |page=, or |at= in the same citation. That's usually cause for a {{page needed}} tag. I wouldn't bother with it for news, since people often use {{cite news}} for unpaginated news site citations.

This one is vague:

• "where the contents of |work= and |publisher= is identical, the two are merged (i.e. one of them is discarded)."

It's the publisher that should be discarded, as |work= is key citation data, while |publisher= is not when the work name is identical; not the other way around. I.e., it can't be based on whichever one appears first.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • @SMcCandlish:I didn't want to get into any circuitous discussions as to how to format or classify these. I wrote my script to closely mirror the article namespaces, and that is noted in the script documentation. If a certain article is italicised, my script italicises the name; if they are not, the script de-italicises. It's really as simple as that. So if you want to argue that such and such an article ought to be italicised, please feel free to do so in the appropriate place. Of course, some may have been changed in the meantime, and I'd be pleased to hear from you wrt any that no longer obey that rule. The same applies to the respective names. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what's happening, though. What's happening is you're abusing a parameter for a completely different purpose (you are polluting the citation metadata with false information) in an effort to try to forcibly mimic italics on a case by case basis (which is a moving target anyway – an article might change in that regard at any moment). The fact that |work= gets italicized by the citation templates is entirely incidental (to CS1 citation style), which is also a potentially moving moving target and could change at any time. Your script really needs to stop doing this. Put the correct data in the correct parameters regardless what you think the stylization trivia of the output should look like. This really is important.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too complicated for me; but I guess I'll stop using the script until this is sorted? Tony (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have this in my common.js:

// OhConfucius's "ENGVARB": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB#Scope
mw.loader.load('https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
// Ohconfucius's"formatgeneral": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral
mw.loader.load('https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

I get two copies of your Scripts menu in my left sidebar (along with TemplateScript Regex editor between them). Is there something to be done to have it only appear once?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 

• I have yet to work out the answer to that. I have the same problem, or rather, six of them . Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I was wondering if there was a way to use your dmy AWB module without changing the dates in ref templates. I'm an admin on scowiki and all dates there need to be dmy but many are still in mdy from when they were translated from enwiki. I would love to use a localized version of your dmy module to remedy this problem, but I don't want to change dates in ref templates, as that would open another can of worms, because 99% of dates in scowiki refs not only use mdy, but they also use English month names. If they were translated, currently they would trigger a "Check date values in: |accessdate=" error unless you changed it to where the references would only recognise translated month names, but then all the rest of the articles would need updating and it would be a pain. Another option could be changing something to where the ref templates would accept both English and Scots month names, but idk if that's possible. Probably the simplest solution for now would be finding a simple way to exclude reference templates from your module? Thanks, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohc! Love the script. Using it more and more everyday. I had a question I couldn't answer by reading the instructions. Is there a way to go from British spelling to American spelling? Of course, I would only use this on American subjects. Is that one of the intended purposes of "Edit my regexes"? Do you have an example of a regex I can emulate? Thanks --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check email. BTW, I watching so no need to ping.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, are you doing anything about this? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:Coffeeandcrumbs has helped me beta the test script. I will try to find the time to update the production script before next week. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's something called regex editor in its place....Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohconfucius, Hope all is well :),
With your Engvar script - When you click on "BRITISH" it then obviously changes everything to British and adds a "{{EngvarB|}}" template to the article -
I was wondering at some point if the "EngvarB" template could maybe be replaced with "{{Use British English}}" as IMHO "EngvarB" doesn't mean anything to the average reader (who then edits) whereas UBE does if that all makes sense,
Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 17:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• After a while running the script, I realised that using the {{Use British English}} tag caused the proliferation of different tags such as {{Use Australian English}}, {{Use Irish English}} etc, which were totally counterproductive and caused misunderstandings as to the nature of the script and the tolerance for other codes per WP:ENGVAR. In fact, I finally came back to {{EngvarB}} as being the most neutral, and most universal label for what the script does without causing turf wars. Hope this explanation helps. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So what you're saying is that the 'British' option doesn't change articles to specifically British English at all, but rather Commonwealth English in general? If so, the 'British' description can be misleading. If it does use specifically British English, it should use the {{Use British English}} template rather than {{EngvarB}} as EngvarB doesn't necessarily mean British English any more. It's irritating when I have to change the EngvarB template the script places or overwrites the existing Engvar template with (sometimes back) to {{Use British English}}. Adam9007 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get the EngvarB script back? It's been replaced by something called Regex editor. Keith-264 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please? Keith-264 (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried the usual troubleshooting actions, but cannot understand why the script doesn't work in isolation and in the context of your monobook script. I did find however, that all my scripts work from within my monoboook files. I would recommend that you tried importing my monobook.js file by pasting the instruction:

importScript("User:Ohconfucius/monobook.js"); while removing importScript("User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js");

I'm sorry that the sidebar will become quite busy as a result, but at least it seems like an acceptable work-around for me. Let me know how it goes for you. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   What links here
   Related changes
   Upload file
   Special pages
   Page information
   Wikidata item
   Edit with migration tool
   Highlight duplicate links
   Find dups
   Foreign dates
   General formatting
   Delink COMMON terms
   Delink ALL countries
   Unlink US states 
   Remove ALL links
   ALL dates to dmy
   ALL dates to mdy
   Body dates to dmy
   Body dates to mdy
   Body+pub dates to dmy
   Body+pub dates to mdy
   BIGENDIAN ref dates
   Expand ref dates
   Expand all dates
   Abbrev ref dates
   Unpipe
   Add REFTAGS
   CITE name
   Fill DOMAIN_NAME
   Unlink source name
   Fix SOURCES Keith-264 (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hang on, I scrolled down and found about five duplicate scripts boxes. Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: I found out what the problem was, and the Engvar script works independently now. You can go back to the original setting (import Engvar.js instead of importing my monobook.js) and most of the unwanted buttons in the sidebar should vanish. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented here on a talkpage of the miscellaneous topics community survey at Meta. Tony (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ohconfucius. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the script you are running. So far I've found 3 pages that broke when it replaced parameters with no regard for whether those parameters would work in the template. [6], [7] & [8]. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can confirm that that change is indeed being made by my script, and I'm in the throes of working out why. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please take a peek at Election Committee for my edit just now to repair damage there. sirlanz 01:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I've now disabled the regex that caused the change of Chief Executive. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this, sirlanz. We rely on such feedback to keep the scripts running optimally. Tony (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good. sirlanz 11:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to the above issues, the script seems to have changed "gray" and "color" incorrectly (within inline CSS) on Wong Chuk Hang station. Is this fixable in the script? Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to this script? It no longer loads for me. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering this myself. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how long it's been out for, because the last change was in November, and it seems that the change may have introduced the error. I have now tweaked it. I hope it works now. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PTChandapilla portrait.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohconfocius,

| language = [[English language|English]] dialogue, with [[German language|German]] introduction<br>

dialogue, with German introduction<br>

This is even right at the top of the diff, and it should be obvious that it is not ok. But you apparently didn't notice it and even repeated (!) this edit. Please don't do so a third time. Thanks. --Rosenzweig (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ohconfucius, it's me again. I made a few changes and fixes to my version of your script when I noticed you have since overtaken my American English part. Thus I wondered whether you'd interested in the newest changes, which include the framework conversion you had requested some time ago. Changes are:

• Ported to the current TemplateScript framework
• Re-implemented protection of words for easier maintenance
• Fixed some regex bugs (such as '\\b([a-z]*)[^l]l(ful|ment)' deleting a character)
• Wiki editor warnings resolved (except for "too many errors", which occurs even with 0 errors for some reason)

Since I know you aren't a fan of Australian/Indian English and also don't want to spam your diff check with my tab-to-space conversion, I created a version of my current script with the formatting of your script here. If you have any questions or need me to beta-test anything, please let me know. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 17:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have incorporated your suggested regex changes. Your pastebin link seems to have vanished, so I checked against your USEnglish.js script, which seems to contain all the elements you mentioned. Is that script version definitive and ready to be copied over as is? Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, I probably set the expiry time too short, sorry. I just fixed a minor bug in the protection system that I found yesterday, else the script is pretty stable, so can overcopy it if you wish. In case you want the version with tab-indentation and without Indian/Australian, I can re-do the derivation of my script like previously. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 14:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lordtobi Sounds good. Yes, I'd like it to be absent of the "non-core" language templates, which are all to be represented by {{EngvarB}}. I'd like to understand the regex in Matcher for every English variation template, which appears to contain potential templates (ones that don't yet exist). Also, I'd like to know how I would be able to call the various functions from my control.js, so it can continue operating in the same way as at present. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, the new regex checks all existing UE templates, as well as all redirects to those templates (which are also frequently used but obviously don't appear in the category). The control.js calls the JavsScript functions, right? In that case everything should be as it was before, since the framework only handles the inclusion of the script links in the left sidebar and stuff like text editing.

Now for the script itself, I might need to rework the protection system a bit since I found a new issue yesterday that breaks protections that are inside other protections. Once I have that done I'll send you a new pastebin link with the trivial stuff removed. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 14:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, control.js is a metascript that can be used by others to run many of the scripts as composites. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue perhaps you can help with is that I have 4 blocks of sidebar buttons for EngvarB that I see, and it has been reported by other users too. They aren't exactly intrusive but they are redundant. I wonder why they exist and whether they are still present with your amended script? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, I never had this issue with the old script so neither do I with the new version. I had a similar issue when trying to run GregU's dashes script alongside AutoEd (which is why I forked and tweaked the dashes script). While I'm working on the aforementioned fix, you can just use my script and see if the issue persists. BTW, with the new framework, which allows for categorization, I organized all related links under the "EngvarB" header. If you wish, I can revert to using no header for the links. Lordtobi (✉) 14:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lordtobi I did notice the categories, and was wondering what they were. It seems like a reasonable progression. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, I totally forgot about this. Over time I stumbled multiple times over the same issue with the unrpotection function I wrote, since it was not recursive. Similar issues appear with your version wheren the protection goes deeper than three levels (it's rare but I've seen it at least once). I overworked both functions so they recurse properly and are still within Pathoschild's newer framework. All issues with that function should be cleared out. I also cleaned out unnecessary escapes from all the RegEx's. As usual, I created a version that less clutters up your diff view (EngvarB only, tabs instead of spaces). I pasted the version here and this time I made sure to have it only expire in a week rather than a day. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 20:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lordtobi Many thanks for this rewrite. However, the script doesn't load. Your USEnglish.js seems to load properly,but it notified me of an error when I tred to save it (line 32 or thereabouts), but I can't see what's mismatched. but it must be the adaptations you made to remove some of the other English codes. Also, there was a problem with my previous version (prior to me pasting your rewrite), I tried to protect the {{meta color}} template but wasn't successful. It's related to the problem notified in the section below this one. Can you please take a look for me? Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, seems like I slipped a comma, sorry! I fixed that part and re-inserted the fix you mentioned in this revision. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 23:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lordtobi I noticed that the Engvar spellling corrections are no longer case sensitive, whereas it's important that they be, otherwise proper nouns such as "World Health Organization" would be changed systematically. Could you please help me tweak the code accordingly? Thanks. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, this is odd, since I didn't change any regex rules, just minorly adapted some patterns. Yet, you are correct that this problem only appears in the new version. I will have a look at it later today. Lordtobi (✉) 09:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, problem found. For whatever reason, the old regex(...); function did not process the regex properly, leading to the (un)wanted case-sensitive handling. The switch to TemplateScript "fixes" this, to unfix, I remove the "A-Z" part of the first regex in the ohc_ENGVAR_remove_zfunction. I also fixed one replacement slip-up and inlined global variable initlalization for browsers that don't support these (*ahem*, Internet Explorer). You can see the three changes here, which I hope you can overtake manually. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 19:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lordtobi Thanks for attempting to find a fix. I would never have found them myself although I'm sure that I had put in regex to restrict converting upper cased words, but this somehow disappeared down the line but still worked. However, I noticed that the adjusted script doesn't seem to do any conversions – I tried it on the George W. Bush article, and there were no changes when visualising the diff; only the minor edit box became ticked. What could be the problem? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, check my newest diff again, I think you forgot to add the line that initialises the array, so the script will come to an exception when protecting or unprotecting. Lordtobi (✉) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, your script tries to fix the spelling within templates (e.g. color -> colour) and that breaks the output; see for example this edit. Could you please teach the script to not change spelling within templates? Schwede66 05:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I wasn't joking about this. You are doing it again. Schwede66 20:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OhC—I'm a tech dummy, as you know. Do we need to act on Rexx's most-welcome posts? If so, how? Tony (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit you changed this:

{{cite web|title=Dog skeleton from Mary Rose displayed in Portsmouth|date=12 March 2010|work=BBC News|publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation |accessdate=11 March 2013|author=Uncreditted|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/8564209.stm}}

to this:

{{cite web|title=Dog skeleton from Mary Rose displayed in Portsmouth|date=12 March 2010|work=''BBC News'' |accessdate=11 March 2013|author=Uncreditted|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/8564209.stm}}

That change is not in compliance with cs1|2; see Template:Cite web#COinS (applies to all cs1|2 templates). If this is your script, please fix it; if not, please tell the maintainer about this problem.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Victor Mallet visa controversy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after journalist Victor Mallet chaired a talk by Chan Ho-tin, leader of the now-banned Hong Kong National Party, he was denied renewal of his Hong Kong work permit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Victor Mallet visa controversy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Victor Mallet visa controversy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Hi Ohconfucius. I'm having trouble with the date formating tools.

I looked at my User:N2e/common.js page, and it appears that I tried to add the proper javascript fragment you suggested a bit over a year ago. Not sure what results I got at the time; but I'm guessing I never got it working even then, and just got overwhelmed with other stuff in the inbox and life, and moved on.

Recently, I've tried clicking on the tools that appear in the left navbar of any page I'm editing to standardize a few dates, and nothing happens at all: the "changes" page shows no change.

I wonder if you might take a look at what I've done wrong somewhere. I'm guessing that my ignorance of what's up will be quickly seen by someone who knows how to read code, and configure common.js pages. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi N2e, could you outline which browser you were using, which pages you tried to edit, and whether the browser displayed any errors upon trying to run the script? You can check the latter by pressing F12, switching to the "Console" tab in the window that appears, and then running the script by clicking on the link in the left navbar. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 08:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Lordtobi. I'm using a Chrome browser. The phenomenon I reported (nothing at all happening after clicking on any one of the tool link clicks "All dates to dmy" or "Body dates to dmy" or "Body+pub dates to dmy" for example) is happening on any Wikipedia page I've tried it on. However, if you want one article in particular, edit Blue Origin and try it there, as that's what I'm on right now. I'll add some of that "Console" tab info shortly, in a next edit. N2e (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: Hm, these sound like regular errors, none specific to the MOSNUM script. I copied your common.js format, and the script still worked nicely for me. Are you using a NoScript add-on of sorts that might be blocking the JavaScript functions? Lordtobi (✉) 10:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordtobi: Thanks for checking that all out. I don't know of any add-on like that, but I'm not super technical about such things. How can I tell? N2e (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N2e, you can use Chrome's context menu in the top-right -> "More tools" -> "Extensions" to find a list of extensions installed in your browser. If there is any script-blocking add-on, please disable it and try again. Coming back to the Console output, could do the following: Open the editing page (e.g. for Blue Origin), open the console, clear the console (using the   ⃠   button), click "All scripts to dmy" and once the page starts reloading hit the ESC key to prevent it from doing so. Given the script didn't work, the console should now show a new error. Lordtobi (✉) 11:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say people.com.cn is not entirely equal to People's Daily. Yes, people.com.cn was operated by People's Daily Press, but not all the web content were appeared in the print copy of People's Daily. Many newspaper runs a website that have many content that did not appeared in the print version. For example http://orientaldaily.on.cc/ and http://home.on.cc/epaper/home.html?pub=odn are the online version that have the same article as the print version as oriental daily, but other content are not under oriental daily, they just under the same publisher. On the past, Oriental Press Group had another newspaper too.

Back to People's Daily Press. People's Daily Press Shanghai branch (Chinese: 人民日报社华东分社) published some other newspaper such as 国际金融报, in which the website of 国际金融报, was http://paper.people.com.cn/gjjrb/ so please don't change the value of |newspaper= for the content of |publisher=People's Daily Press unless you can tell which is which. Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a deletion review of Template:Use ymd dates. I think you might have originally created this template on 2009-01-08, if the history on Template:Dmy is to be believed? See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 24 § Template:Use ymd dates if you want to participate in the review. MureninC (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you keep changing the link of the names such as "James To Kun-sun" and "Albert Chan Wai-yip to "James To Kun-sun" and "Albert Chan Wai-yip". Please do not do that as they are the full names of those persons as shown in many official documents and only linking their English name + last name without their Chinese first name would also cause confusion. Lmmnhn (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lmmnhn:Thanks for your message. The intention of my changes is not to deliberately strip out the Chinese names, but seek to remove redundacies within links where possible and increasing transparency with linking. I am indeed aware of the convention for HK individuals to be named in the way you describe in some journals, but this convention in en.WP is unique, aand it seems to be often in conflict with the official namespace. The practice is, if I may say so, an aberration compared to the names in other places, Sinitic or otherwise. James To Kun-sun would be more correctly named "To, Kun-sun, James" if we took HKID as a reference point for official documentation. I don't know how many HK individuals occupy namespaces in the format of their namespaces that you mention. In the two above cases, to achieve the objective you seek, there is a very strong argument for avoiding piped links to the main namespace by using the redirected links. After all, that's the whole purpose of rredirects. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]