User talk:Ravenpuff/Archives/2019/June

Renaming Roman politicians

Hi, I disagree with your recent redirects of Ancient Roman politicians. The convention is currently to have "Name (Consul XX BC)", not "Name (consul, XX BC)". You can't just change a few of them when you have hundreds of articles with a standardised format. If you want to change the format, please start a discussion on the Wikiproject (Classical Greece and Rome). T8612 (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@T8612: Thanks for pointing this out; I wasn't aware of it at the time. The commas have been removed from the pages that I moved. I've kept the lowercase "consul", though, as this seems to be the convention at Category:Roman Republican consuls. I apologise for my undiscussed actions. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Elio Sgreccia

On 6 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Elio Sgreccia, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 03:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Hard Worker's Barnstar

I probably should have posted this earlier, but many thanks for jumping on board and helping out at POTD in the past few weeks/months. It certainly makes life easier not to have to worry about getting every day's blurb up to scratch in time, and to have someone else who is prepared to do the leg work of making sure the material posted is properly cited and up-to-scratch. Thank you for this and all the other excellent work you do on the Wiki, Ravenpuff.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

Yep, not the only one either. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I did notice the spokesmodel one, but I decided not to point that one out per this discussion at WT:ERRORS (of which I'm sure you're aware, anyway). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:Today's featured article/July 21, 2019

Gratz on the barnstars! And thanks for helping. I like all your edits on this one except the nbsp. But please be careful not to add nbsp's to dates (such as "July  1969"), per WT:ERRORS#nbsp at TFA. I'm trying to avoid making edits after or just before the blurb page is protected. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: Noted; thanks for letting me know. MOS:NBSP says that It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward, which is the convention I've generally been following in copyediting text. I'll make sure to refrain from adding more nbsps into dates in TFA blurbs. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 07:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm only asking that they not be added for dates, where consensus is clear (at FAC, at least). Opinions are all over the map on other uses ... I don't have an opinion, and I don't get involved in those fights. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Two more issues: attributive numerals ("3000 albums") don't need an nbsp, and inserting nbsp's in a page link will usually break the link. Please remove those nbsps. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: Removed as requested. Using the HTML code for nbsps definitely doesn't break links; as confirmed at MOS:NBSP, so I've kept those. Thanks again for notifying. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant: it will confuse the bots. Bots don't look at the recentlist at the bottom of blurbs after they've created it, so nbsps are fine there. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Please revert the commas too, all of them. It's fine to add an occasional comma if the case can be made that there was an oversight or that it's needed for consistency. You're going way beyond that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

And revert the nbsps after ordinals (12th battalion), please. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: Done again as requested. My apologies if my copyediting was a little rash and uncalled for. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem; it's a wiki. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious

gaudete et exsultate

Thank you for quality articles such as Gaudete et exsultate and List of titular churches, for updating the history of images and hooks used in DYK, for dealing with In the news and Main page errors, for sensible redirects and page moves to better capitalisation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda, although I must admit that I would be more inclined to refer to myself as a simple worker in the vineyard that is Wikipedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, the Precious Awards are a great honour indeed!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for modesty also then ;) - I don't mean precious in a material way, and "awesome" was something I inherited from those who did it before me. Not every user would understand the parable allusion, so I'll keep it simple and refer to you as precious. My first major topic were Bach cantatas, with many references to parables. Nimm, was dein ist, und gehe hin, BWV 144 alludes to the 11th-hour workers, like you and me. (I remember a sermon saying that only those who secretly think of themselves as the first-hour workers think it's unfair.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Popups

I assume you don't use WP:POPUPS. One of the main features is that when you select a link using the mouse while you are editing an article, you get a popup which contains a link to the article and a short summary, as well as menus for other actions (using shift+arrow won't do anything). With this edit of yours, when the pipe character is immediately preceding the first left bracket, in order to create the popup, I have to exclude that pipe from my text selection, so it's just more difficult. I appreciate that you are trying to simplify syntax, but I've been doing OTD for over 8 years and I have things a certain way because that makes my job that much easier. So when you see what appears to be unnecessarily complex syntax, rest assured that there's a good reason for it being that way. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Howcheng: Yep, I don't. Noted with thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized for that Prop 8 it's perfectly fine because I don't need to check it for suitability. My comment above about syntax only applies to those articles that are bold or potentially could be bold if they weren't ineligible. —howcheng {chat} 16:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries/July 21

Just so you know, the OTD template has not been updated for 2019. The admin who builds them has not gotten to this date. The last date they completed is July 15. So right now all the items besides Buzz Aldrin are from the previous year and we usually do not repeat anniversaries year after year. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: OTD does allow the bold addition of items to the section, which is what I did re Aldrin. As far as I know, some items are kept from the previous year's appearance (see e.g. the update for July 15), so I don't think it's too much of an issue. Thanks for notifying. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I see I was mistaken. Thank you. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)