User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2010/Feb

Automated link removal

Hi Colonies Chris, I notice you're running an automated procedure to remove links on a large number of terms. I've picked up several instances where the terms in question are basic to the article and should not be unlinked. There's one instance of British Isles at List of the busiest airports in the British Isles, which I've restored, and there appear to be other cases where a link to a country has been removed when the article is about some aspect of that country (Scotland has been delinked in numerous articles where it should not have been). Is it possible to be more discrimating in this matter? I know that wouldn't be particularly easy with an automated procedure, but what do you think? I've looked at the code and it does seem to apply a bit of a scatter-gun approach. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi CC, thanks for your response. Unfortunately the procedure you've been using is dumb. It delinks without any consideration of context; it just delinks, full stop. The British Isles airports is a good example, and you are completely wrong in your assertions regarding the necessity for a link to British Isles in that article; of course it should be linked. Yes, overlinking occurs, but the solution is not to deal with it using an unintelligent automated procedure with simple rules. I also note that the procedure in question is controversial and you have previously been blocked over its use. What is the current status of this procedure and your use of it? MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"There is not and never has been any ban on the use of that script". There's a statement at the head of it which suggests otherwise. I'm not concerned with date delinking - that's a clear issue where there's consensus - apparently. This is not the case with the other miscellanoeus stuff the script deals with, especially concerning locations. By all means delink using your own judgement, but I suggest you stop using this automated, error-prone procedure. If a new proc for date linking is soon to be available then use that instead. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, you haven't answered the point I made above about there being, at least, a temporary ban on the procedure. I told you why in some cases it's inappropriate to delink locations - if the location is fundamental to the article subject it should be linked once. If someone is reading about rivers of Scotland it's just conceivable they might want to go to the article about Scotland. Concerning British Isles, another user has suggested this term be excluded from the bot. You'll note the controversy surrounding use of the term, so at the moment it's totally inappropriate to be delinking it via an automated process. Would you be able to remove it from the proc? MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made about as much of a case for maintaining links as you have for delinking. It boils down to opposing opinions. Some links are not "valueless", others maybe. At the moment there's an agreement amonst interested editors to neither add nor remove (includes linking and delinking) British Isles without consensus so I would ask you to abide by that agreement. As for the other large number of terms the script delinks, no doubt other editors will have views on that. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I can't imagine how "British Isles" would be useful to the reader. Are there not "chained" links leading to it? That is, are there not other links more pertinent to the topic already present, which themselves might lead to BI? In any case, English-speakers are expected to know what and where the US, Canada, the British Isles, Australia are. Linking these items dilutes more valuable links. Tony (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Arbcom Motion re date delinking

As a potentially interested party, your attention is brought to a motion currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.

At the time this notice was posted the text of the motion read:

“ Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their contructive work and consensus building. ”

This wording may have since changed; please see the above link for the current wording.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Langley Flying School

An article that you have been involved in editing, Langley Flying School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley Flying School. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fastest Growing religion

Your "This is an orphan" software doesn't work. It orphaned Claims to be the fastest-growing religion which has about 200 links to it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

This is probably because most of the links are to redirects eg Fastest growing religion, claims to be the fastest growing religion.

Please mend the software or stop using it. Mike Young (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

AWB and Orphans

AWB version 5.0.0.1 fixes this bug. You can grab a snapshot. In any case we are releasing AWB 5.0.1.0 in the next few days. (Hopefully today/tomorrow). -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Riverside Shakespeare Company edits

Thanks, Colonies Chris, for your excellent editing of the Riverside Shakespeare Company site. Well done, and thanks!

Re:AWB

Hello, Colonies Chris. Thank you for the fixes to Hispanic and Latino Americans ([1]).

I have a couple of questions about those fixes. I suppose that these are not important issues, since they haven't been addressed, but I hope you indulge me and read this and reply.

1. Why aren't quotations exempted from at least some fixes? For example, if illogical quotes are part of the quoted text, why change to logical quotes? Changing any part of quoted text can make it harder to verify. For example (look at the text in boldface), let's say that an article contains this: A story in yahgoogmsn.com/1.htm states: "Smith wrote "The moon," published in 1990." But if that's changed to "Smith wrote "The moon", published in 1990." the quotation won't turn up when you go to yahgoogmsn.com/1.htm and use the browser's Find function to search for it ("Smith wrote "The moon", published in 1990."). It happens a lot: I see something in an article which is presented as a quotation but needs verification. So I copy the quotation, go to the cited source, paste it into the Find window/the browser's search function, but the quotation doesn't turn up there. I then search for smaller portions of the quotation, or even individual words. The quotation then turns up, and I find that the reason the whole of it didn't is that Wikipedia's version contains some minor alteration. Verification of quoted content that cites online sources is easier and faster if quotations aren't altered, is all I'm saying: You can copy a whole block of quoted text, go to the cited (online) source, use your browser's Find function, and if the whole thing is highlighted you know, instantly, that the quotation is 100% accurate. You don't have to do word-for-word comparisons: These are a headache when you're verifying an article that has many large quotations.

1. Whenever two or more refs are used side by side, why are they ordered in ascending numerical order? For instance, "The sun is billions of years old, 93 million miles away, larger than all the planets combined, and very hot.[8][4]" is changed to "The sun is billions of years old, 93 million miles away, larger than all the planets combined, and very hot.[4][8]". But let's say that ref #8 is a book about the sun, and supports all four claims, while ref #4 is about stars in general and provides only two of those facts. Since ref 8 is much more useful, I'd place it first, because many readers may only check one ref, the first one, ignoring the second, but more useful one. SamEV (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The WP:MOS section on quotations allows trivial changes, such as the fixing of obvious typos and changes of dissonant formatting.

We might allow for the notion that [8] is a major review article, and [4] supports with less authority. Tony (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I was so long-winded in the first paragraph. I've since thought of a couple of ways I could have cut to the chase there.

Are you saying you might implement this change for the refs? SamEV (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC); 22:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll take that as a "no". SamEV (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If I'd noticed that those elements were inside a blockquote, I'd have left them alone. Apologies for that. As for the ref order: in many articles the refs have just acccumulated over time in a random order, and reordering them in numerical sequence improves clarity. But as you say, there can be exceptions. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. I suggest you poll (formally or informally) to see whether my practice of placing the most relevant reference in front is uncommon or not. SamEV (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the Schlieren imaging article

Hello Chris, thank you forthe attention you paid for article Schlieren imaging. I saw you omitted my signature from the article - can you explain why? Shmuel Benezra (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Delinking of country names

Hi,
If that represents a new policy, your comment line is not referencing it.
Varlaam (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an old policy? You realize that not so long ago I got into a scrap with WP's biggest contributor, you know who I mean, who insisted my page contain a thousand lookups on [[United States]] or [[USA]] or [[U.S.]] or some such, while all I wanted to do was kill the lookups entirely. I thought I was sticking my neck out eliminating ridiculous, unnecessary lookups.

You realize of course that WP is chock full of precedents for lookups on the bloody obvious. I've never actually seen anyone do a [[the]] but I'm sure it's around somewhere.

Varlaam (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

[2]. SamEV (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it weren't me. In spite of what you're thinkin'.

So you processed a page I wrote. (Some Nervous Nelly is going to hit me with a limp noodle now for claiming "ownership".) War Books, pre-1775.

1) You seem to have zapped mainstream European countries. Is that a purely subjective, arbitrary selection or were you working from a zappable list?

2) That is a film list in a world where films, especially from an English-speaking perspective, tend to be Anglo-American. So I had earlier eliminated lookups on US, UK, Canada and Australia, since that took a huge bite out of extraneous lookups. But that meant that something a bit unusual, like a [[Greece]], stood out because it was still active. And maybe drawing attention to *Greece* was a good thing. But Greece just got zapped.

3) Pre-1775 is one out of a large number of "films from books" pages which I wrote. So whatever standard we settle on could be rolled out further. But I'm still not convinced that I want to lose relatively rare lookups on Greece and Spain.

Varlaam (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)