Feel free to leave a note on this page in the usual manner; I'll probably ping you back with a reply. Just to keep things tidy, I generally only keep stuff on this page if it requires further action from me or you haven't read my reply yet, so check the page history for older conversations if you need to refer back.

I created the spelling and grammar checking project at Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss. If you are responding to an edit related to special characters, language tags, or manual of style compliance, HTML cleanup or markup issues, it might have been motivated by some report generated by that project. -- Beland (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Gadget for typo correctionEdit

Hi,

In order to make typos correction easier, I wrote a gadget in Hebrew Wikipedia that allows users to click and correct typos based on 1 edit distance autocorrect. I plan to write similar gadget here and would like to hear how should I start, where do I get permissions to edit media wiki JavaScript and create a gadget everyone can add. This is my Hebrew script and I upload to the project page the list of typos my C program finds in the dumps. Thanks, Uziel302 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[]

@Uziel302: I've not gone through that process myself, but maybe you were looking for Wikipedia:Gadget? -- Beland (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[]
Thanks, seems like I need to upload it as user script first.Uziel302 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[]
Ready: User:Uziel302/typos.js. And after adding it to your commons.js you will see "implement edit" in User:Uziel302/Typos. Just corrected a few typos with it, please let me know if it can benefit MOSS project.Uziel302 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[]

List of low frequency typos you can load on AWBEdit

 

Hi Beland, following previous chat about Levenshtein distance 1 typos, I took all common words, made on them all possible variations and removes the legitimate words from the output. I then searched those 200K variations across Wikipedia dumps. What I found helped me create a list of less frequent replacements and a list of the articles where they are found. You can load those lists from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Settings/Autocorrect and the talk page and start fixing thousands of obvious typos across Wikipedia, few seconds per fix. I hope you will find this list useful. I also hope it can help MOSS project in some way. Any feedback is much appreciated! Uziel302 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[]

@Uziel302: Hello again! I'm finally devoting some time to tool improvements, and looking at this again. I'm afraid I don't use Windows so I'm not sure AWB will work for me. The linked AWB pages are blank for me. Is this new mechanism covered by the links at Wikipedia:Typo Team#From a list of articles with detected typos, or is there some other place AWB users should be directed to find a list of articles that need attention? -- Beland (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The project is running through Wikipedia: Correct typos in one click. Uziel302 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Uziel302: Excellent, I was taking a look at that to see if I can recycle code to help speed up the repair of moss-detected typos. -- Beland (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Explaining Los Angeles neighborhoodsEdit

Hello. I see you made some changes to some Los Angeles neighborhoods and hope you don't mind if I explain a few things to you.

City designated neighborhoodsEdit

(1) Per the City of Los Angeles, neighborhoods are named by a specific process and then given official signage. These signs are noted on the wikipedia page Los Angeles Neighborhood Signs. LAist stated that these signs indicate “official L.A. neighborhood” designation [1][2]

(2) The city of Los Angeles does not have different signs for neighborhoods that nest within larger neighborhoods. The city has posted Mid-City signs from just west of downtown to almost Culver City. Within Mid-City are other neighborhoods. Here is a photo of Mid-City signage [3], along with Mid-City Heights sign right behind it, placing it inside the borders of Mid-City.

(3) The same goes for Baldwin Hills and Baldwin Vista. As noted, Baldwin Vista is a "western Baldwin Hills neighborhood" [4]. But the city gives each of them their own neighborhood sign.

LA Times Mapping ProjectEdit

(4) This is where is gets messy!

A decade ago, The Los Angeles Times felt there were too many designated neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Indeed, you can drive down Olympic Boulevard and go past a handful of neighborhoods in a quarter mile. So, the Mapping L.A. project of the LA Times decided to redraw neighborhood lines. The LA Times Mapping Project reduced 472 neighborhoods down to 115.

The neighborhoods of Crenshaw and Baldwin Hills were combined into a new entity called Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw. (user Been Aroundawhile, a former reporter for the LA Times, was instrumental in adding these new entities to wikipedia and deleting the city designated neighborhoods - which were promptly added back in). And if you go through the citations on the Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw page, you will see that the only usage of the name "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" is used by the LA Times Mapping project; all other sources refer to the neighborhoods of either "Baldwin Hills" or "Crenshaw".

(5) Regarding Mapping L.A......please look at the geography section of Arlington Heights, Los Angeles. The city has documented its boundaries and placed neighborhood signage on the corners. But the Mapping L.A. project expands Arlington Heights past those boundaries, and combines it with Country Club Park and Angelus Vista. The Mapping L.A. project does that a lot - combining multiple neighborhoods under one name for the sake of simplicity -- that is, reducing 472 neighborhoods down to 115.

(6) Comparing this map [5] with the Mapping LA Project, Elizabeth Fuller wrote in the LarchmontBuzz [6] that "Many people who live in and represent their neighborhoods in various ways have objected to the Times’ designations for not following city-recognized borders.” She said that Brightwell's map was a much more fine-grained view of “every L.A. neighborhood.”

(7) It appears that in 2018, even the LA Times is not sticking to the "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" name that it created a decade earlier and now simply uses the name "Baldwin Hills" [4].

(8) please do not think this is just an issue with "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw". The Mapping Project has designated many neighborhoods that contradict city boundaries.

ConclusionEdit

(9) Jenna Chandler, the editor of Curbed Los Angeles, wrote that Brightwell's map of 472 neighborhoods "looks more accurate than the neighborhood maps compiled by the Los Angeles Times."[7]

(10) I hope I have laid out everything clearly. I therefore strongly object to your wording on the Baldwin Hills page that "it is part of Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" without noting that Baldwin Hills is a city-named place and that Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw is a creation of the Los Angeles Times that neither the city nor other sources recognize. [8] To be accurate, it would have to be stated that "The LA Times mapping project combines Baldwin Hills and Crenshaw into the neighborhood of Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw".

I hope that I have stated everything clearly. Yours, Phatblackmama (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]

  1. ^ "Kemp Powers,LAist Neighborhood Project: Franklin Hills, November 16, 2007". Archived from the original on October 27, 2019. Retrieved March 10, 2020.
  2. ^ "Zach Behrens, LAist Wake Up LA, February 12, 2008". Archived from the original on November 13, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2020.
  3. ^ signage at the intersection at La Brea Avenue and the Santa Monica Freeway
  4. ^ a b https://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/hot-property/la-fi-hotprop-panns-midcentury-20180703-story.html
  5. ^ https://la.curbed.com/2017/7/28/16059422/los-angeles-neighborhoods-map/
  6. ^ Elizabeth Fuller, "LarchmontBuzz" July 29, 2017
  7. ^ Jenna Chandler, "Which LA. Neighborhood Do You Really Live In?" December 27, 2019
  8. ^ https://laist.com/2007/08/17/baldwin_hills_los_angeles.php
@Phatblackmama: Ah, that's an interesting practice with the signs. The Brightwell map is great, and I've been using it as a reference for my edits on the discussion at Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles; it also reports that some small neighborhoods are considered part of larger neighborhoods, though that nesting doesn't always agree with the LA Times. Neighborhoods are generally a fuzzy concept, and different people have different ideas about where they start and end. The Mapping LA project has apparently redrawn its maps based on reader feedback, so it represents at least an approximation of what locals generally agree on (to the extent that they agree). That may or may not align with the official city definition, especially in terms of flat vs. nested definitions, but that doesn't make one or the other incorrect. I'm not sure Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw is entirely a creation of the LA Times, though it's difficult to tell from afar. Apparently there's a mall called Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza? But attributing the assignment to Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw to Mapping L.A. is good practice, so I've modified the Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles article. The article Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, Los Angeles just says that this is a neighborhood, not that it is a creature of the LA Times. If you think it's not a real thing, perhaps this article should be deleted and its contents split between Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles and Crenshaw, Los Angeles? That would lose all the data supplied by Mapping L.A., so alternatively this entity could be described as a statistical grouping, if that's really all that it is. Given that the LA Times has used the term as if it's a neighborhood name, I'd say it's probably more than just a statistical grouping, even if sometimes it talks about only Baldwin Hills. (Just like it's sensible to talk about the Fenway neighborhood in Boston, where I used to live, even though the officially designated city district is Fenway-Kenmore and that's also a neighborhood real estate agents talk about. Actually, that reminds me that real estate agents are a good source of information about how neighborhood names are defined and used by people on the ground. I see online some LA rental agents talk about "Baldwin Hills" alone, but this one uses "Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw". -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Re: Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw...the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza was named in 1989, long before the LA mapping project, and derives its name from its location, straddling two adjacent neighborhoods (sort of like how the Wiltern Theater, located at Wilshire and Western, derived its name). The LA Times (I can only assume) saw that name and, 20 years later, decided to combine the two neighborhoods. That makes sense, if your goal is reducing the number of neighborhoods in LA, as noted above.
You note that in Boston, wikipedia uses official names, such as Fenway-Kenmore. In this case, the official names that the city and state use are: Baldwin Hills and Crenshaw. [1] [2] Other sources stick to those official names...You spent time googling "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw". I am sure you saw google's info box when searching for "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw"...you get the mall, not a neighborhood (https://ibb.co/59s9ffd). Versus googling "Baldwin Hills", which displays an info box with a city map and neighborhood information (https://ibb.co/m4YYYhz). Or "Crenshaw", which does the same (https://ibb.co/ZB1pZ7c).
You also mention that you found one real estate agent who uses that name. That is not a notable source.
To be clear, I have no problem listing "Crenshaw", "Baldwin Hills", and "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" in the grid. But each listed individually...respecting the fact that the city and state considers them separate and distinct neighborhoods and, concurrently, that the LA Times considers them to be one. Wikipedia must remain neutral. Phatblackmama (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Phatblackmama: Well, the Wikipedia policy on naming is to use the common name, not necessarily the official name, though that's for two names for the same thing, not two names for related things of different sizes. I use Duck Duck Go, not Google; I get an infobox for Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, Los Angeles when I search on "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" and not when I search for "Baldwin Hills Crenshaw". Google happens to ignore the punctuation that makes the difference and Duck Duck Go doesn't. Both are using Wikipedia to power infoboxes for neighborhoods, so it's a bit circular to rely on them for what Wikipedia should title its articles. Notability is not a criterion for sources; that's for determining what articles to have.
Are you sure the LA Times' naming isn't reflecting a real overlap in identification or naming or culture? After all, Baldwin Village has apparently been part of Crenshaw since it was The Jungle(s), but now it has "Baldwin" in the name. -- Beland (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
When searching "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" you do get an info box..for the mall, not a neighborhood. [1] But you use duck duck go, which processes around 1.5 billion searches every month. Google, in contrast, processes around 3.5 billion searches every day. Needless to say, more people see the mall when searching "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" and a neighborhood when searching "Crenshaw" or "Baldwin Hills". A lot more people. And Bing comes up with the mall also.
You correctly note that some of the information in the info boxes on google are from wikipedia. But not the maps. They use city maps, not the LA Times mapping project.
And Notability is not a criterion for sources, but one real estate listing is hardly a reliable source to define a neighborhood. That's all ya got?
It seems that you are trying to come up with some reason as to how or why the LA Times came up with the entity "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw". That is not our job. We are supposed to cite sources....and both city and state, and the Los Angeles Times (prior to the mapping project), use the separate names of "Baldwin Hills" and "Crenshaw". And, a decade after the mapping project finished, the city, state, Laist, curbed and Los Angeles magazine have not used the name "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" either as a stand-alone or as a parent neighborhood. Phatblackmama (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Phatblackmama: Well, it sounded like you were theorizing that the LA Times had the goal of reducing the number of neighborhoods on its map, and used the name of a mall as a pretense to combine two neighborhoods, with the implication that they somehow didn't deserve to be combined, and also emphasizing that no source other than the LA Times used the name. I'm not proposing that real estate agent should be used as a source an an article; I'm just pointing out that while other cartographers might not use the term, it is in use in commerce. It's a completely reliable source, but only to establish that this particular real estate agency uses the term to describe the same area described by the LA Times. I'd say it's not suitable as a reference for an article not because it's unreliable, but because it's a primary source. Secondary sources like cartographers consult with primary sources like businesses and readers and their work product is much more useful for writing articles. As I wrote on Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles, I think a more likely theory is there are some blocks certain people call "Crenshaw" (like Google Maps does) and other people call "Baldwin Hills" (like Brightwell) and the LA Times decided not to pick one over the other, or couldn't draw a clear boundary between those identities. If you don't agree, that's fine; we have already agreed to recognized the LA Times definitions as one of several sources to be cited in LA neighborhood articles.
Just FYI, search engine results are automated (I'm a programmer; I've built search engines and built robots that used search engines to answer questions), and the top results and infobox results have not necessarily been verified by a person to be correct, and higher-traffic doesn't necessarily mean more accurate for any given query. If I ask Google "what is the population of Mars", it tells me "ten billion humans". "Who is the king of Mars?" Abraham Lincoln. Google results are also personalized based on search history, so not everyone sees the same results. The infobox result from Duck Duck Go for "what is the population of Mars" happens to be Colonization of Mars, but ::shrug:: it got lucky. -- Beland (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Use of Templates, HTML, and HTML entities within citation templatesEdit

You recently edited Langbeinites a couple times to replaced UTF numeral sub/superscript characters with either {{chem2}} or HTML <sup>...</sup> or <sub>...</sub> in the |title= field in {{cite}} templates. In both cases, this is not recommended because many fields of the various {{cite}} templates generate COinS metadata, which is used for citation cross-compatibility on the Internet, beyond just Wikipedia. See Template:Citation Style documentation/coins for {{cite}} fields that are COinS-producing.  — sbb (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sbb: Is there a standards document which defines what is and isn't allowed in COinS strings? How would, say, italics normally be represented? Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[]

@Beland: (I outdented my reply because some of the formatting I used doesn't like to be part of the wikitext : indentation). Well, since COinS strings are emitted entirely as the value of the |title= parameter in empty HTML <span></span> tags, the only thing allowed in COinS strings is what can be in HTML attribute values. That's pretty much plain ASCII and URL-escaped entities. As an example, I created 3 references to a fake {{cite book}} reference titled H2O and r2, using 3 different ways to markup the super- and subscripts (note also the that the r is italicized with wiki markup):

  • HTML tags: |title= H<sub>2</sub>O and ''r''<sup>2</sup>[1]
  • HTML entities: |title= H&#8322;O and ''r''&sup2;[2]
  • Unicode characters: |title= H₂O and ''r''²[3]

References

  1. ^ sbb (2021a). H2O and r2.
  2. ^ sbb (2021b). H₂O and r².
  3. ^ sbb (2021b). H₂O and r².

Generated COinS data

ref 1:

<span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&
rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&
rft.genre=book&
rft.btitle=H%3Csub%3E2%3C%2Fsub%3EO+and+r%3Csup%3E2%3C%2Fsup%3E&
rft.date=2021&
rft.au=sbb&
rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser%3ASbb%2Fsandbox" class="Z3988">
</span>

ref 2

<span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&
rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&
rft.genre=book&
rft.btitle=H%26%238322%3BO+and+r%26sup2%3B&
rft.date=2021&
rft.au=sbb&
rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser%3ASbb%2Fsandbox" class="Z3988">
</span>

ref 3

<span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&
rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&
rft.genre=book&
rft.btitle=H%E2%82%82O+and+r%C2%B2&
rft.date=2021&
rft.au=sbb&
rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser%3ASbb%2Fsandbox" class="Z3988">
</span>

Note that in ref1, the plain HTML <sub>2</sub> and <sup>2</sup> are URL-escaped, telling anybody who consumes/uses that COinS string that the book's title is "H<sub>2</sub>O ...". It puts the constraint on the resource consumer to correctly parse HTML. Same situation with ref2, only instead of having to parse HTML <sub> and <sup> tags, they have to parse HTML entities. Still requires HTML parsing.

Only the last one, ref3, doesn't require HTML parsing, because the URL-escaped Unicode characters will be correctly interpreted.

Having said all that, note that wikitext is stripped from the data during Wikipedia's COinS generation. So no italicization, bolding, etc., get emitted into the COinS strings. This means that something like a title like, "Book about USS Iowa", will get interpreted as Book about USS Iowa.

 — sbb (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sbb: Hmm, so it looks like both HTML and Unicode subscripts go through the system intact, it's just a matter of which format the downstream consumers want? How do we know that? I couldn't find any documentation as to the convention there, but perhaps there are databases we could look in? -- Beland (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
it looks like both HTML and Unicode subscripts go through the system intact [...] I wouldn't think of it that way. Per the OpenURL spec[1], "Recognizing the international environments in which ContextObjects will be used, the Committee selected Unicode as the abstract character repertoire for ContextObjects." The data is represented by Unicode, and encoded as UTF-8. An OpenURL parser is required understand Unicode, so a Unicode subscript character's representation is consistent. But parsers aren't required to then interpret the received Unicode string as partial HTML markup. So an HTML substring is just that: some characters in the ASCII-range that may or may not be HTML, and aren't required to be parsed as such.
I think it's safe to assume the downstream consumers want plaintext (where plaintext is Unicode text encoded as UTF-8). Also, I point again to Template:Citation Style documentation/coins, which states,

Use of templates within the citation template is discouraged because many of these templates will add extraneous HTML or CSS that will be included raw in the metadata. Also, HTML entities, for example &nbsp;, &ndash;, etc., should not be used in parameters that contribute to the metadata.

I think that also strongly implies not to manually embed HTML in |title=, etc. fields.  — sbb (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I see you edited the cite style doc to allow for Unicode super/scripts, and was quickly reverted by Trappist. I think this needs more consensus before making that change. Note that this is more than a discussion at just the template doc page; it's also potentially a change to MOS:SUPERSCRIPT (Do not use the Unicode subscripts and superscripts ²and ³, or XML/HTML character entity references (&sup2; etc.).). I started that discussion several months ago, and it didn't gain much traction: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts § Add exception to allow Unicode super/subscripts in COinS fields in cite xxx templates?  — sbb (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
(Conversation continued on Help talk:Citation_Style 1#HTML markup. -- Beland (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC))[]

References

Idea to improve project mossEdit

I think that typos like this [1] where this isn't a space at the end of the ref> tag, could be useful. Clovermoss (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[]

@Clovermoss: Hmm, interesting. Most of those missing spaces do show up, but in this case, there is also incorrectly a space before the opening ref tag. I'll do a database scan and see what the numbers look like on that. That's probably easier to fix with an AWB/JWB run. -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[]
The reason that was not detected as a typo was because there was an extra space before the ref tag. If there had properly been no space before the ref tag, along with no space after the ref tag, the typo report would presumably have reported it as a typo of the form "2021.He". AWB fixes spaces before ref tags, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Typeface/Font/Computer fontEdit

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have decided not to pursue this merge. I did a lot of work to reduce keyboard layout/keyboard technology/computer keyboard triplication, ending with clearing out the last of these to make it a redirect. It has all been undone and I don't have the inclination to pursue it to the bitter end, I just don't care that much. I can't see why the RTM that we have discussed would have any different result. If you want to go ahead anyway, feel free. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Copy of Official Copyright entry on Movie Review Page and misc.Edit

A Yoke of Gold

Corrections:
23:53 September 11, 2021‎ Beland →‎ External links: keep copyright notice link here, maybe
23:50, September 11, 2021‎ Beland →‎ Preservation status: link
22:46, September 11, 2021‎ Beland →‎ Preservation status: drop off-topic content
22:45, September 11, 2021‎ Beland →‎ Official release: drop copyright notice - not informative

The official Congressional Copyright office entry shows:

  • The title is officially copyrighted by the congressional copyright office on a certain date shown in the entry. In this case, we even have the working title. Not all silent films during this time were copyrighted; this confirms Universal did file the copyright paperwork.
In some cases, there are films with identical names and release years. This can ensure we have the right copyright matching the published name along with the correct sources. However, this is not to say, another film with the same name and year can't be copyright legally. I have seen several occasions where this has happened in the same year, but most duplicate copyrights of the same film name are usually years apart. Bottom line - can be used as clarification.
  • Confirms it is a Red Feather production (sometimes there is a dispute, i.e., Bluebird versus Red Feature) and the release date.
  • Confirms it was filed as a feature-length film - 5 reels allowing one to approximate the time - 50 - 65 minutes. Most of the time, for silent films, we seem to be unsure of the run time.
  • Confirms director and names Story and Scenario writers. Because I reproduced the actual copyright in the release section, is the reason I did not cite the writers in the Screenplay section of this page. I could use this as an official source if you like vs. sourcing a particular Hollywood rag.
  • Confirms Universal was the distributor of the film.

This is why I include the actual verbiage from the official Congressional copyright record on all silent films I review. A Wikipedia film page should include plots, directors, reviews, etc. but should also include other pertinent facts, if we verify them, for future souls researching the film.

On another note, I incorporate a partial explanation of why the bulk of silent films are lost in the Preservation status section vs.. a one-line sentence saying it's lost film. I offer some superficial facts about lost silent films with additional references for those readers wishing to explore the topic further.

Quoting the lost film page, The phrase "lost film" can also be used in a literal sense for instances where footage of deleted scenes, unedited, and alternative versions of feature films are known to have been created, but can no longer be accounted for. Sometimes, a copy of a lost film is rediscovered. A film that has not been recovered in its entirety is called a partially lost film.

I think additional verbiage is needed to clarify if a film is lost in its entirety or possibly one reel out of five still survives. I would think the added prose would be topical, especially if the film is lost in its entirety.

These are my thoughts on your revisions. I apologize for the rant; I'm very tired.

Thank you

Michael Jannetta (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Mtjannetta: Greetings, and thanks for your work on movie articles! I just happened by as part of a site-wide cleanup of the copyright symbol and bumbled around a bit.
If the copyright notice is being used to verify a given piece of information (like credits or run time), my advice would be to use the link to the copyright notice as an inline footnote. That way each piece of information appears in the article (including the infobox) once. Anyone doing verification would need to see it as published anyway, not as copied into Wikipedia (in case there was a copying error).
As for preservation status...maybe a liiiittle more context would improve this article, something like "this film is assumed to be lost, as are most films from the silent era"? The statistics about lost films in general are certainly interesting, and those are great for the article Lost film (actually, I just noticed they aren't already there so I added them), but for an article about a specific film, are a bit off-topic. Certainly it's important to be clear about whether a specific film is completely lost, partially lost, or if only deleted material or alternate version is lost; feel free to tweak that wording if I've not done that. -- Beland (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Verifiable ciationsEdit

Hi Beland, I saw you added a lot of references here [2] but I don't see that they link to anything. Are these supposed to be links to other references in the article, academic publications, opeds? I figured this is probably fixable so I didn't want to say anything about it on the talk page before you had a chance to make updates. Take care! Springee (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Springee: Ah, those must be links to named footnotes in Trumpism. That copying has been reverted so I can't fix at the moment, but it should be straightforward to simply copy those over as well. -- Beland (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Beland, I'm not sure what I think about the content in question but before restoring it you should have fixed the bad citations. As it stands the content can, rightly, be removed as failing WP:V. Any discussion with respect to if the content should stay after fixing citations should be on the article talk page, not here. Springee (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Springee: I fixed the citations as well; I was just doing it in two separate edits for clarity. -- Beland (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Ok, sorry if I jumped in before you were ready! Springee (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

ChoozhalEdit

Hi, you left a hidden comment at Choozhal on 27 March 2019‎ "possible typos found by Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss: remembarance, regularly.Late, sri.Sivasankara, period.Then, sri.Sadanandan, natives.There, marks.Great, sri.Jayamohan, residents.The, sri.Rajmohan, sri.Ponnian, monikandan". Can you remember what that was for and whether it can now be deleted? It was picked up by Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click. TSventon (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@TSventon: Oh, moss is a site-wide spell checker. The comment was probably there because the article was tagged for copyedit. It looks like the copyedit has since been performed, so I deleted the comment. Normally I'd expect the copy editor to do that, but I guess they missed it. Well, and these days we just use central listings so I don't think any more of those hidden comments are being added. But thanks for spotting this one! -- Beland (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, I do some work on Correct typos in one click, so I know broadly what moss is. I hadn't seen this kind of comment before and it is helpful to know that the current version of moss no longer produces them. TSventon (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It looks like there are only 10 articles that still have that hidden comment, unless search isn't working right or similar comments used slightly different text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jonesey95: I went through those, and they were all similarly no longer needed. All deleted; thanks for the pointer! -- Beland (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for your edit on the quotes with the R function!Edit

Thanks for your edit here, changing the & a p o s ; text to a single tick mark. I have used this on many articles because the R function previously stopped displaying the quote when it hit a single tick mark. This has clearly now been fixed, this is GREAT!!! I guess I should have been monitoring that Template page so I would have known. Anyhow, thanks!! ---Avatar317(talk) 20:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 August 24Edit

Thanks for making the report, some of those pages had a lot. The articles tagged with Copypaste without any sources are hard, since the articles usually have inconsistent citations and/or lots of cruft. However, I recommend using the listed {{CPC}} templates and use another | to add any additional comments. It helps patrolling admins and clerks figure out which were checked and which were not and the outcomes. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sennecaster: Aha, that's where all the fancy graphics are coming from. Thanks for the pointer! -- Beland (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Disambiguation link notification for October 23Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economic history of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]