This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Jonesey95, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, I almost knocked off another set before the new year came in, but four errors in Table tag to be deleted (User Talk) are beyond me, and I can't go further.
User talk:Icelandic Hurricane/February Archive (2x). No idea. While I understand how their menu comes in, I get lost with the infoboxes behavior and they wig out when I do things to fix the table errors and I've given it enough tries in preview. User talk:JoeNMLC I'm not really "stuck" on how to fix, he just reverted me as he didn't like how something moved a little bit, so I don't want to go back in. User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 9 Not fully sure what's going on. I'm tempted to <pre> that table it since it seems more a discussion on how to do a size change rather than showing the size change.
All yours if you want them.
Happy New Year! Zinnober9 (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I fixed the first and the third pages. The first one still has two pairs of mismatched div tags that may have been created in my edit, but the page displays much better and I ran out of energy. If you can fix them, be my guest. I made a minor edit to the middle page that did change the display a bit, so we'll see how that goes over. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
A couple of mismatched divs is fine given all the busy syntax on that page. Thank you greatly.
Hope so, thanks.
????? That was what I tried first, but the table didn't appear and Linter said it was missing a bold tag, so it didn't feel right given I wasn't familiar with lsth (and doing |{{#lsth:Roger Federer career statistics|Singles</b>}} which fixed it from linter's perspective felt wrong). No bold issue today for some reason and the table displays, so guessing when I tried it the called table was broken and missing a bold. I can't explain it. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Re Roger Federer and #lsth, yeah, that's pretty obscure. It is transcluding a section of an article. I went to the article and fixed the two Linter errors it had. One of those errors was being transcluded on the talk page, so it got fixed there automatically. In general, when I come across a Linter error that I really don't get, I leave it for others. You did the right thing by asking for help instead of applying a workaround. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Cleanup request
Happy New Year! I was wondering if you might be able to help with a bit of post-page move cleanup based on this discussion. I am also looking for a bit of help here with Template:Article history and ClueBot archiving, if you're familiar with either. If not interested, no worries! Just seeking help someone a more technically inclined editor than myself. Happy editing! ---Another Believer(Talk) 20:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This is not my main area of expertise, so I didn't do things in the most elegant way, but I think I have fixed everything. If not, contact me again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. LizRead!Talk! 19:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. LizRead!Talk! 19:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. LizRead!Talk! 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jonesey95, Thank you for your encouragement and offer to clean up my article on Bobbie R. Allen. I understand your cautioning me about COI and have been conscious about providing citations throughout the article. I'm complete except for a document to be provided from the Harry S. Truman library and your comments and edits are much appreciated! Wdallen49 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
"or from Wikipedia's Visual Editor"
Is there a way to clarify that a bit? I don't use VE, so I'm not certain exactly under what circumstances this might happen. Might be worth covering in a footnote rather than directly inline in the guideline text. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Link please. I make a lot of edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Use of small tags in infoboxes & templates
I've seen that from time to time you remove <small>...</small> tags from infoboxes and templates citing MOS:FONTSIZE. For example here. Do you remove them on sight, or only when you feel the resulting text is just too small? There are hundreds of pages using small tags in {{Speciesbox}} and related templates, for example Suberites ficus. Should I be removing small tags from those templates? —Bruce1eetalk 11:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I remove small tags when the resulting text is too small, i.e. below 85% of the default body text font size. The default text size in navboxes and infoboxes is 88%, so adding small tags is invalid (except in some title parameters in infoboxes, which are larger than the default). As far as I know, {{Speciesbox}} has a default font size of 100%, so using small tags and templates inside that template is fine. Your browser should have a "Developer Tools" or similar menu that allows you to inspect the actual font size of rendered text and compare it to the default body font size in a rendered article. This size will vary depending on your computer and browser settings, but in general, rendered text should not go below 85% of the default body font size. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm using Firefox and it has a "Web Developer Tools" menu, but I need to play around with it first to see how it works. —Bruce1eetalk 17:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Click the little arrow in a box on the far left, then click on an element in the page. Then go to the Computed tab on the right side of the very busy toolbar and look for "font-size". Click first on normal body prose text to see your browser's normal font size for Wikipedia pages. Then click on some infobox text, and you should see a font-size number that calculates to 88% of the body prose size. The hardest part is clicking on the element that you want, since every page is a bunch of nested elements and you might not be able to click on exactly the one you want. If you get close, you may be able to click on the item you want in the left side of the toolbox, where it shows the HTML for the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I tried this on Draft:2024 Auburn Tigers baseball team. Clicking on the normal body prose gives a font-size of 14px in the Computed tab. Clicking on "Jacksonville, FL" in the 5th row of the table gives a font-size of 10.7398px. If the normal text is 100%, then the reduced text would be about 76%, noting that the table font-size has already been reduced to 95%. Since the small text (Jacksonville, FL) is below 85%, the small tags should be removed. Am I on the right track? Also, is there a way to get it to show the font-size in percent, rather pixels? —Bruce1eetalk 23:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
When a table uses both "font-size:95%" (or anything less than 100%) and <small>...</small> tags, I usually just remove the "font-size:95%" declaration from the table's style rather than mess with a bunch of small tags. Other editors may choose a different path. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I think I've got it now. That the tool gives the font-sizes in pixels isn't a problem. Since the default font-size shows as 14px, which is 100%, the threshold of 85% is 11.9px. So any text lower than 11.9px should be questioned. Thanks for all your help with this. —Bruce1eetalk 08:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Check for unknown parameters
You were right about Template talk:Paid contributions.
Why you reverted Check for unknown parameters that I added to templates?
On your edits you said refer to editor's talk page. But you don't mention any technical reason. Why the code is not working? Have you ever tried it? Shkuru Afshar (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
What is the difference between
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{Main other|}}|preview=Page using [[:Template:Infobox film]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|showblankpositional=1| alt | animator | background_artist | based_on | budget | caption | cinematography | color_process | country | director | directors | distributor | distributors | editing | gross | italic_title | image | image_upright | language | layout_artist | music | name | narrator | narrators | native_name | producer | producers | production_companies | released | runtime | screenplay | starring | story | studio | writer | writers }}
and
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|}}|preview= Page using [[Template:Infobox weather type]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_" | ignoreblank=y | name | image | imagesize | alt | caption | area of occurrence | season | effect }}
I responded on your talk page, per WP:TALKFORK. Neither of the above invocations is valid. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Copy Editing Template Removal
Hi! I noticed that you added a copy editing maintenance template to the 1980 Summer Olympics closing ceremony page. I, along with a couple of other users, have edited the page. Any objection to having the copy editing template removed now? Thanks! AzureDumortierite (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
You did a great job. I have provided a few more edits and removed the tag. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello there. Would you like to take a look at the recent discussion for track listing template? If you have time, your comments are always appreciated. 2001:D08:2910:679D:17AC:38B:3C2:6BDA (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
There is already consensus in the discussion that the whole thing is a waste of everyone's time. I do not think that anything I could contribute there would improve the discussion. It would just be wasting more time, including my own. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Template query
Hello, Jonesey95,
A very new editor created Template:Draft-stub and I'm thinking that it was just a cut and paste of an existing template. Does it look familiar? If so, I don't know whether it should go to WP:TFD or turned into a redirect. What do you think? Thanks! LizRead!Talk! 20:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a weird one. I'm not a stub expert, but I sent it to XFD via Twinkle. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. LizRead!Talk! 08:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion from an Actual Copy Editor
Remove the unaccountable apostrophe from "Indigo Girls" (in item two under "Articles I have created"). SteGenevieve (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
You mean the possessive apostrophe? I'm happy with it, thanks, unless there is some WP guideline, WP policy, or external usage manual you would care to point to that would help me understand your concern. Happy editing! P.S. I am honored that you chose my talk page for your twentieth edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
ASCII art?
Uh, I am okay, what do you mean by this? jp×g🗯️ 11:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I will admit the colors are not particularly inspired but it looks basically acceptable to me for a technical page :( jp×g🗯️ 11:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
It looks great for a User page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
January 27
Thank you for editing my user space. I honestly forgot I even created this page, but thank you for changing it and it gave me a great tip! <3 Ansony89Talk 18:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Thanks for the link. Red-tailed hawk, I do not find the above message helpful, since it provides no context and does not help me find the edit in question to know whether I should be concerned. Even though the above message says that it "does not imply that there are any issues with your editing", the mere presence of the message presents that implication. The "topic" called "post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people" must comprise thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of articles; are you saying that if I fix a syntax error in such an article, that edit is treated or viewed differently from the thousands of other error fixes that I make on a monthly basis? That seems like a dubious premise, or maybe I misunderstand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
No; if you fix syntax errors in those articles and continue to make good edits (like those hundreds of thousands of gnomish edits that you have made), that isn't viewed differently. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This seems contrary to assuming good faith to me. You should assume that I will continue to make good edits, just as I assume that you will make good edits, unless there is evidence to contradict that assumption. The above warning message should not be necessary unless an editor is making questionable edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, not a warning message, and the instructions at WP:CTOP and {{Alert/first}} don't assume fault here. In any case, I continue to believe that you will be a productive editor; I don't see where I'm stating otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 20:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Again, as noted above, the notification does not imply anything wrong with your edits. It's just a notification that you've edited a page related to Post-1992 U.S. politics, and something you should be aware of, even if edits in the area are minor. The notification of a good number of editors comes after an AN thread where additional admin eyes on the topic area were requested. Admittedly, it would have been better to do this as new editors came in, rather than all at once, but I had been a bit too busy to track that. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Please link to the edit in question. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The edit you made at Standoff at Eagle Pass (here) was a gnomish edit (albeit not marked as minor). I'm not sure where the confusion here is. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The confusion is that the edit I made was clearly productive and harmless, and had a clear edit summary, and yet I received the above scary-looking warning message. The message says that it is not a warning, but it clearly is. I just don't see the value to anyone of posting that notification here based on the content of my edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand why the formatting, etc. might come off as a warning at first glance, but I can assure you that this isn't a warning; the template is regularly given to productive editors; it's merely making one aware of the existence of the whole WP:CTOP system and how it interacts with American Politics. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 20:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Wow, what a nest of confusion. This is why I try to stay away from drama in nearly all of its forms here on Wikipedia. I'll go back to my gnoming. I encourage you to limit your delivery of the above message to editors who make substantive edits to the prose or references of articles and ignore editors who make gnomish, productive, or otherwise harmless edits. As you can see, it just stirs up concern when misapplied. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024 GOCE drive award
The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Vector 2022 stylesheet question
Hi Jonesey95, I saw your stylesheet changes to reduce blank spaces on the page, but it goes a bit too far for me. I'm just hoping to reduce the amount of blank space to the right of the pinned tools menu and expand the article width by a corresponding amount, maybe 40px at a time until it seems too wide. I don't want to reduce the amount of blank space on the left. Is there some minimal set of common.css changes that would do that? I have been unable to figure this out. (I have "Enable limited width mode" checked in my preferences and I don't toggle to use full width. My screen is 1440x900 if that matters.) Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Have you tried the section of my common.css that is preceded by the comment "Vector 2022: Fix excessive padding when page tools are in the right sidebar"? You might also want the section after "Vector 2022: Fix font size of items in Tools (formerly More) drop-down menu". Basically, I used my browser's Tools/Inspector feature to point at different parts of the page to identify the CSS selectors that they used, then adjusted my common.css to try to shrink or otherwise change those sections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I didn't want to reduce the font size, but I finally found a solution for the method I'm using. One or two more lines were needed in .mw-body in addition to the grid-template. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Nicely done. The CSS selectors sometimes change, so be aware that you may need to update the code occasionally. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Since it sounds from the template talk page that you will not be following through, I thought I'd get your thoughts on me filing review of our mutual acquaintance's conduct at AN, with the view to potentially pull their TPE access. You and I both suffered through the {{marriage}} nonsense, but is that enough to merit removal? Some of their responses in this last discussion would lead me to pull any other TPE's access, but since I'm involved I'm trying to be a bit more cautious in proceeding. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I strongly support removal of template editor for them. They keep doing the same thing over and over again: making far too many edits to live templates that are widely transcluded, doing so before and during discussions, making errors, not acknowledging that the behavior is disruptive, and then doing it again. It's not appropriate behavior for a TE. The editor will still be able to edit the sandbox and testcases and documentation if they want to improve templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Primefac, for your posting to AN. I try to stay away from AN and ANI boards, having had a few bad experiences there, and from drama in general. I always appreciate the editors who are willing to take the time to make valid reports on those boards. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm deeply sorry for any disruption my actions may have caused. Reflecting on the {{marriage}} situation and the recent discussions, I ought to have been more cautious and collaborative in my approach. My intentions were always to contribute positively but I readily acknowledge that my methods weren't the most effective. I will commit myself to being more mindful and consulting with fellow editors before undertaking significant changes in the future. Regarding the review of TPE access, I respect the process and trust in the community's judgment to decide the appropriate course of action. On a personal note, I'm grateful to you, Jonesey, for the way you have conducted yourself over these past several years, and I believe you've helped me become a better template editor, even as there's still much I need and will endeavour to learn. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Joonsey,
Is it possible if you can add capital letters to the new designation? It kinda looks weird without. Thanks! Daftation🗩🖉 16:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The links to the new China-related article and category use the capitalization for those pages. If you think those pages should have different capitalization, suggest that at their talk pages. Or do I misunderstand your request? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I was talking about the new designation for Major cultural heritage sites under national-level protection in Template:Designation. You didn't capitalize the letters, and also the name should be Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level, not the one on the Wikipedia page, which I believe is a translation error (see File:Protection signs of buildings on the Bund, 2019-10-18 01.jpg). Also, the number of protected subjects is known, not unknown. It should be 5,058. Is it also possible if you can apply the colour of the background and border that I requested? They are both Chinese traditional colours and picked by me. My original request and code is at Template talk:Designation, and should be the most recent topic. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Daftation🗩🖉 17:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the code in the templates is the same as the code you requested, except for the typo I fixed. If you have suggestions for changes, or if you see errors, you can make changes in the template's sandbox and view them on the testcases page. You can also edit the documentation page. I recommend that any further discussion happen at Template talk:Designation, not here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template:Constitutional law of Wales/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
